#NotJust "The Corrupt": Are(n't) We All Corrupt?!
Reflections on the eternal malady of corruption; what it means to be corrupt, and how we could hope to combat it
Hello Dear,
I must say that I write these words with a painful heart. Why so? I am pained on having heard recently about some tales of systemic corruption in public life. Well, it is not that I believed our systems to be corruption-free; no, but I did not imagine the rot to be as deep and systemic as I am given to understand.
Well, that is quite a sobering thought, isn’t it? Yes indeed. I think all of us - in whichever sphere of work, whichever sphere of life we belong to - should be concerned about the cancer of corruption in our public life. When I say “public life”, I mean at least all social institutions, organizations and arrangements which form part of our shared being and becoming, #NotJust government departments [It would be very interesting to define what “public life” actually means]. In fact, it strikes me that the metaphor of cancer is not appropriate to describe the phenomenon of corruption. For one, cancer is, by and large or at least in many cases, a terminal disease.
But corruption does not script the obituary of organizations and systems; does it?
The word obituary reminds me of the following:
Galvanizing administrative machinery made up of everlasting organizations would be a formidable task. Where time is unlimited, there is no sense of urgency; members of an organization assured of indefinite existence would probably be inclined to move at a much more leisurely pace than the rest of us can afford or tolerate. In their long view, matters pressing to most of us might well seem deferrable. Where we hold speedy decisions more important than carefully researched judgements, they would doubtless prefer painstaking study before taking any action. Choices that look critical to those of us whose mortality compels us to get on with things would appear trivial to an organization with an infinite time horizon. - from the 1976 book Are Government Organizations Immortal? by Herbert Kaufman
Coming back to corruption, yes, not only does corruption not terminate many organizations, it is often thought of even as a lubricant!, which is necessary - even a sine qua non - to get the apathetic and avaricious machinery to move its finger, or a file. Never mind that…
…a file is almost always synonymous with a life, or more.
Yes, we hear this school of thought being expressed very often, right? That at least a minimum degree of corruption is necessary for “the system” to function, that without it, it just is impossible for any well-meaning person to get the work done.
Of course, part of the problem here - which in fact lends some credence to the above problem and statement - is that the word person is often used in the singular here. In other words, well-meaning people often find themselves in the inglorious and unenviable minority, which itself makes the project or mission of bringing in change or ushering in “reform in the system” that much more difficult - or impossible, as more experienced people are wont to tell us. Or is it false to think or say that the honest people are in the minority? Maybe most of us are honest and upright? Well, indeed, this in turn depends on the definition of “us”, i.e., “the system” or the ecosystem which we are talking about.
One very interesting part here which is often overlooked, in my opinion, is this:
Many of us are not corrupt simply due to lack of suitable opportunities for corruption!
In other words, it might be that we have so far been able to shield ourselves, or somehow got shielded, from those knotty situations which expose us to situations providing fertile opportunities for engaging in corruption. Indeed, I am reminded here of the invocation in “Our Father in Heaven”, the prayer which Jesus Christ taught his disciples, where the faithful pray: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
This in turn raises another question:
If it is just lack of opportunities which has prevented us from engaging in corruption, does this by itself imply that we are not corrupt?
Of course no, right? The definitive conclusion we could draw from this is that we have not been found to have been corrupt, but this does not mean that we would not engage in corruption in future. In other words:
Even those of us who have not been corrupted could very well be corruptible: we too could become corrupt or fall prey to corruption in future.
Well, a further question which arises here is this:
Is there really a difference between being corruptible and being corrupt?
I mean, if we are weak enough to engage in corruption when we are confronted with certain situations (which would differ for each person), then, are we just corruptible, or is this corruptibility itself a form of corruption as well? At the risk of taking a very strict or illiberal stand, I think it would be fair to say that yes, this too is a form of corruption itself. Which leads us to the further question:
Who is not corruptible?
Voila! If we are to acknowledge our human frailties, if we are really honest with ourselves, we will almost surely have to countenance the bittersweet reality that we are all weak, in one form or another, to a certain degree or other. The forms, kinds and degrees of our foibles and fallibilities might vary, but weak we are. Well, according to Lebanese-American writer and poet Kahlil Gibran, we might be overestimating the variation as well!
So, if being corruptible means being corrupt, and if everyone is corruptible, then, where does that lead us? This brings us to the following ineluctable destination, which I would like to pose only as a question.
Is everyone corrupt?! All of us? Each one of us?
This reminds me of the story of the ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes, who used to go about with a lantern in the streets of Athens, in broad daylight! When asked why, his reply was that he was looking for an honest man!
Now, if you have been giving attention to the details, you may perhaps be wondering why I described the reality of our universal weakness as bittersweet, instead of just bitter. Yes, it might very well be much more bitter than it is sweet, but at the same time, it is in embracing our weaknesses that we become human, it is in confronting and facing up to them that we rise beyond and over them. Isn’t it?
And even as I have been disturbed on hearing about the detestable and unfortunate stories of corruption in our shared public life, I view this as a great opportunity and a calling to all of us, to come out with creative systemic solutions and solution pathways which can help stem the hold of this deep-rooted malady from our lives, from our organizations, from our processes, systems, cultures and ways of being and becoming.
I think I must make one important clarification. It is easy to simply say that all of us could be corrupt, since all of us are corruptible. While this would be indeed be true at one level, painting everyone with this universal brush of fallibility is nothing but acquitting those who are stooped in corruption, those who willingly give in to its allure, those who crave for its evil and addictive pleasures; and thus, this argument would very well be a grossly incomplete characterization of the phenomenon.
So of course, we need to make a distinction between the proverbial mortal and venial sins; or greater and lesser evils. I am wondering whether the Pareto’s Principle applies to corruption too:
Could it be that 80% of the corruption in our public life is caused by 20% of the people? Or 20% of the organizations or departments? Or 20% of situations?
We can come up with other variations of this question, and think of how we can stem the most and more egregious forms of corruption.
On a rather related note, reflecting on this phenomenon yesterday, I found myself asking: Is it really right to say that individuals are corrupt or not corrupt? I mean, is it really a matter of individuals alone, or is it more to do with “the system” in which the individual is embedded? Of course, it is almost always both. But how to “fix responsibility” and how to even decide who all are responsible become questions which are simple to ask but non-trivial and difficult to answer.
Well, let me now share an edited version of a piece of reflection I wrote, in the context of one allegation of corruption in our public life which surfaced recently.
[Beginning of the edited piece of reflection I wrote recently]
0) I find the above issue to be very interesting. One doubt please, in this context.
1) The person ABC (let us call him ABC) has openly declared that he has paid the bribe. What is the legal position regarding bribe-givers? Are they protected from the iron hand of the law, for having exposed the bribe-taking?
Just came across this very recent judgement by the Karnataka High Court, which says bribe-givers too are liable to be prosecuted.
2) If this is the case, what could be an even more interesting question is: was ABC aware of this legal position and this high court judgement before he paid the bribe and subsequently gave the testimony?
3) ABC seems to be justifying or rationalizing his bribe-giving by saying that the circumstances left him with no other option since he says that not paying the bribe would have resulted in huge loss to him and others. His another point of heartburn is that it is the money earned through his hard work which has now gone to service the needs of corruption.
4) ABC's rationalization makes us wonder...could the bribe-takers too say that there were pressing life circumstances - say, a terminal illness in family, or say, issues of poor personnel management resulting in career stagnation - which meant that they too stood to lose a lot if they did not take the bribe, thus leaving them too with no option other than to demand the bribe?
5) If so, how do we decide what is just? Do we balance the stakes and professed options of the bribe-givers and bribe-takers? Or is it plain and simple, that both are at fault, as the Karnataka High Court says? Even if both are at fault, who is at bigger fault? Does that - should that - matter?
6) Speaking about ABC’s money lost to corruption which he says is earned through his hard work, an interesting question arises here. If the money was not hard-earned, say it was inherited by the accident of birth, or through marriage!, or through a lottery, or due to inflated profits through an unjust market system, or just due to plain unexpected luck, randomness and vicissitudes of life to which we are all subject to, then, would the bribe-taking have been less dishonourable?
7) A colleague who saw ABC’s statement told me that it is appalling. Yes, it must be regarded as unfortunate; at the same time, I think we can regard it as a very positive thing that ABC is unable to digest such instances happening in public offices. I mean, if this is an exception, then, that is a good if not a great thing, right? It means that by and large, according to people like him, public offices are corruption-free! Well, it would be a good thing only if this perception corresponds to the reality.
8) Speaking about the response of the organization whose employees were alleged to have taken the bribe, it says that requisite and most stringent action will be taken against anyone found involved. A very interesting question here is:
How do we define and decide who is and who is not involved?
So, say I am heading a team, and if an officer or staff member of my team indulges in corruption or wrongdoing, am I involved or not? Is my superior officer involved or not? What about his / her superior? I mean:
Where does the buck stop, if it stops somewhere?! Where should it stop? Or it does not stop anywhere?
9) So for instance, I may not have been aware of or even party to or actively encouraged or even closed my eyes to the wrongdoing. But, suppose I have not - due to whatever reason - put in place systems and processes which discourage wrongdoing and which make such occurrences unlikely to happen. How "involved" am I in the wrongdoing? How responsible am I?
10) And do we know what these systems and processes are and should be? I mean, how widely diffused, deeply developed and frequently reviewed is the knowledge and wisdom regarding these systems and processes? What are the best practices, what are the next practices? Most importantly, how well institutionalized are these practices? Who is responsible for this?
11) For instance, what is the need to evolve specific tailormade processes and systems for each department or organization, depending on the kind of functions it serves, and the kind of stakeholders both within and outside its environment? So, do we need specific anti-corruption and vigilance guidelines and processes for organizations of each sector or industry, for instance? Also:
What is the potential of applying insights from disciplines such as behavioural economics and nudge theory, in designing public policies, so that they curtail rather than give free rein to our lower human nature which is prone to corruption?
12) Of course, it is #NotJust systems and processes. Culture may very well be much more important. Here again, the question arises:
Whose responsibility is it to define, set, build and mould the culture?
But at the same time, good to remember that systems and processes too shape culture, along with getting shaped by it.
13) I think one important point which often tends to get missed or does not get due attention in debates and discourses on corruption is, what exactly constitutes corruption. Maybe it is because our society has become too materialistic and capitalistic, I don't know...but…
It seems that the focus is largely on financial corruption, and not the other forms such as ethical or moral corruption. I think the latter kind may very well be the more serious and insidious kind.
a) One, it is less visible, which makes its harmful impact even more difficult to notice, control and fathom.
b) Two, financial corruption too is due to the latter forms of corruption.
c) Three, because it is less visible and less concrete and potentially more subjective, it is also more subject to metamorphosis or reframing as something good and noble; and hence, it is more easily condoned, and in fact, even commended and extolled!
d) Four, such corruption which has been reframed as noble can even and does get institutionalized, making it the only alternative for "survival"! To adopt ABC's vocabulary, which is in fact our own vocabulary as well, such instutionalization of corruption leaves us with no other option, since we believe we will lose heavily, if at all any attempt is to be made to resist such institutionalization.
e) Five, those of us who are corrupt in these ways but not overtly financially corrupt are more likely to be regarded as honest and non-corrupt, by both others and we ourselves!
14) Having said all this, I would like to submit that I have been of the view that more than a, b, or e above,
…the bigger form of corruption is nothing but plain under-performance or under-commitment to the goals and missions of our organizations.
This, and c & d, are close competitors for being the most lethal forms of corruption, in my humble opinion.
15) #NotJust lastly, let us come back to point 1. Since ABC has claimed that he has obtained the service from the organization only because of the bribe, does this not mean that the integrity of the very service he got is now in question? I mean, evidently, there has been a corruption of the due process. If so, can we regard the service to be valid any more?! If no, then, isn't ABC basically making an appeal to the authorities that the service given to him may now be cancelled and its benefits withdrawn?
16) In closing, being an Indian Information Service officer and government communication professional, I am wondering what role could communication potentially play in reducing the hold of corruption over our lives? What scope is there for some creative, eye-opening and inspiring communication campaigns which reduce our innate and universal human craving for dishonesty and corruption, our infinite capability at rationalizing and conveniently condoning "our" undoings but finding fault with "others'" frailties, and in inspiring all of us to hold ourselves and each other to ever-higher standards of probity, in the pursuit of that ever-elusive ideal of "public service"?
17) Just sharing some tentative campaign ideas😉: #NotJustMoola, #NotJustPaisa, #NotJust #NotCorrupt (where the last one implies that the idea is more than avoiding corruption).
18) As a potential penance for inflicting this verbiage, let me recommend one book: The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone, Especially Ourselves, a 2012 book by Dan Ariely, a cognitive science professor and behavioural economist.
19) Thank you for your kind attention! And that reminds me: can distracting the public from issues that matter be the biggest form of corruption, in the information and communication age, especially since this can distract and divert us from nothing less than all forms of corruption itself?
“An Orwellian world is much easier to recognize, and to oppose, than a Huxleyan. Everything in our background has prepared us to know and resist a prison when the gates begin to close around us….But what if there are no cries of anguish to be heard? Who is prepared to take arms against a sea of amusements? To whom do we complain, and when, and in what tone of voice, when serious discourse dissolves into giggles? What is the antidote to a culture’s being drained by laughter? I fear that our philosophers have given us no guidance in this matter.” - Neil Postman, writing in his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death (we have already recommended this book in this post on public service broadcasting.)
20) Thank you again, don't know how much sense this reflection makes! Would be happy to be corrected! Good night! 😊🙏
[End of the edited piece of reflection I wrote recently]
Here is one important point which occurred to me after I wrote the above piece of reflection: that this instance of whistleblowing by ABC places a troubling question mark over potentially all services which were being rendered by the organization in question so far and in the past. This is but a manifestation of the extensive damage corruption can cause.
Besides the immediate suffering experienced by the stakeholders who are exploited in each instance of corruption, besides the direct public harm caused due to squandering of public resources, a long-term and perhaps even more harmful and corrosive effect of corruption is the sweeping way in which even a single instance of corruption can affect the credibility of the organization or the industry or profession or sector to which the organization belongs.
In other words:
Corruption erodes trust, the very glue which holds society together.
Yes, it tears us apart. And once trust is betrayed, we know very well how difficult an endeavour it is to rebuild it.
Let me stop here, with a sense of excitement which far exceeds the spirit of despondency with which I was enveloped when I began writing this post. Yes, I find this problem to be a very interesting one. It is my humble hope that you too find this problem interesting and also that this article has hopefully piqued your interest in this subject a little more than earlier.
I would think that almost all worthwhile journeys are going to be lonely, definitely at the beginning, and in some cases, even till the very end. But these are the very journeys which we are called to undertake. And yes, maybe when we reach the end of the journey, we would realize that the journey never ends. That we have just reached the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.
Yes, if our life is well-lived, we can hope that there would be others to take our mission forward. Interestingly, our previous post was on this very theme.
Before we close, our subject for today just now reminded me of a 1996 Tamil movie titled “Indian”, directed by Shankar and starring Kamal Hassan in double role. I had watched this film as a child and was thrilled by it; though yes, I must clarify that I do not believe in violence; rather, I am a firm believer in non-violence, love and forgiveness.
How did you find this post? Please do let me know in the comments section or by email at newdheep@gmail.com. And please do spread the word and share this article with your friends, relatives and colleagues, if you think this is valuable enough to be shared. Thank you! - Dheep.