CorruptibilityEdit

There's been a lot of discussion over forms of government, which is the best, and which are better than others. A more interesting question, however, is what makes one form of government better or worse than another. With so many vast differences between various forms, it can be difficult to pin down the single factor that most closely ties to "goodness". Many would argue that the factor is freedom, equality, or accurate representation of the beliefs of the populace, but these values represent an obvious bias toward democracy and the enlightenment values from which it derives. I submit that the "best" form of government is defined not by freedom or representation, but by its inherent level of susceptibility to corruption.

The values behind a form of government may determine its agreeability to a particular individual or group, but its corruptibility determines how likely it is to adhere to those values in the real world, when subjected to the rigors of human nature. Dictatorships are generally reviled as the worst form of government, but an incorruptible, benevolent dictatorship could easily create a far better society than the best democracy. The problem with dictatorships is that they endow an individual with absolute power, and as Lord Acton famously stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

But if all power corrupts, why give it to anyone? It would seem that anarchy, which does not grant anyone power over anyone else, would be the least corruptible. Anarchy, though, is not truly an absence of government, but rather is individual self-rule for every individual. It's a billion tiny dictatorships struggling for resources. Now, while this would preclude all but the most masochistic from being abused by their own government, human nature desires power, and alliances would begin to form among the micro-nations creating gangs and eventually leading to mob rule, a de facto government born of the corruption of the ideal of anarchism. In this way, anarchism is like laissez faire capitalism with power as capital -- the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Similarly, alliances and power blocs can form within a direct democracy, and groups can be influenced through propaganda and strong-arm tactics as well as mutual protection schemes like the alliances on Survivor. This decentralization of power does, however, have the advantage over representative democracy that corruption requires direct support from a plurality of voters, rather than simply a few politicians with the ability to conceal their corruption.

A theocracy is arguably the most corruptible, because while it claims to be under the rule of a deity, power is actually concentrated with the leaders of the religion who purport to speak for that deity, but who are as susceptible to human nature as anyone else. In a society fanatical to install a theocracy, this would mean unchecked power for those leaders, and the ability to put down any dissent without reproach. This fact, more than their inherent conservatism and rejection of enlightenment values like freedom of religion, makes theocracy a bad form of government.

An interesting means of discouraging corruption is illustrated in one of the multiple story arcs in Ambrosia Software's Escape Velocity: Nova. In this game, there is a race known as the Polarans, who have a strict caste system in which the Mu'hari caste, who among other duties serve as judges, juries and prosecutors, are considered the most disgraceful of all castes and must render assistance to any other Polaran in any way asked. Passing judgement on ones peers is considered the ultimate punishment. This also parallels my own experience as moderator in internet forums, where moderators were encouraged to think of themselves more as janitors than as police officers.

If corruption is what makes a government bad, and government by definition has a level of power that promotes corruption, then it is the ability to keep corruption in check that makes a system of government good. This means that a good government must provide a framework for the public, possibly in addition to the government itself, to limit the government's power and keep its members accountable for their actions. Government transparency and freedom of speech, and particularly of the press, create accountability. If the government is corrupt, it will lose support and, in the absence of a means of replacing officials as provided by democracy, will ultimately be overthrown. Likewise, religious freedom is beneficial to prevent the use of fanaticism to mask corruption. Concepts like term limits and separation of powers with checks and balances are also designed to limit the effectiveness of corruption. The less centralized power is, the more obstacles it must overcome.

What is the best form of government that exists today? Probably some flavor of democracy, but it will never be perfect until corruption can be prevented entirely. --whosawhatsis? 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (also posted in my blog)

I think you make some good arguments, but I don't think we can limit things to a single dimension. Corruptability is one scale, but the definition of corruption blurs the line. Is it corruption for corporations which have a mandate from the corporate charter and from the shareholders to focus all their resources on making money to do things that we would consider corruption, but succeed in their stated mission? And before someone says that corporations are not governments, I would remind everyone that the internal economies of some of the larger global corporations rival some of the economies of Europe.

Corruption is a general concept describing any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose. - from Wikipedia

Lord Acton missed a word, I think. Unchecked power corrupts. Power that is directed in positive ways can't be considered corruption, like your example of the benevolent dictator. The problem comes when Ceaser passes his power on to someone who doesn't live up to the tradition, and there is no way to check the power that person wields. Like the legislation that passed yesterday, one of the things that has some conservatives worried is what Hillary Clinton may do with the power that Congress just gave the Chief Executive. Unless the legislation actually says that George W. Bush is the sole recipent of such power, there might be some Republicans scrambling to remove that power in 2009. Chadlupkes 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Corporations are not governments. While they may have significant economic (and due to corruption, political) influence, it's not their corruption that I'm talking about. A government's responsibility with regard to corporations is to determine an appropriate economic system and level of regulation within which corporations exist, and -- assuming the government's charter does not make it answerable to corporations -- to prevent their corruption as well as their non-corrupt profiteering from influencing itself.

I disagree with your statement about Acton. Due to human nature, any power will have a tendency to promote corruption, especially (but not exclusively) when it is unchecked. That doesn't mean that any use of power constitutes corruption, only that power inherently creates temptation to abuse it. --whosawhatsis? 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's not the corporations in America that are the problem, it's the extent they're allowed to influence government. Private businesses have all the right in the world to attempt to influence government, but government doesn't have any obligation to 'make good' on the campaign contributions they've been given. That's pure corruption.

I myself am a fan of anarchy, and I think who defaults to a rather grim view of it toward the end of his description, though otherwise it's spot-on. We don't have to accept the worst case scenario, though certainly we should consider it. In my own opinion, the more the individual can govern himself, the better his nation is. Weakest link, etc. Therefore, the closer a nation is to anarchy, the better it is. I think we should always be looking to anarchy as the goal, while accepting the present situation and dealing with it accordingly, even if that means having the government step in occasionally.

And as Chad points out, however unintentionally, the form of government really doesn't matter in the face of the character of the citizens. If every person is a great person in a country, any of them could be dictator and things would be all right. That seems unlikely, sure, but the point remains. Even the 'best' form of government, whatever it may be, would fail if the individual citizen is fundamentally a bad person. -- Ferguson 23:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is not a best form of government. A society consists of citicens, so the best form of government depends on the people living in the society. Thus it is totally useless to build a governmental theory for a fictional society, like Rousseau did. If a best form of government should be determined, one will have to respect the following points:

• there will be people willing to participate. This amount corrolates with the amount of fairness and thus corruption
• there will be people who are not interested in politics. Mostly, because they are satisfied with their lives.
• not all people will have the same degree of education, so some are easier to influence than others - even with unlogic arguments
• there will be people not playing to the rules, probably because the society is not able to satisfy their needs. 88.73.38.123 10:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this essay on "corruptibility." Like Chad, I am not sure if the question is "power" versus "good power" and "bad power." I do disagree, from a Christian perspective, that Theocratic Rule is the most open to scandal, abuse of power, etc. If anything, Marxism and Fascism are FIRST in terms of corruptibility, be it Communist China or the old Third Reich. Democracies can become corrupt especially if the general population lacks Virtue, as was the case in Ancient Athens. This corruption led Plato to pen his Republic, and actually argued for an "oligarchy" as being more adept at Rule than straight-up democracies (Cleisthenes [1], the nobleman who founded the democratic rule of Athens was ousted from his very own city BY DEMOCRATIC DECISION at the end of his life . . .). Anyways, the point is that yes Power CAN corrupt, which in the Christian Tradition is shown in the difference between St. Michael the Archangel and "lucifer" the fallen angel. As C.S. Lewis one time wrote, "The devil was an archangel once." (paraphrase from "Mere Christianity"). Sure you can de-mythologize religion (internally or externally), but the point for this post is that power is not inherently corrupt, it is the Virtue of who is weilding the power.--RobJKing 21:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See alsoEdit

• Forum:What is the best form of government?