Corruption

There is a joke that goes something like,"I want an end to corruption.  Or at least more opportunity to participate."  We say this or hear it, and we laugh, thinking that the joke is obvious.  Nobody would really admit to wanting to be a part of a corrupt system for the fun of it, would they?  Nobody would admit to wanting to be a part of a corrupt system at all, unless they did not mind being thought of as one of the bad guys.  And not one of the cool bad guys, some sort of evil bureaucrat.  Yet, not so long ago I heard somebody make a statement that was essentially that.  No, he did not say that he wanted to be a part of the corruption, he merely stated that there was no problem with corruption existing - as long as "people lived well".  Really, is there a problem with anything in that case?  There is no system under which every single person lives well, although some do a significantly better job than others in making sure there is a minimum level of dignity available to the citizen body.  We must admit that the vast majority of, if not every, governing system is by no means immune to corruption, and will be affected by some amount of people taking advantage in ways they should not.  Since it is unavoidable, should we simply accept it?  Should we not work to reduce the incidence of corruption, since this could be seen as a waste of time and energy?  Is it worth it to say that corruption is "bad"?

First, the obvious argument is if we accept corruption simply because it is common despite the law, we have to say the same about other crimes.  If we cannot fight against or consider corruption bad, why would we do so for theft?  Or the various forms of assault?  Or murder?  The desire to commit these crimes can be seen as "natural", the same as the desire to find a benefit for ourselves at the expense of others.  If one natural desire is acceptable despite its harm, why not the others?  Insisting that the prevalence of corruption means that we should not spend time working against it is rather an insult to doctors and the medical profession as a whole as well.  Illness and injury are not just common, they are absolutely unavoidable.  Every single person on Earth will come down with at least a cold or twist an ankle at least once.  But if these things are universal, why bother fighting them?  We cannot keep everyone's health perfect forever.  Medicine is a losing proposition.  A waste of energy and resources.  While some people would in fact make a similar argument, they are on the fringe of ideas about how to deal with health care.  Saying that the commonness of corruption should protect it from attack is the same line as saying the ubiquitousness of colds make medicine a waste.

Let us go to a deeper level.  We can agree that health problems deserve to be taken care of because nobody wants or deserves to be sick or injured.  Why should corruption fall under the umbrella of undesireables?  There must be some kind of identifiable harm that comes from corruption that makes it necessary to fight it.  What is the harm?  My partner in conversation specifically said that corruption was all right as long as people lived well.  Can people live well under a corrupt system?  Absolutely.  But do all people live well?  Absolutely not. This is the key to the issue.  When a fair, or mostly fair, system is in place, those who get the shaft have recourse.  They can press for redress of grievances and demand that their rights be respected.  Under a fair and just system, every citizen should have the same rights and importance before the law.  The very essence of corruption is that only a few have access to those avenues, and the rest of the citizenry must keep quiet, lest they find themselves in danger of losing what they do have.

This is the true danger of corruption: It increases the distances between the regulars and the privileged, and leaves the non-privileged out in the cold.  It solidifies a ruling class and a social hierarchy that will perpetuate itself, relying on nepotism and bribery to find leaders.  There is no possibility of social movement or development.  Even when corrupt leaders are canny enough to make sure the masses have enough toys to distract them from their lack of power and opportunity, anyone who wishes to be treated as a full person without the benefit of being in the upper ranks will have to pay for the privilege.  Those who cannot pay will never be given the slightest consideration.  There we have the heart of the matter: Not a single person is seen as a person.  Even the privileged are but cogs in the larger machine.  Those on the bottom?  They will never ascend if not by force.  If merit and rights do not exist, the only way to make a better life for oneself is to destroy those who have better lives and usurp their position.  Corruption, in the end, only encourages revolution, and violent revolution at that.  A system of rights and merit, at least in theory, gives opportunities to those without means and allows for peaceful transition between social strata. The fact that no system is perfect should not discourage us from seeking to perfect the system we live under.