Rampant corruption: Exactly how did we get here?

Why are our cities and other institutions ravaged by corruption? There are many reasons, and no single explanation can prove entirely satisfactory.

Corruption has always existed as a result of the tension between self-interest and idealism in human nature. Plato, in The Republic, thought that corruption was a natural development in democracy, which exposes ordinary people to temptation and power. But many democratic governments, notably in northern Europe and Britain, have been relatively free of corruption. Therefore it is not possible to say that corruption is a necessary price of democracy.

Our awareness of corruption has improved thanks to laws allowing access to information, to enhanced technology and to improved in- vestigative reporting. Thus, much of the corruption may not be new, but newly in the open.

But there are two things that make our society particularly corruptible.

First, we have become a materialistic society. Wealth is considered a reliable indicator of a person’s intrinsic worth; few values can compete with the allure of money. In such a society, managers in big business receive bonuses and salaries that provoke those who are excluded from the privileged caste to seek to enrich themselves at all cost. (Our society is not the first to have lost its moral compass. The works of Balzac show us that France, after the revolution of 1789, became completely materialistic and utterly corrupt. Today’s Russia is another example.)

A second, and related, cause of corruption is the waning of ideology. In ideological movements, participants are often motivated by a desire to effect change. That is why federal and provincial governments are somewhat less subject to corruption than are municipal ones. At the federal and provincial level, ideology plays a large part in persuading citizens to participate — whether that ideology is socialist, conservative, nationalist or anti-nationalist. When there is no ideology, the sole temptations are power, the ability to reward friends and, unfortunately, access to wealth. The potential for corruption is greater.

However, federal and provincial governments are at an increased risk of corruption in the present era because of the new difficulties in effecting social change. The engine of change in the 20th century was economic legislation, taxation and regulation. We are now told that, if governments meddle in economic matters, business will simply move away. We see in Europe, where political parties are generally ideologically left or ideologically right, that all governments are being forced by business lobbies to espouse very similar policies. This leaves the field to those who enjoy power and the distribution of jobs to friends — and who want to secure their own fi- nancial future.

We should not always weep for the loss of ideology, however. Some ideologies have proved lethal. Hitler is the best example of an incorruptible, yet nightmarish, figure. Danton, a leading character in the French Revolution, was a man easy to influence through women or money; but he was nevertheless more humane and decent than the virtuous and murderous Robespierre. It would be an error to see corruption as the main problem and censorious probity as the only possible attitude in politics.

In conclusion: The major reforms needed to reduce political corruption involve, first, the promotion of a lessmaterialistic culture. People should be evaluated on their knowledge and moral character and there should be no admiration for ostentatious consumerism. Second, we do need to encourage ideology to a certain degree. This does not mean religious or nationalistic fanaticism or an unhealthy zeal for movements like communism or fascism. It does mean, though, putting economic policy back in the hands of democratically elected assemblies.

If the western world were able to reverse the tendency toward concentration of wealth and, instead, create some sort of relative equality of income, we would reduce the moral temptation of corruption. It would become less likely that powerful and wealthy elements would be able to exert undue pressure on elected officials and obtain the type of advantages that have shaken and disgusted Quebecers in recent months.