The Ideal and the Real in Combatting Corruption in Western Style Democracies = The Ideal and the Real in Combatting Corruption in Western Style Democracies

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The best attempts to measure the extent of official misconduct or corruption in the global society by such key organizations as the World Bank and Transparency International show great disparities between continents, regions within continents, and countries within regions. They also reveal that attempts to combat corruption from international level down to local community level similarly vary with some reporting great success and others admitting almost total failure. Or so the measures purport to demonstrate conclusively. On the basis of these official findings, some communities redouble their efforts to improve their standing in world opinion while others ashamed of their low ranking proclaim that the measures are biased against them and discount their meaningless efforts to contain corruption within. In any event, many countries acknowledge that corruption seems to be on the increase worldwide and their policies to reduce its incidence seem always one step behind, regardless of international agreements, tougher laws, stronger investigation and prosecution, and more stringent ethics codes and education. Admittedly, such measures of corruption actually bear little relation to anti-corruption campaigns. And for simple, obvious reasons. First, as few agree exactly what constitutes corruption, researchers use quite different definitions and measure quite different forms of official misconduct. Second, as much corruption is by definition furtive and hidden, all that can be measured is that which becomes known and discovered and possibly misdiagnosed when innocent officials are used as unknowing agents of the really corrupt who deliberately take advantage of the ignorant. Third, most measures are purely guesswork taken from selective opinion surveys from unrepresentative sample groups whose opinions are solely valued. Fourth, the way in which such biased sampling is handled is hardly scientific but is highly prejudiced economically, politically, socially, and culturally. Fifth, what purports to be corruption, mostly in the public sector and rarely in the private sector which may much more significant for the general populace, is taken out of context. The best attempts to measure the extent of official misconduct or corruption in the global society by such key organizations as the World Bank and Transparency International show great disparities between continents, regions within continents, and countries within regions. They also reveal that attempts to combat corruption from international level down to local community level similarly vary with some reporting great success and others admitting almost total failure. Or so the measures purport to demonstrate conclusively. On the basis of these official findings, some communities redouble their efforts to improve their standing in world opinion while others ashamed of their low ranking proclaim that the measures are biased against them and discount their meaningless efforts to contain corruption within. In any event, many countries acknowledge that corruption seems to be on the increase worldwide and their policies to reduce its incidence seem always one step behind, regardless of international agreements, tougher laws, stronger investigation and prosecution, and more stringent ethics codes and education. Admittedly, such measures of corruption actually bear little relation to anti-corruption campaigns. And for simple, obvious reasons. First, as few agree exactly what constitutes corruption, researchers use quite different definitions and measure quite different forms of official misconduct. Second, as much corruption is by definition furtive and hidden, all that can be measured is that which becomes known and discovered and possibly misdiagnosed when innocent officials are used as unknowing agents of the really corrupt who deliberately take advantage of the ignorant. Third, most measures are purely guesswork taken from selective opinion surveys from unrepresentative sample groups whose opinions are solely valued. Fourth, the way in which such biased sampling is handled is hardly scientific but is highly prejudiced economically, politically, socially, and culturally. Fifth, what purports to be corruption, mostly in the public sector and rarely in the private sector which may much more significant for the general populace, is taken out of context Secondly, this paper is not to be taken as giving up on combating corruption as the corrupt always seem to find a way around any measures taken against them. The idea of ridding humankind of all corruption is beyond reach. But there can be little excuse for not trying to reduce and minimize its presence, to chase it into relatively harmless pursuits, to expose and punish corrupt conduct, and to minimize and compensate its victims where they can prove being harmed. Corruption only breeds more corruption. The wrong signals are sent out to the vulnerable who come to believe that they can get away on cheating on others and in so doing cheat themselves too. No society, certainly not a democratic society, can be complacent and blind itself to the rot within. Integrity must be cherished for the virtue it truly is in any civilized society.