THE PHENOMENON OF CORRUPTION








A Study in Thought

sa031



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Corruption; the abuse of a position of trust and responsibility.
An emphasis upon the more subtle and least recognised forms of corruption.
The problems of a complex society.
A case of "naive idealism".
Understanding, not condemnation, as the motivation for this essay.
The official as a computer.
Defensive and aggressive forms of corruption.
Social positions and the ego-drive.
A need for Constitutional Guidelines.
A review of natural leadership functions in small social units.
Parental care and behavioural flexibility, seen as the main pillars for the evolutionary experiment with social integration.
Egocentric, localo-centric, socio-centric and "family-centric" concerns.
Leadership channels and the qualities of good leadership.
Leadership requirements for the large and complex societies.
The ever-present balance between an egocentric and a socially integrated orientation of our behaviour.
All members of society have to benefit from belonging to society.
Problems with hierarchical positioning in large and complex societies, and the "break-through" of the concept of essential equality amongst the members.

You know what corruption is, don't you? You have seen and experienced corruption, and, perhaps, you have even participated in a practice, you knew, was not quite what it ought to have been. You have seen the corrupt official, who will carry-out his duties only after his hands have been greased slightly with a favour, a bribe, or, perhaps, just a flattery. We all have seen, in varying degrees, the processes of corruption at work, where the position an individual occupies in society, in government, in business, or, any position that involves a measure of trust and responsibility, is stealthely being abused, ever so slightly, for personal advantage.

The essence of corruption is the perversion of a position of trust, power, leadership, or any other kind of responsibility, for the personal benefit of the individual who occupies such a position. Since most of us live in a complex society and occupy a position, where a measure of responsibility and trust has been given to us, we all are exposed to the temptation of abuse; of seeking our own advantage at the expense of the people we serve. We may be corrupt as an employee in government or business, or, we may deceive, ever so slightly, the clients we serve or sell a product to.

The attitudes of concern and responsibility are vitally important channels for significant inter-actions between people in all social environments, such as large corporations, bureaucratic and leadership institutions, etc. We are, almost without exception, caught in such a web of inter-locking relationships, and, the chances of experiencing and contributing to somewhat shady attitudes and practices are so high, that no-one remains unaware of the pernicious and stultifying phenomenon of corruption.

Corruption, then, is, not only, the acceptance or offerings of bribes, and other illegal enticements in order to secure an unfair advantage over someone else, but, we should include in our concept of corruption all practices, attitudes and manipulations, designed to obtain an advantage by other than objective merits in an open process of competitive evaluation.

You will laugh at my naive hopes of arriving at such an ideal situation. You will laugh and say; "Would you, indeed, consider even a friendly handshake or the offer of a refreshment and a minor courtesy to be a form of corruption, because it can be interpreted as an unwarranted effort to bring someone in a favourable mood?" Indeed, one may be given slightly more attention or better service compared to someone else, who is also waiting to be served. By being friendly and courteous, and, by trying to establish a relationship of personal loyalty, you are trying to "bribe" the official into giving you whatever small favours he can bestow upon you, since all bureuacratic functions are open to some discretion by an official.

You ask, again, whether this has to be called "corruption", and I say "yes". This is also corruption, since the intention is, in essence, not any different from the blatant use of money or gifts in an attempt to secure an unfair advantage. I agree with you, that, most people would, in all honesty, not recognise such an attitude as corrupt. Most people function in an atmosphere, where the effort of influencing favourably those you need, is such an established and well-accepted practice, that no wrong-doing and no sense of corruption is associated with these attitudes and practices.

Certainly, those, who are trying to sell a product in the competitive world of business, will do everything to make the client as pliable, accessible and responsive as possible. The important client, usually, a buyer for another business concern or a government agency, will be feasted and entertained, and, the public, who represents the most important client of all, will be inundated by noisy and pushy advertisements, as well as an unending stream of enticements and exhortations; how good such and such a product is; how it enchances your status and success; how you owe it to yourself or your family to own this or that.... The pressures are relentless, as people are enticed with special sales and other forms of promotion and persuasion.

"Is this all corruption?", you will ask in amazement. "If we have to consider corruption to exist so widely spread that it is not even recognised by most people, how can we ever hope to get a grip upon the phenomenon of corruption? Would we not have to change people's attitudes? Perhaps, we are better of to change the definition of corruption, because in this definition a majority of man's actions and motivations will have to be considered as corrupt".

You may be right. However, as a counter-argument, I would like to point-out, that we are not trying to change the ways of man, nor, are we condemning the behaviour of people. What we are trying to do, is to define and describe the many attitudes and actions, that, unwittingly, lead to undesirable side-effects, and, because of these often unknown and unsuspected side-effects, we will have to call these attitudes and actions "corrupt". By analysing, as precisely as we can, the factors that motivate our behaviour, our friendliness towards some, as well as our coolness towards others, we may learn to see, that we are, indeed, engaged in egocentric advantage-seeking, often, at the expense of others, and, what is more important, we are, almost invariably, tempted to use the power of an office or the position in a bureaucracy, be it government, business, or otherwise, for our own benefit.

You are still incredulous. Will anyone say in an official position; "Look, you do not have to be friendly, courteous or polite to me anymore than if I would be a stranger on a streetcar. I have a function to carry-out, and, my instructions are not to discriminate in any way or form against those I do not like; who do not treat me well; whom I may not understand, etc. As a matter of fact, I would be better of, if I was a computer, without feelings or emotions. It would be much better, if I was just a mechanical device, receiving and processing information and forwarding it to the appropriate departments, while receiving in return, quickly, the correct instructions to deal with your particular case. It would, therefore, be superfluous to be nice to me; treat me like a computer, and, I will act like one. Down with all forms of discrimination and emotional bias; down with corruption and long live the Prince of Impartiality!".

By the same token, we also engage in corrupt attitudes and practices, if we are hostile towards those we fear or envy; if we use an official function to show, carry-out, or give vent to such discriminatory feelings and actions, because this is against the impartiality that is required from an official by the contract of equal treatment under the laws of society. By trying to block the ambitions of rivals, we use the powers of a position in society for our own use; not in an aggressive, advantage-seeking manner, but, in a defensive strategy, where we try to maintain our status-quo. This attitude will also be difficult to recognise as a form of corruption, but, if we think about the basic definition of corruption, we should be able to acknowledge, that it is logical, and just, to include this type of negative, defensive posturing as an example of corruption; at least, if we use the powers of our status in society to defend our own specific interests.

What, then, is the definition of corruption? Let us try to state it as succinctly as possible. All attitudes, actions and practices, where we use a position of trust and responsibility, given to us by society, to further our own interests, is, in essence, corrupt. I think, that we have to elaborate this definition somewhat, because many people will not recognise the principle that every position of authority and responsibility is, in essence, given to us by society, even, if we are engaged in a "private enterprise" or a family business. Obviously, if we occupy a position in a government structure that is explicitly designed to treat everyone in the same manner, any form of discrimination or favouritism will be corrupt, but, we have to recognise the fact, that our entire existence, including all our private, entrepreneurial activities, have to be protected and sanctioned by the laws of society, and, we are, therefore, responsible to the society at large, and, we should not be allowed to discriminate against other members of the social environment.

You will laugh at me again and call me an incurable idealist. Who has ever heard of such a "pure" attitude amongst officials and public servants, or, anyone else in a position of power? "Have you forgotten to take into account the fact, that, positions in the bureaucracy, in the world of business, and, even, in religious and charitable organisations, are won by a struggle and are coveted by people who have succeeded over their competitors? These people are dominant individuals, and, they like to decide, at least, to some extent, how their duties and functions should be carried-out. It is so natural that they will be cooperative with those who are pleasant and friendly, and obstructive towards those who behave with an attitude of hostility and contempt towards them. How can you expect such a blood-less, saintly attitude to be maintained, or, is it even desirable to behave in this way? Those, who may be able to identify with such an idealised concept of bureaucratic impartiality, almost certainly lack the drive, and the will-power, to displace the egocentric individuals, who use their lean vitality in a, perhaps, somewhat unscrupulous bid to obtain status, prestige and power".

You are certainly right. We would see a predominance of dominating individuals in positions of power, if a society allows a ruthless struggle for dominance to determine, who, and what kind of people, will occupy positions of power, responsibility and trust. We see, therefore, that we have to expand our discussion of corruption into the area of public morality. We need to discuss the moral will of the people and the Constitutional Guidelines of society. We have to define the meaning of society, as well as the moral obligations of its leadership and governing bodies. We also have to discuss the obligations and rights of the individual members of society.

When we looked at the biologically programmed behaviour-patterns of natural leadership, (the attitudes of parental care and innate responsibility for the offspring in the small-scale social groupings of anthropoids, our pre-human ancestors), we saw, that the leadership functions of the strongest, dominant animals had to include an instinct of care and concern for those, who came under their power and influence.

If the dominant animal would live only for his own benefit, and, if he remained exclusively concerned with the drive to satisfy his own whims, he would be a menace to the small grouping. If he could not be killed or driven-off by the other members, the viability of the small social grouping would be seriously endangered, and, the forces of natural selection would weed-out the existence of an excessively selfish and domineering leader through the ruthless criteria of survival. Viability is the ultimate judge of all life, and the less viable social grouping will, eventually, lose-out in the struggle for existence.

We have also seen, that the instinct of parental care had to be sharpened in the genetic instructions of those species' that started to rely for their survival upon a measure of flexibility in the behavioural response of an individual organism, allowing rapid adaptations to quickly changing local conditions. The capability of individualised and flexibly adapted behaviour became a genetically engraved potential for the living, actualised members of the flexible species', but, the actual pattern of adaptation depended on the accumulation of experiences, as well as the transfer of successful behaviour-patterns from the parental generation to its offspring.

The details of a particular adaptative response were, therefore, taken-out of the genetic instructions. Once nature had selected a course of evolutionary change that relied, increasingly, upon the adaptability of individual behaviour, the pre-programmed behavioural instructions had to become more generalised. As an inevitable consequences of such an evolutionary trend, the newborn youngsters of a flexible species had to go through a prolonged period of post-natal learning and maturation, and, during this period, these youngsters would be extremely vulnerable and they would need careful parental protection and guidance in order to survive.

The behaviour of parental guidance and protection became a necessity for the flexible species', since it became, not only, necessary for the youngsters to go through a long maturation process, but, the behavioural fine-tuning of the younger generations began to depend increasingly upon specific examples of successful parental behaviour. This habit or act of imitating behavioural examples was necessary in order to "fill-in the details" that were "left blank", so to speak, by a more generalised genetic code. We have considered these developments elsewhere in more detail, and, we repeat, here, only an outline of these ideas, because we are trying to recall the biological origins of social leadership and parental care upon which our human societies depend, to such a large extent, for their structure and survival.

We have seen, that the developments of parental care and social integration require an essential widening in the orientation of an organism's behaviour; nl., the shift from purely egocentric concerns to a behaviour that would also take into account the existential needs of the off-spring, and, as a corollary, the needs of every member of a socially integrated grouping. We have also seen, that such an enlargement of the sphere of care and concern does not necessarily lead to a sustained behaviour of altruism and self-sacrifice by the parental generations, or the leadership of a small community, but, we see a dynamic, constantly changing balance between egocentric and "socio-centric" or "family-centric" concerns.

There are remarkable examples amongst the socially integrated, flexible species', where the behaviour of parents and leaders resembles the human capabilities of self-sacrifice and altruistic concerns, but, we may also see more superficial attitudes of parental care, as well as rather selfish and crude forms of social leadership. We may safely state, that these differences in social behaviour are the result of varying existential pressures, and, these different forms of parental or leadership behaviour have been selected, or tolerated, by the mechanisms of natural selection, because of the different requirements and circumstances under which these species' evolved.

Whenever the viability of a species became dependent upon the quality of care and protection given to the younger and weaker members of a socially integrated grouping, we see, that the accent shifted to an instinctive mode of caring and sacrificing behaviour, while those flexible species', whose members were less subjected to the pressures of predation or rapidly changing circumstances, developed the qualities of parental care and social integration, to a much lesser extent.

The human species shows a strong, instinctive drive to take care of its off-spring, and, we see altruistic or socially responsible behaviour in the natural leaders and adult members of a healthy, small-scale social grouping, but, we have also seen, that these instinctive behaviour-patterns are influenced, to a remarkable extent, by communal beliefs and attitudes. We have discussed, on previous occasions, that the sphere of concern of natural leadership is limited to, at the most, a dozen or so individuals. Human leadership comes, therefore, "natural" in small communities, but, the sphere of leadership and concern has to be enlarged with the help of "cultural tools" in order to make the larger communities and societies at least somewhat viable.

We have seen, that the need to seek protection in larger groupings gave rise to the first "civilisations", and, this trend co-incided with a remarkable increase in the development of cultural tools, such as writing and the formulation of more explicit behavioural guidelines. The leadership of large social groupings required, not only, the tools of cultural identification in order to facilitate the mechanisms of social cohesion and the attitudes of social concern, but, such a large-scale social leadership structure also had to construct channels for information-gathering and decision-making, as well as monitoring facilities in order to make use of feed-back information. We have discussed these cultural innovations on previous occasions, when we compared the evolution of the complex social structures with the structures and function of the central nervous system of a single, multi-cellular organism.

We have repeated these conclusions and ideas, briefly, in order to evaluate, in a historic and biological perspective, the meaning and function of human leadership, as well as the need for complex but efficient bureaucratic channels to make leadership possible. These structures belong to the cultural tools that are needed to accomplish the tasks of keeping a social grouping in a condition of good health; with the help of well-informed decisions, enlightened attitudes of care and concern, and, above all, with the help of the attitudes of a sustained and impartial responsibility.

Just as the dominant leader in an animal society may be tempted to shirk his responsibilities for the sake of egocentric gain, so will the human being be tempted, time and again, to make use of opportunities for personal gain, which flow, inevitably, from being in a leadership position, or, a position of responsibility and trust, created as an executive channel of the leadership. The mechanisms of natural selection are only concerned with the criteria of viability. If a social environment appears to be able to tolerate corrupt behaviour-patterns, then, it is logical, that such attitudes and practices will spread quickly, because the egocentric concerns of the members of a social environment will be accentuated, while the bonds of inter-dependence are being loosened.

The existential pressures and threats to the larger and more successful societies have been lessened by the fact that they have been successful, and, that they have found a measure of viability. As a result, the members of a successful and complex society are enjoying a remarkable "ease of existence", and they are always subjected to the temptation to revert to egocentric and corrupt attitudes and practices, as soon as they forget the reasons and mechanisms behind their ease of existence.

It is clear, that the natural leadership of a small community must show a sufficient measure of altruistic concerns for those who come under its care, before viability can be maintained by the group as a whole. If a leader becomes too egocentric, the benefits for his subjects, resulting from belonging to his grouping and living in the territory under his control, become less obvious, and, very quickly, the members of a social grouping have to be held together by force, rather than by the persuasiveness of having found protection and increased viability under the care of a respected leader.

Establishing a hierarchical order means, that an individual trades his drive for sovereignty against protection from a superior power, but, the overall result must be an advantage. It must mean, that the individual experiences to be better of, and, that one is subjected to less pressures from a hostile environment. If the leader fails to provide these benefits for his subjects, they will immediately try to escape from his sphere of influence and dominance. If such a migration away from the leader's territory is not possible because of other communities in the neighbourhood and a scarcity of inhabitable land, the tensions of unrest and the likelyhood of a violent rebellion increase, and, these mechanisms will lead, ultimately, to an attempt to replace the tyrant.

We should never lose sight of the fact, that all members of a community must have the instinctive or intuitive feeling, that it is worthwhile to belong to society. The disadvantages of belonging to society, (such as the sacrifices in sovereignty and initiative, the curbing of the feelings of resentment and aggression towards superiors and "authorities"), must be off-set in a positive balance against the advantages of security, easy living conditions, and the emotional satisfactions that come with an integration of the individual within a social structure.

We should not forget that the structure of a small, natural community reveals, always, a hierarchical stratification, or "pecking-order", where the dominance and vigour of each member determines his or her position in this hierarchy. The overall leader of such a small group is the one individual who is able to dominate them all.

We have traced, before, the mechanisms that determine, by trial and error, or "test fights", the relative strengths of the members of such a small-scale social hierarchy, and, we have also traced the cultural developments that are necessary to give the much larger human society a measure of viability. Here, a multi-individual leadership structure evolves, where the many functions of leadership are delegated to different people, (a fore-runner of the bureaucracy), but, we have also considered to reasons, why the idea of equality under the law, or, at least, equal treatment by the leadership and its institutions, is such a difficult principle to implement.

We have discussed the importance of minimising the occurrence of weakening internal fights, and, we have seen, how the leadership of larger social entities would, inevitably, come to the conclusion, that the concept and practice of a measure of essential equality between the members is the only way to avoid the chaos of constant test-fighting or in-fighting. The principle of essential equality, where most of the members in such a large community are treated as equals by the leadership, and, by each other, is the only alternative to a continuous round of hierarchical strife. We have to learn to recognise these mechanisms and evolutionary principles within our own social organisations. Only then, will we be able to appreciate the fact, that any tendency towards favouritism constitutes a negation of the principles of essential equality.

Favouritism will lead to arbitrary hierarchical shifts as a result of friendship or influence with the leadership, and, these arbitrary hierarchical differences violate this all-important "sense of justice", which has been based on a tacit or intuitive acknowledgement of a "social contract" of essential equality.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The stratification of social classes in a complex society.
Inter-dependencies, and the need for mutual trust.
The more subtle forms of corruption are dure to ignorance and a lack of insight.
The need to understand the essentials of human behaviour, before the requirements of social health can be defined.
The social contract, and the mechanisms of elected representation.
The natural experiment with the living organisation, and the limitations of the genetic code.
Social decay; the divergence between social groupings.
The diagnosis of social ills.
A series of examples of social ills and corrupt practices.
Tax-avoidance; the battle of the "experts" at the expense of the tax-payer and the consumer.
The vague outlines of public morality.
Lobbying, selling influence, connections, special-interest and pressure-groupings.
The distortion of democratic ideals.
Corruption in its many disguises; a contagious disease.
The need for openness in society.
Corrupt behaviour of the large corporations.
Modern dinosaurs, and the philosophy of consumerism.
Far-reaching and pernicious effects of the power of money.
The cancers in society.

We are re-tracing in giant steps, topics we have discussed before. It is important to recall these ideas, since they have a bearing on the nature, definition and consequences of the phenomenon of corruption. A large society becomes exceedingly complex, and, we see, in addition to an enormous growth of the overall leadership structures with their mushrooming bureaucracies, also numerous specialised forms of leadership emerge. Each form of leadership has its own bureaucracy, because a breaucracy represents the channels through which leadership functions operate. Specialised skills and functions develop their own bureaucratic and hierarchical structures with their inevitable trends towards further sub-specialisations, and, they all are a part of the leadership structures of a large society.

In addition to the many bureaucratic structures, we see a variety of ethnic sub-groupings and economic classes develop, especially, in the larger and more complex societies, and, all these sub-groupings contribute to tensions and divergent interests. The needs and rights of the social sub-structures become, frequently, the main concern for most of the members of society, because there is a natural tendency to identify, primarily, with the sub-grouping of one's up-bringing, and, it is then so easy to "forget" the requirements of the overall society.

Almost everyone in the larger societies becomes inter-dependent, because people differentiate into a variety of trades and professions, and, with the inter-dependence, we see the need arise for mutual trust and attitudes of responsibility. Because of the fact, that so many of us have to assume some sort of a responsible function for the larger society, we see the possibility for corruption to emerge on such a wide scale. We all occupy some sort of a position of power and trust, even, if it is only as a bread-winner for our family, and, we all are tempted, and succumb, on occasion, to the opportunity to obtain an egocentric advantage.

However, this does not mean, that we are aware of the fact, that we are prone to behave somewhat corruptly. Few of us will be sharply aware of the reasons for, or the background of, our behaviour, and, we grow-up in a system of guidelines to which we adhere, primarily, because we get into trouble, if we do not follow these guidelines. Few of us know or think about the reasons, why such guidelines exist, and, many people distrust these guidelines from the larger social environment, because they have seen examples, where people in powerful positions behave with an element of unfairness or corruption. If corruption becomes prevalent, and, if the hierarchical structures of government and business are used as vehicles to satisfy instincts of dominance and privilege, the behavioural guidelines of a society become perverted and the corrupt use of an official position is, then, considered to be normal.

Unless we reflect, once in a while, upon the nature and purpose of social positions and cultural guidelines, and, unless we recognise the functions and requirements of the sense of justice, we will not be able to diagnose, correctly, the reasons for social decay and fragmentation. Unless we learn to understand the mechanisms that take place in society, and, unless we become aware of the purpose of the social structures and institutions, we will remain baffled. Then, we understand little of the events that are taking place all around us, nor, do we understand the nature of the tensions between people and the requirements for large-scale social well-being.

It is not my intention to sketch an idealistic utopia of universal integrity and justice. In stead, we will be paying attention to the basic human drives, which always underly the phenomenon of corruption. We are here concerned with a comprehensive diagnosis and a careful delineation of the mechanisms of corruption and social decay, and, we hope to make the effects of corrupt behaviour, understandable, and predictable, because, only then, will we be able to build into our social structures safeguards to prevent the development of these paralysing and often irreversible trends. By going back to the evolutionary basics of our existence, we will be able to see the phenomenon of corruption in a broad perspective, and, we will be able to devise corrective measures and construct proper checks against this crippling and lethal social disease.

The idea, that bureaucratic functions and duties of public office should be carried-out with strict impartiality, is a conceptual ideal, as well as a moral virtue, which have been acknowledged for a long time, and, these concepts and ideas go back to the time, when intelligent leaders recognised the need to treat every member with scrupulous equality and impartiality in order to satisfy this all-important "sense of justice". After all, the sense of justice is based on the intuitive acceptance of a social contract of essential equality or a justified position in a hierarchical structure. This means, that a social contract of essential equality will have to be implemented and honoured, and, therefore, every member must be able to experience, at least, intuitively, the fact, that it is good and worthwhile to belong to society.

The concept of universal and equal voting rights is a modern outflow of the social contract of essential equality, and, the possibility for an elected leadership to step-down after its term in office has expired and make way for a different leadership, (if the electorate so chooses), is a powerful mechanism to satisfy the sense of justice. This means, that every leadership obtains an explicit approval or mandate from a majority of the members in society to guide and organise society, and, it means, also, that the members have a genuine choice from a spectrum of leadership candidates, with different ideas how society should be led. Nevertheless, as we have argued before, the range of political options should be a matter of careful guidance and delineation by the Constitution of society, otherwise, we will only see a paralsying see-saw of antagonistic policies.

Leadership is a fortuitous, dynamic balance between persuasion, (especially, the persuasiveness of free and fair general elections, as well as a meaningful choice from a genuine political spectrum), and, a measure of controled and carefully regulated power. This combination of power and persuasiveness gives a measure of governing powers, as well as a series of options to the leadership. Nature provides such an intuitive balance of powers to the leader of a small social unit as the result of many generations of natural selection, but, in the complex and large societies, conscious awareness and a deliberate choice in the construction of leadership institutions and executive powers, (based on evolutionary and historic insights), will have to take the place of a slow and impractical process of natural selection for the emergence of large-scale social leadership institutions. We have outlined, before, where the processes of natural selection show their limitations, and, we know, that the genetic encoding of viable behavioural instructions is only possible in a vast, natural experiment with countless generations of trial and eror, combined with a stable and persistent environment of suitable circumstances.

Because of the limited number of human societies, and, especially, because of the devastating effects of inter-communal strife, we see, clearly, that natural selection has no chance to work-out a code of behaviour and leadership structures for the larger societies. Besides, the mechanisms of behavioural flexibility form another, major obstacle to the genetic encoding of large-scale social behaviour for the members of mankind.

Let us return to the topic of corruption. If we acknowledge the fact, that a large-scale social environment is based on a contract of essential equality, (a tacit agreement amongst the members to divide the tasks and responsibilities of survival in order to increase the ease of existence for everyone), we see, that we need a structure of behavioural regulators to ensure that this increasing inter-dependence and reliance upon each other's activities is not soured by egocentric advantage-taking, or "opportunism".

If the awareness disappears, that our viability is centered around the social structure we live in, it becomes more difficult for the members to bring the sacrifices and contributions necessary for social cohesion. The relevance of the instructions for social behaviour, (designed by more vigorous and more aware generations of the past), diminishes, and, the mechanisms of divergence, decay and corruption have, once again, begun their inexorable course.

A society that has allowed the accumulation of too much power in the hands of a small, ruling elite, creates an apathetic, indolent mass of people, who remain ignorant and disinterested, because they do not participate in the organisation of their society. While a slovenly attitude may be easy for the leadership to deal with, eventually, the spirit of revolt will re-assert itself. A society that allows its laws and customs to develop in such a way, that they benefit, primarily, a privileged elite, will show an inevitable division between the wealthy and the poor, and, for those who are poor, the sense of belonging to society has long since disappeared. Social integration is, then, only a cruel joke and a burden, to be shed as soon as an opportunity presents itself.

A society that allows its members to corrupt, increasingly, the channels of bureaucracy for egocentric or "localo-centric" purposes, is a dying society, whose central nervous system is wasting away at an alarming rate. Viability has already been lost. The society is a helpless vulnerable prey, often unable to make any sustained or coordinated effort to defend itself against attack. A society that emphasises ideas of individualistic rights without considering the responsibilities of individualistic privileges for its fortunate members, quickly, runs a similar course of corruption, decay and demise.

Where, then, do we find the healthy, vigorous, yet compassionate and viable society with high moral guidelines and a minimum of corruption? Let us acnowledge, that a society without corruption does not exist. The absence of corruption is an idealised state; a situation or condition that serves as a goal towards which we strive, in order to build an equitable and stable society. Since we have inherited as part of our biological heritage, a very strong urge to look after our own well-being, we can only study and acknowledge the presence of this drive in us all. However, by understanding, clearly, what the requirements are for a harmonious way of living together, we may be able to pin-point, more precisely, where, and when, the social guidelines are corrupted and violated. By cultivating a greater awareness of the mechanisms and examples of corruptive behaviour, we may be able to avoid many of the social disease processes we are still so powerless to deal with.

As always, the diagnosis has to come first. We will have to recognise what is happening to us, to our orientation, motivations and surroundings, before we can put a finger on the ills of society. Therefore, it is, probably, worthwhile to review, quickly, a series of specific examples or categories of corrupt behaviour, in order to facilitate this process of recognition and acknowledgement. We will reserve our main effort, however, for a discussion of the borderline areas, where corruption merges with other forms of egocentric behaviour; whenever we narrow, once again, the sphere of our concerns to a circle that is smaller than the social unit needed for our collective survival. Especially, the transition between corruption and rebellion requires a careful analysis, since we are dealing, here, with subtle differences in interpretation. What is a revolt, a rebellion, a misguided, criminal act of destruction, may seem to others a courageous struggle for justice and freedom against tyranny and oppression.

We will consider, first, the more obvious forms of corruption. All acts of seeking illegally a personal advantage, like theft, fraud, embezzlement, smuggling, tax-evasion, etc., are, obviously, against the interests of the community, and, they represent incidences of corrupt behaviour. Even so, these obvious forms of corruption, especially, those directed against the bureaucracy of the State, are often considered to be a legitimate course of action by an alarmingly large percentage of the people in affluent societies. The degree to which the State, and, especially, the government bureaucracies are considered to be a legitimate "adversay" of the people, is frightening, and, these common attitudes are a sure indication of the fragility of these large and affluent societies.

Many people see only a challenge. They believe, that it is perfectly moral and justified to outwit the government or the bureaucracy, and, no moral questions are raised, when trying to escape from the letter or the spirit of the Law. The legal but morally questionable practice of tax-avoidance, (in contrast to tax-evasion, which is illegal), is used by every business and intelligent high-income earner. It is, in essence, a form of corruption, because the paying of taxes is not acknowledged, anymore, as a necessary contribution to society, but, it is is seen as an obstacle to be avoided, as long as one does not come into conflict with the law.

What has happened to our sense of concern and responsibility for society? What is left of our realisation, that society needs to function well for the sake of justice and well-being for everyone? The widespread practice of minimising, deliberately, all obligatory contributions to society, is a good example of the prevailing spirit of egocentricity in the affluent societies. At least, during my time, the emphasis has been placed completely on the rights of the individual, and, little consideration is being given to the obligation of the members to contribute to society according to their talents, means and opportunities of the moment.

"What an unbelievably short-sighted attitude", you will say, if you live at a time, when a much better understanding of the requirements of large-scale social integration has been established. Sure, but so widespread and current are these attitudes at the present time, that, any questions about the morality of adopting an attitude of legal tax-avoidance, will prompt questions about the mental sanity of the inquirer. These attitudes are, not only, a sad commentary upon our sense of social responsibility, but, an analysis of these attitudes will show, also, the reasons for these attitudes. They reveal a deep mistrust in the ability of society, and its leadership, to govern wisely, fairly and without waste.

What about the practices we engage in, when trying to obtain government contracts? Apart from the obviously illegal practice to give financial "kickbacks", or bribes, to officials or political organisations, numerous opportunities exist for corrupt transactions between company officials and their colleagues in government. What about the use of "connections" for the selling of "influence"? What about the practice of lobbying for support from members of the Legislature, or, the use of inside information? As members of the public, we are unable to scrutinise most of these transactions, and, this gives the entire area of contacts and contracts between governments and businesses an atmosphere of deep suspicion, and, inevitably, an aura of corruption.

Just because the public is not able to monitor, in detail, what is going-on, we see a steady stream of doubtful government expenditures; doubtful tenders for contracts, doubtful salaries and commissions to advisors, consultants and managers. We suspect a sea of corruption; a quagmire of dishonest practices; a jungle of ruthless infighting; a flood of secret financial dealings; and, there is, of course, the impenetrable Swiss bank-account. It becomes very difficult for the average citizen to believe, that there is still honesty in government or business. It is not surprising, that the average citizen loses all idealism and does not believe his leaders anymore. With a feeling of vague helplessness, he senses the impending collapse of the entire social system.

It is not surprising, that ordinary people become defensive and contribute, in a small way, to the large-scale corruption of the higher echelons. The ordinary citizen can not steal millions and hide them in a Swiss bank-account. He can only make use of the unemployment and sickness insurance schemes. The average citizen has no access to generous government contracts or corporate expense accounts, and, he can not dine and travel at the expense of the tax-payer or the consumer. The average individual can only hide a few dollars, here and there. Yet, the atmosphere of corruption spreads as quickly as a contagious disease, poisoning the last remnants of mutual trust and good-will. Society is decaying and dying, and we are busily feeding on its remains. That is what corruption does!

It is corrupt to favour one individual or company over another, except on the basis of a completely impartial evaluation of merit in an open and honest tender. It is corrupt to spread government grants and favours to pressure-groups with an inside track, because government assistance should be given, only, after an impartial and completely open process of scrutiny and evaluation has taken place. If I see, that my neighbour receives a government grant, while I do not, I should have the right to scrutinise, and know, exactly, all the detailed facts and considerations that led to the issuing of this grant to my neighbour. If I can not investigate these details, I will become suspicious, and, I suspect, that corrupt practices and attitudes have played a role in the awarding this grant.

If I see large companies in my neighbourhood acquire large tracts of land and other real-estate properties, I wonder, why these companies should own so much property, stifling growth and development, and blocking opportunities for ordinary people to acquire a piece of land and build a home. I wonder, why such companies should be alllowed to acquire that much unused land. Do they need these properties? How much taxes do they have to pay? How much subsidy do they receive from the government, and, to what extent do they hold governments to ransom with the threat to close-down plants and operations, if they do not receive a generous government subsidy?

Large, uncontroled, giant companies are like cancers in society, growing beyond control, loyal to no one but themselves, channeling an ever greater stream of power and affluence through themselves. In a historical perspective, they will be compared to the dinosaurs of the reptilian age, when uncontroled growth and vast opportunities for expansion, created monsters of destruction, requring enormous amounts of food and energy to sustain their lumbering existence.

The giant dinosaurs of Capitalist societies are the principle cause, and reason, for the practice, and philosophy, of consumerism, as well as an ever-increasing rate of economic expansion. They are a cancer in the history of mankind, trampling on the aspirations of common people all over the world. The multi-national corporation is an economic piece of machinery that has escaped from social controls by the sheer size and diversity of its operations. Its philosophy is an egocentric, simple-minded accent on profitability, and, by definition, its influence on society is corruptive.

Let us not be blinded by the temporary affluence these giants radiate around themselves, keeping entire societies captive in their persuasive web of affluence and consumerism. The price societies, and we all, have to pay for their existence, is enormous, and, the results are disastrous. The time has come to put an end to their wasteful existence and their poisonous influence. Yet, at the same time, we should study them carefully, and, we should learn from the way they have achieved their power and influence. Perhaps, we can learn something about efficiency, as well as a continuous attention to the criteria of viability!

Economic inter-dependence between peoples and the attitudes of cooperation developed out of the principle that a particular skill I have, and you can use, should be exchanged for a particular skill you have, and I can use. Rather than each of us producing the whole range of goods and services we need to exist, you make a few more of the things you do best, and, you give them to me, in exchange for a few things I happen to be good at, and which I will give to you. Since it is far easier to make a large number of essentially similar items, than to produce one item of a large number of different things, specialisation in function and mutual inter-dependence are basic mechanisms of viability. Nature has discovered, as far back as the first evolutionary attempts at the organisation of life, that such a form of inter-dependence is the key to the acquisition of an enlarged range of possibilities of existence.

After we created our misguided laws of unlimited property rights, we introduced the possibilities for economic giants to exist. Once a company was successful, it became powerful because of its assets, and because it was powerful, it was able to succeed over its competitors and gather even more assets, until, in the end, free-enterprise between ordinary people was replaced with a precarious balance between a few economic dinosaurs, fixing prices and tolerating each other in a tacit contract of well-understood, mutual interests.

There is no effective control over these giants, except by the collective will of the consumer. Unfortunately, consumers constitute a formless and will-less mass of human existence, and, their instincts and passions are constantly played-upon by these gigantic dinosaurs via the television and other media, which are controled by the commercial interests for the specific purpose of keeping a large majority of the population in a euphoria of collective consumerism.

I wonder, how long it will take us to become aware of the real influence of these grotesque monsters and their channels of persuasion? I wonder, how long their existence is still secure, since they are bleeding to death the same social structures that gave them their birth-right and possibilities to exist. They are quickly destroying their own viability by sapping the strength of the societies they were born into.

In essence, then, excessive economic power is a form of corruption, since it funnels ever more power into an egocentric form of corporate existence, destroying the original harmony of inter-dependence upon which society has been based, and, it makes a mockery of the social contract of essential equality, which made equals out of diverging and unequally endowed members of society. In stead, most members become powerless appendages to these giants, selling their freedom and independence in a mindless exchange for the lure of ever increasing consumerist expectations.

We san not see any good coming out of such a trend. We can only see an impoverishment of human existence; the weakening of man, in particular, Western man, because Western man is increasingly seeking refuge in a mindless existence of gratification and indulgence. We can only see a cancer that has, literally, destroyed the minds of the people, and, which is now feeding on the last remnants of good-will and faith that are still present in the large and affluent, free-enterprise societies.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The potentials for social rejuvenation, short of revolutionary change.
The need to improve our level of understanding and insight.
The limits of tolerance, whenever there is an assault on sacred beliefs.
The limits of our "free" societies to tolerate serious dissent and criticisms.
The illusion of equal democratic powers.
The relationships between governments and big business.
The stench of corruption, and our adaptation to it.
Corruption is a problem for every society, and not only for those with a Capitalist system of free-enterprise.
The corrupt features of some forms of dissent.
The absence of tolerance in a vigorous and confident society.
The importance to understand our enemies, and the expectation that our enemies will understand us.
The pitfalls of communal smugness.

Perhaps, this all sounds very pessimistic, and, I agree, that it is difficult to predict, with any degree of certainty, what is going to happen to the free-enterprise, Capitalist systems. We may not have to witness a radical, revolutionary correction to a more equitable, socially conscious society, but, we will have to come to grips with the extra-ordinary powers of the large business concerns. We may not have to deny the usefulness of all property rights, but, we will have to learn to delineate, more carefully, where the boundaries lie between useful and harmful levels of private ownership.

We may not require revolutionary changes, but, we will have to evolve into a society with a philosophy that acknowledges, at last, the irreconcilable discrepancies between the need for a frugal way of life, (in order to sustain us in dignity, essential equality and long-term viability, all over the world), and the consumerist, spend-it-all attitudes that are propagated by the commercial interests of the Capitalist societies because of their need to gobble-up the spending powers of the public.

We, in our affluent societies, may consider ourselves to be the guardians of a Christian Heritage, and, we may think of ourselves as the protectors, if not the inventors of Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms, but, it is time to consider, how true these assumptions really are. Sure, we believe, unquestionably, that we have the freedom to criticise anything and everything we want, because these rights are guaranteed under the Constitution, and, in a practical reality, we encounter rarely difficulties, when we speak our mind. However, we do not realise that most of us adhere to the truly sacred opinions of our culture and society, and, in our criticisms, we rarely strike at the heart of what is held dear by most people.

On occasion, we become aware of the limitations that do exist, even, in our "free and democratic" free-enterprise societies, in particular, when we are confronted with a situation, where a town or small city is dominated by a single, large, commercial interest. The entire economy is then dependent upon this giant, and, any criticism of the enterprise will be muted. "One does not criticise or bite the hand that feeds", and, we may, then, become aware, how, e.g., the entire broad-casting industry consists of people who work for a living. They too, have to respect the sensitivities of those, who employ them, and, their employers have to respect the sensitivities of their audience, and, in particular, of their commercial sponsors.

This web of pressures and unspoken guidelines is so vast, so complex, and so all-pervasive, that, in our so-called "free democracies" there is no freedom to lash-out against the vested interests; against established ideas, prejudices and smug assumptions. There is no freedom to destroy the basis of security and self-esteem of those who are in power. This is all perfectly logical, because no society on earth will tolerate such practices, but, let us acknowledge this to be the case, and, let us stop making ourselves believe in freedoms that are not there.

Can we expect any individual, or community, to accept, with equanimity, a verbal attack that undermines the foundations of its existence? Can we really expect any organism to tolerate an attack on the essence of its livelyhood? Can we expect a leadership to tolerate an attack that subverts the beliefs and morals upon which the social structure of the community has been based? Do you think, that we, in the West, are more capable than other societies to answer, rationally and calmly, attacks, that are considered to be vicious, untrue, unwarranted and subversive in nature, inspired by hostile elements that are foreign to our society? Do you think, that we can answer such attacks with cool and reasoned counter-arguments, weighing, carefully, the possible merits of all the accusations hurled at us?

Sure, ideally, we should be able to do so, but, the ability to control our anger and anxiety requires careful training, especially, when we fail to see, how we can refute these accusations by verbal means, and, we have only recently begun to realise the importance of communicating with our adversaries, when trying to solve serious conflicts of interest.

Do you think, that, we, free, democratic, educated citizens of the privileged segments in Western societies, can remain calm, when we hear opinions that propagate, e.g., the virtues of a right-wing dictatorship or the call for a Communist take-over? Can we debate, rationally, attacks upon the Christian belief structures, or the virtues of free-enterprise, whenever we consider ourselves Christians and ardent supporters of the free-enterprise system? How easy is it to remain calm, if someone accuses us of lying and deceit, because such accusations seem to block, irrevocably, the lines of reasoned communications.

Most of us would react in anger and disbelief, if someone maintains, in all honesty, that the free-enterprise is an "evil" system, and, that the world of business is necessarily leading to disparities and social injustice. Would we not be angry and shocked, if we were told, that we live in an oppressive society, because we believe, sincerely, that we elect our representative leaders fairly and freely?

We do, but look at the pressures such representatives are subjected to; before and after they have been elected. They have to bow to the pressures from their political Party, as well as vocal segments of the electorate. Leaderships and governments are continuously pressured by a variety of influential groups to yield to their particular interests. Governments in the Capitalistic societies are, inevitably, linked to the large corporations, because the financial support for the ruling political Parties comes from the commercial interests in society.

Yet, the way commercial interests and a ruling political Party interact with each other, is nearly completely hidden from public view. We do not know, what is going-on, and, we suspect many corrupt practices. However, we can be sure, that the government's income depends, largely, on the Gross National Product of companies and wage-earners. Without their earnings, governments with their lavish expenditures and expensive political promises, would collapse. If a government is so dependent upon the existence and continuation of "big business", we can be sure, that the influence of big business on government is far greater than the influence of an individual voter or worker. We may still believe, that we all have an equal say in government, and, that the electorate alone determines the policies and the attitudes of governments in free-enterprise societies, but, we have to ask ourselves, how realistic such a view-point really is.

All governments are, in essence, in the hands of big business, unless they have learned to conduct business themselves, but, in the Capitalist societies, government-run business ventures have a poor track-record, and, we may safely say, that the performance of the government as a business manager is always inferior to that of a private company, primarily, because governments in free-enterprise societies do not have the machinery, nor the political will and the expertise, to manage a business efficiently.

In the free-enterprise societies, governments try to control and influence the large corporations with tax policies and incentive programs in order to generate the desired corporate behaviour. By juggling around tax-levies and the size of tax-concessions, subsidies or grants, governments try to conrol and steer the trends of economic development within their societies.

Nevertheless, the complexity of the really large corporations, the numerous loop-holes that are present in the complex tax laws, as well as the often contradictory regulations and guidelines issued by governments, together with the expertise money can buy in the form of clever tax experts, means, that there is a continuous tug-of-war going-on between the giant corporations and the governments of the societies in which they operate.

With the help of their legal and tax advisors, the large corporations outwit the technocrats of government far more often than vice versa. These full-time tax lawyers of big business scan all the possibilities of making use of tax incentives, concessions, grants and subsidies that are available, when employment has to be stimulated, and, at the same time, a clever system of administration hides many profits in obscure and complex accounting procedures.

We see, in essence, a war between the corporations and society. Highly paid experts are hired, by both sides, to conduct this war at the expense of the tax-payer and the consumer. But, few of us realise, that these attitudes of confrontation and exploitation are, in essence, a sign of corruption. They are a corruption of the ideas and ideals of social cohesion. They represent a form of corruption, that provides large monetary gains, or high salaries, for thousands of businesses and their experts.

In essence, the business community pays high salaries to people for the skill to legally avoid paying their dues to the community at large, and, yet, these enterprises still believe, that they are good corporate citizens, and, they expect the laws of society to protect them from envy, theft or fraud. It is so easy for them to forget, that they still need the public to buy their products, and, that they need the good-will of the social environment to protect their assets from those, who are losing-out in the struggle of Capitalist life.

You can not tell me, that this whole system of big business does not smell of corruption. The stench of corruption is so penetrating and so persistent, that, many generations have now been born and grown-up with this stench in their noses. These generations do not know any better, and, they think that this situation is "normal". A slowly decaying society always gives-off its odor of corruption, and, the warning signs of decay are present a long time before the collapse occurs, but these signs can not be read or appreciated by those, who have grown-up with these conditions. Only in a historic, retro-spective view, will a future generation be able to read these signs clearly, and, it will shake its head in amazement over the fact that these signs were not recognised.

Let me not give the impression, that the Capitalist system is the only one that suffers from corruption. We have outlined, before, the dangers of elitist and bureaucratic corruption that is likely to occur in the strictly regulated Socialist Societies. Corruption can there be just as rampant as in the free-enterprise societies, and, we all know, that the Socialist System also has to grapple with the baffling symptoms of public mistrust and alienation, while, ironically, the ideology of the Socialist State explicitly proclaims it to be a goverment from and for the working people.

However, let us come back to the assumption, that the right of free speech, a free press, and the free expression of dissenting opinions, are the hall-marks of Western democratic societies. If we accuse another society or social system of a lack of freedom of expression, we should be able to analyse, in detail, the common limitations of every social system, which are so apparent, when we look objectively at a society from the outside. We owe it to ourselves, as well as to the principles of genuine understanding and freedom of opinion, to examine, carefully, the attitudes and sentiments of a majority of the people, whenever a social system is struggling with the problem of dissent.

We may come to the conclusion, that a small group of dissidents has become disloyal to the ideals that govern their particular society. We may observe, that such dissidents are, primarily, concerned with the right to move to another country, and, we may see, that these dissidents have engaged the Western Press and Western public opinion in a campaign of agitation and pressure, which must anger the authorities of their own society, and, it is not surprising to see, that these dissidents are considered to be subversive elements.

The criticisms and activities of these dissidents are centered around an attitude of confrontation, and, they emphasise, primarily, their own egocentric concerns. We do not see them agitate for the well-being of their own society, because their loyalties have shifted, almost entirely, to the ethnic or religious grouping they have been born into. There is no effort by these dissidents to consider the justification of the laws, mores and guidelines of their own society, and, there seems to be little effort to explain the sentiments and actions of the loyal citizens around them.

If dissidents choose a tactic of confrontation by sweeping the Western Press and Western public opinion behind their rebellious attitudes, how can we expect their governments and citizens to do anything else but to take-up the challenge? If a society feels, quite strongly, that it has a highly valuable ideology, then, we should be able to understand, that, any attack upon the fundamental assumptions of such an ideology, will cause anxiety, anger and resistance.

Would a Christian community, or a Western democracy, react any differently? Does any group that believes in its ideals, react with a broad-minded understanding to attacks that denounce the fundamental truths it believes in? How calm and collected would Western public opinion be, if some of us would denounce the Christian heritage, the democratic freedoms, or the rights of property and free-enterprise? How well would a group of dissenters be viewed in our societies, if this group would appeal, continuously, to the public opinion and press of a Socialist Society? It would not be long, before these dissenters would be branded as enemies of society and persecution would surely follow.

We have discussed, before, how the activities of youthful exuberance are directed, primarily, to the actualisation of the possibilities of existence that are given by the circumstances of the environment and the resources of the individual. The need for mutual tolerance becomes only apparent, after a measure of security has been reached, and, after there has been time to reflect upon the early signs of senescence and decay. As a society, we go through similar phases of vigor, growth, maturity and decline, just like any other living organism, and, it takes a measure of security as well as mature insight, to come to the conclusion, that the needs of individuals and societies are very similar indeed, regardless of differences in individual endowment or systems of social organisation.

Why should we not make a serious attempt to understand the philosophy and objective of the Marxist State, in spite of their many difficulties and disadvantages? Let us study their ideology and organisation carefully. Let us examine, how their ideas were born out of the excesses of Capitalism and the exploitation of the weakest members. Let us also acknowledge the problems every ideology faces, when it clings to an absolute truth and the right to impose its beliefs upon a majority of people, and, let us reflect, once again, upon the remarkable similarities between the medieval Christian reality perceptions with their emphasis on an absolute and divinely revealed Truth, and, the attitudes of absolute righteousness that still colour the doctrines of Communism.

Let us examine, carefully, the effects of ideological and religious indoctrination. We will see the strengths and weaknesses of such techniques, just as we can see the strengths and weaknesses of a system, where we leave the beliefs about social structuring and religious realities in the realm of individual judgement.

We may be justifiably pleased with certain achievements of our society or culture, but, let us not be blind for the problems. Let us try to understand our adversaries, and, if we are able to see some reason and reasonableness in the behaviour of our adversaries, we have a good reason to believe, that a reciprocal understanding will take place, and, that our adversaries will make a genuine effort to understand us.

In a way, the clever play upon public sentiments and the Western press by a small group of dissenters, is a form of corruption, where feelings of hostility and self-righteous smugness are fanned in order to serve the specific interests of a few people. Let us not forget, that the protests of these dissenters are not shared by an overwhelming majority of the peoples of their own society; at least, not at the present time.

Certainly, in a Marxist State, a particular social ideology is forced upon the people by a small Party-elite, and, there are no mechanisms to choose from a wider political spectrum of political candidates for high public office. There is always the possibility, that, eventually, a large majority of the people will be alienated from the ruling Party. The absence of the ability to be voted out of office, may, eventually, lead to violent confrontations, but, we should not consider such a course of events to be inevitable, just as the Marxist believers should not consider a violent collapse of the Capitalist societies to be a "historic necessity".

While attitudes of smugness and self-righteousness are fairly easily recognised and condemned in an individual, these same attitudes, expressed as a communal synchrony, are often considered to be "civil virtues", and, they are taken as evidence for an attitude of patriotic fervor. Let us be aware of these pitfalls of communal smugness, and, we may, then, be able to build a more durable structure of mutual understanding and tolerance for those, who are our ideological and military rivals, and, who may well become serious economic competitors as well.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The relationships between corruption and confrontation.
A definition of propaganda.
The differences between useful and harmful forms of dissent.
A question of basic loyalties.
Confidence and skill; the foundations for tolerating dissenting opinions.
The drive for local autonomy; ways to avoid a damaging conflict with the overall society.
The ever-present balance between local and overall social interests.
The ability to disarm foolish dissent with ridicule and pointed counter-arguments.
Corruption and increasing disparities.
A definition of ownership.
Society grants the basic rights of existence and privileges of conduct to every enterprise.
Society is increasingly responsible for the short-comings and harmful effects of economic activities.
The undesirable effects of unlimited property rights.
The need for major political and philosophical changes in societies all over the world.
A fresh start in designing a viable social system.
A definition of property rights in accordance with human rights and psychological needs.
Pressure-groupings within society.
The processes of social decay.
The inability to predict, precisely, impending social events.

We should explore, to some extent, the relationships between corruption and confrontation. It seems reasonable to say, that confrontation is a situation, where adversaries match their strength and objectives against each other openly, while, in corruption, we see the abuse of a public function, which is supposed to be a channel of impartial benefit for all. The conflict between a dissenting group and society is a confrontation, while the manipulation of attitudes and opinions, as well as the presentation of biased information through the public media, represent a form of corruption, because these mechanisms are supposed to be impartial in the conveyance of information. I believe, that it is correct to consider all propaganda as a form of corruption, because propaganda of any sort, be it commercial or political, has a tendency to interfere with the attitudes of rational insight and reasoned compromise. These attitudes of rational insight and reasoned compromise are socially constructive, and anything that interferes with these socially constructive attitudes is, therefore, corrupt in nature.

When is dissent tolerable, or, even, a useful and cleansing function for society, and, when does dissent become a divisive, or, even, subversive threat? Ideally, a community should be able to tolerate verbal dissent without any problems, since it is reasonable to expect, that a viable, skilled and honest form of government, or cultural code, will be able to listen to, and cope with, all sorts of opinions. Any opinion that is considered by a majority of the people and its leadership to be erroneous or misleading, should be counter-acted by verbal force only. It should not be difficult for the Scholars of the State to point-out, precisely and convincingly, where a specific argument or opinion goes wrong.

A verbal or ideological criticism is, therefore, counter-acted, only, by verbal or ideological means. However, no country or society has, at the present time, a sufficient awareness and skill to be able to tolerate and refute all intellectual challenges. Just because some ideas, opinions and symbols are considered to be "sacred", these unquestioned truths are rarely scrutinised in depth, and, agreement is based, primarily, on subconscious, intuitive or emotional mechanisms that are not easily supported or defended by logic or reason. There are, then, insufficient intellectual and conceptual means to expose the attack as fallaceous, and, as a result, the counter-attack becomes emotional, and, often, violent. We should not accuse another society of reacting emotionally to a perceived or real threat, if we, ourselves, are likely to react in a similar manner.

In our free-enterprise societies, we experience a measure of freedom and tolerance of dissenting opinons, which is not as broad-minded as we think, because we will tolerate dissent, only, as long as these opinions do not attack or destroy our most cherished and subconscious convictions, or the mechanisms of social stability. We are always tempted to call a dissenting opinion "undemocratic", or, a threat to democracy, if we feel, emotionally and intellectually, incapable of responding to such a criticism with verbal means.

Similarly, the common aspiration of a group of people to have a greater say in their own affairs, (the age-old drive for local autonomy), may be perceived as a threat to the nation as a whole, and, such an aspiration may, therefore, be rejected, emotionally and angrily, by the rest of society. If, however, the efforts and aspirations of a local community take into account the overall concerns and interests of the larger society, and, if local pride and self-esteem have the foresight to understand the reactions of the peoples in other parts of society, the efforts to obtain a greater degree of self-rule, may not have to be interpreted as a threat to national unity, and, these efforts may, even, arouse sympathy, in particular, if people recognise some legitimacy in the request for a greater degree of self-determination. Such a desire for more autonomy can frequently be satisfied with an increased level of representation in the overall leadership of the larger society.

A fine balance exists, therefore, between a fair degree of representation by local, ethnic and special-interest groupings in the overall leadership of society, and, the tendency of localo-centric attitudes to become egocentric and disrespectful of the interests of other communities within society. This balance shifts continuously and has to be studied without interruption, if we want to avoid the pitfalls of self-righteous confrontations, conflicts of interests, and other manifestations of turmoil between the various ethnic or special-interest groupings within a complex society.

A dissenting group, claiming rights under the laws and Constitution of a society, should proclaim its essential loyalty to this society and its Constitution, otherwise, the dissenting group will only be seen as a parasite, attempting to destroy the Constitution or the foundations of the larger society, while making use of its tools and privileges in the process. In particular, if outside forces are engaged by the dissenting groups, the rest of society will react strongly, and the dissenters will be considered treacherous and corrupt, because they have betrayed their loyalty to society.

In a self-confident and open society, where levels of injustice, anxiety and corruption are low, it should be possible to expose the corruptness of such dissenters by verbal attacks, and, every dissenting group could, then, be ridiculed into silence, and, their errors could be exposed, skillfully and persistently. The sting of such a dissent would then be quickly blunted and neutralised by verbal rebuttals, and, there should not be any need for a physical suppression of the dissenters and their opinions.

Can we not laugh into silence any person, who is obviously wrong or corrupt in his or her opinions and attitudes? As long as the dissenting activity remains verbal and the individual only talks nonsense, a well-directed verbal counter-attack will shame the individual into silence and will make him or her lose, whatever following there may be. As soon as such an individual turns to subversive acts by trying, secretly or openly, to destroy the community or its institutions, then, it may be necessary to restrict some of the basic rights of social membership, because, then, the border with criminal activities has been crossed.

What constitutes a crime against society or an individual, will always be the subject of close study and careful judgement, but, the more confident we are about the fairness and justice of our society, the less emotionally we will react to dissenting opinions. The more we understand the mechanisms of human behaviour that are common to us all, the more we will be able to fathom the reasons and motivations of dissent, and, we will become less angry or anxious in our responses.

In an all-out confrontation, we are dealing with forces that are explicitly attempting to destroy or harm us personally, or, certain institutions of our society. We owe it to ourselves to understand, why some people come to the conclusion, that a part or, perhaps, even, the whole of society is corrupt, rotten to the core and worthy of an all-out attack. Perhaps, we will discover, that there are good emotional reasons or justifications for such rebellious attitudes, and, we may be able to correct pockets of injustice and discrimination, which we failed to recognise and deal with before.

In essence, corruption is the natural tendency of all socially oriented behaviour to revert back to an egocentric orientation, whenever it has been severely disappointed in its expectations arising from a state of social integration. This trend is facilitated, if the mechanisms of mutual trust and inter-dependence, (the foundation of social integration), have been soured by mistrust and deceit.

In the relationships between various groupings, and, in particular, between special-interest groups and public institutions, we find the least recognised forms of corruption. Let us look, again, at the relationships of a large business concern with the society in which it exists, and, we see, that the primary objective of every economic enterprise is to make a profit. Through a variety of "economic activities", be it the manufacture and selling of goods or the provision of various services, capital assets of a successful economic enterprise accumulate into the hands of its owners or shareholders. Success leads to an existential advantage, not only, for the economic enterprise as it grows and becomes a formidable competitor, but also, for the people who own the enterprise.

There is always an increased influence upon society, whenever economic power or wealth accumulates into the hands of a small, enterprising elite. The disparity between owners and workers is increasing, and, as the business-class becomes more powerful and independent, the workers become weaker and more enslaved to the new aristocracy of wealth and power.

"What is wrong with this?", you may ask, if you have been steeped in the virtues of free-enterprise. Apart from the inevitable increase in disparities, with all the problems such a development creates, we can point to the fact, that the resources "consumed" by such enterprises are, in essence "public property", or, at least, they should be considered to be public property, because the natural wealth of the earth belongs to all people and not just to those, who have been able to lay a claim of ownership; be it by the power of money or arms.

Besides, the products manufactured by a business have to be bought by the public, and, all enterprises are, therefore, dependent upon the willingness, and ability, of the working people to buy their products. Society grants, therefore, a number of rights and privileges to business concerns. First, there is the right to acquire and process natural resources, often, at a virtually unlimited scale, and, secondly, the right to persuade the public to buy their products with advertisements and other forms of enticement. These rights, or privileges, have a profound effect upon society, its resources, as well as the life-style of its members.

All economic transactions, together with the attitudes they generate, are, therefore, matters that affect us all, and, these transactions should be open to public scrutiny and decision-making. A free-enterprise philosophy that advocates the privilege of total freedom for a business to behave the way it wants, is erroneous and dangerous, because such a philosophy will, quickly, destroy the last vestiges of social cohesion. It would be the same as giving one adventurous and enterprising youngster in the family the right to handle and transact all the family assets, and see this child react in anger, if a demand is made to share some of the accumulated wealth, or, if the youngster is made to account for the transactions and decisions that have been made. We do not even consider, here, the enormous problems of pollution and resource scarcities resulting from unbridled economic activities. We know, now, that these problems become always a burden and expense for the society at large.

Yes, you will argue, but, look at the benefits for the people around such a business venture. See, how their standard of living increases; how much work is being created, and, how much money people can earn. Certainly, the benefits of a business should be shared with the workers, because that is the least a society may expect from a business in return for the privileges given to it, but, this is not sufficient. The time has come to consider, that it is right, and necessary, for the entire society to share in the benefits, as well as the responsibilities that flow from large economic enterprises or projects.

The business community has rarely a clear awareness of the fact, that these privileges were given to it by society, and, that enterepreneurs were allowed to conduct their free-enterprise within a framework of social laws and moral objectives. No, it has always been seen as a God-given right for the individual to exploit the earth and its natural resources, including the human resource; all for the sake of profit, the well-being of the elite, and the glory of the fatherland, because the elite would always consider itself as the true heirs of their culture and as the confidants of their God.

We have discussed, before, how the laws of property rights contribute to a divergence of the social classes, and, how these laws are responsible for a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. A blank and unlimited right to acquire property and wealth blocks the natural flow of existence possibilities for the members of a social organisation. In nature, power is held, only, as long as the individual is capable of defending a position of power against a challenger. Property rights, and, in particular, laws that sanction the right to heirship, completely disregard the fact, that a successful business is rooted in the privileges and protection given to it by society; nor do these business entrepreneurs pay any attention to the basic social contract of essential equality, which lies at the root of all social cohesion, regardless of the degree to which this contract has been explicitly stated. Besides, society is now already the main source of efforts to clean-up pollution, and, we should consider the business-venture as a "society-given" privilege of activities that are supposed to benefit the society as a whole, and not just a small elite.

An attitude that encourages the use of social privileges and the laws of society to grow fat and take-in profits, is, in essence, an attitude of corruption, since it is a form of parasitism, destroying society while feeding upon it. The entire thrust of the free-enterprise idea is, basically corrupt, unless it is a carefully crafted attempt to allow egocentric attitudes and activities for the benefit of society. Yet, even this attempt to bend egocentric activities into a dubious communal benefit is somewhat corrupt, because the human being is, then, encouraged to be egocentric, while the results of his efforts are siphoned-off for the benefit of society, or, more likely, for the benefit of the leadership of society. Such an attempt to equalise the benefits of enterprise can never work well, because it is founded, in essence, upon a deception.

As we have outlined many times before, the evolutionary origins of task-differentiation and economic activities lead to the development of mutual interdependencies and attitudes of trust. If these benefits become distributed too unevenly, or, if the power relationships between employer and employee become too unequal, we see, that the relationships between the members of society become disturbed.

The collective ownership of land, natural resources and all large-scale economic enterprises, is the only viable way to create a durable society, and, even so, the tasks for society and its leadership are gigantic, because the problems of developing the necessary insight and expertise to guide economic activities efficiently, are enormous, and, it is not easy to match in a socially responsible manner, the lean efficiency of the small business elite, which has only the narrow concern of profit to contend with.

It is certainly tempting for a leadership to give the enterprising individuals a free hand and let them explore the economic possibilities of social and natural environments, while making use of their egocentric motivations to work hard. A government or leadership tries, then, with fiscal policies, to siphon-off some of the wealth these industrious people produce, while they are gathering assets like busy bees gathering honey. However, philosophically, such an approach is patch-work. It is a lazy, unsound and superficial approach to the problems of the large society. We see, clearly, the failures of unbridled free-enterprise, as well as the failures of incompetent central planning, and, this means, that we can not simply choose for or against one existing model or another.

Not many people realise, as yet, how close we are to radical changes in philosophical and political outlook, because major changes will have to take place in both social systems, regardless of the fact, whether they are grappling with a failing free-enterprise system or an inefficient system of central planning. We have to re-think the mechanisms of individual and social existence from the ground-up, and, based on our evolutionary insights, we should be able to combine the useful aspects of many different social systems, while avoiding most of the difficulties and pitfalls each system suffers from.

We do not want to give the impression, that all property rights should be abolished. Property rights originated as a protection against arbitrary confiscation on the basis of brute strength. We see the right to property as part of a whole constellation of rights each human being is entitled to by virtue of having been born into the society of mankind. These rights include, not only, the right to a basic and psychologically necessary property in order to function adequately as a human being, but also the right to achieve a level of social and economic differentiation on the basis of personal merit. In addition, these rights should also guarantee rights of freedom of movement, free time, a certain level of consumption or affluence, the right to health-care and education, the right to comprehensive information, as well as the right to freedom of opinion and inquiry.

As a corollary, there should be the obligation to abstain from secrecy, the obligation to become an aware, contributing member of society; each individual according to his or her capabilities and ambitions, as well as in accordance with the phase of one's life-cycle. We have outlined these ideas before, and, we only summarise them, here, for those who may not be familiar with them.

We have made an effort to concentrate our discussion around the theme of corruption, and, we will continue this line of thought by examining other relationships within society. Let us direct our attention to the phenomenon of "pressure groups", or lobbies. These are well-organised groupings that have come into being for the specific purpose of pushing through their particular demands. There are unions of all sorts, primarily, organised along the lines of occupation or professional skills, but, there are other groupings that have bonded together, because they share a particular egocentric concern. These range from "consumer" organisations, to racial or ethnic and religious groupings, which find their reasons for existence in pushing their particular demands and interests.

Any pressure-group has, by definition, an egocentric orientation, even, if the communal synchrony of emotions and attitudes seems to lend a certain degree of respectability to such egocentric goals. It means, that such a group is forcing society, in one way or another, to give-in to these demands. In the past, there were legitimate and understandable reasons for the rise of labour unions, and, we have discussed, on previous occasions, how a marked inequality in bargaining powers between a large industrial corporation and an employee made the practice of collective bargaining a necessity. However, at the present time, we see an atmosphere of chronic confrontation between the business community and the workers, and this "adversary attitude" has spread to all segments of society, including those employed by government and its institutions.

We have seen, how, at least, temporarily, a continuously expanding economy made a steadily rising standard of living possible, and, this economic expansion was able to absorb the ever-rising expectations of the people. Fueled by an uninterrupted stream of advertising propaganda, these expectations could be satisfied, until recently, as long as it remained possible to accelerate the economy at ever faster rates. Recently, we have become aware of essential limitations for the expansion of economic activities. These include limited terrestial resources, such as fossil fuels and petro-chemicals, and, we have become aware of the limited capabilities of our natural environment to absorb the enormous quantities of industrial waste. In addition, we are experiencing the limitations of rising burdens of debt, as well as the disruptive effects of chronic dissatisfaction and disillusionment. These factors are bringing the rate of economic expansion to a halt, or reverse it into a period of decline.

The ever increasing disparities in living conditions between the rich and the poor, be it between national entitities or the rich and poor segments within nations, have led to the awareness, that the direction of economic development in most free-enterprise countries, is fundamentally wrong. The "adversary" attitudes between the rich and the poor, or the employer and his employees, are essentially anti-social in nature, and, we have to appreciate the fact, that such attitudes are not compatible with the requirements of a finely tuned and highly capable, complex society.

If we consider our employer merely as an enemy who is undeservedly rich, we have no hesitation to demand an unreasonabe high wage and to cripple him with an "industrial or strike action", whenever we are in a position to do so. Whenever we are dealing with an adversay, we have no scruples to steal from him, either goods or time, or, by performing poor quality work. We do not realise, that such an attitude will jeopardise, not only, the viability and reputation of the company we work for, but, in the final analysis, the consumer has to pay for these practices and attitudes, and, if the consumer resists buying the products of the company we work for, we are quickly endangering the viability of our jobs.

As an employer, we tend to see only the narrow goals of profit and the possibilities to exploit a variety of resources, such as the natural environment, the work-force, or the consumer. Exploitation, which is the clever use of possibilities to extract a profit, is the sole motivation for our behaviour as an entrepreneur, and, we have already emphasised the reasons, why such an attitude is essentially corrupt and socially destructive.

The absence of effective collective ownership and shared responsibilities, coupled with a poor sense of identification of the worker or the average citizen with his complex society, means, that the ordinary citizen in our affluent societies is, almost exclusively, concerned with exploiting possibilities for personal gain, while, at the same time, fully expecting that all the basic privileges and rights, given to the individual as a birth-right by society, will remain intact and honoured.

Our short-sighted and lop-sided emphasis on rights, without asking how these rights have to be implemented or guaranteed, who will pay for them, who will ensure that they will continue to be available, is the main reason for our distorted view of social realities. We all demand our rights, our pay, our increases, our pensions and benefits that have to be larger, every year, but, we only vaguely realise, that, someone, somehow, will have to pay for it all, and, we certainly do not want to acknowledge, that we have already shifted the main burden for our demands to future generations.

We all are corrupt, because we think, that it is perfectlly justified to use all the means we can find to increase our personal affluence or the well-being of the group we belong to, and, we hold the larger society to ransom in any way we can. We do not identify, anymore, with our society as a whole. We hardly realise, that, we, together, are the society, and, that we have to support it, if we want to continue profiting from it.

We shirk our responsibility in any way we can. We avoid our taxes as much as possible. We contribute as little as we can to our work and our employer, and, we strike, disrupt, or, even, harm anybody or any group that happens to stand in the way of our egocentric objectives. Often, we harm, even, complete outsiders; citizens, who depend on one social function or another; a function we happen to control, and, we do not hesitate to callously withdraw this service in order to pressure the authorities or the employer into giving us what we want.

I can not visualise a clearer example of a situation that can not last. I do not see a clearer mechanism of corruption and decay, tearing, dangerously, at the remnants of social cohesion. Because we are all obsessed with these same attitudes and blinded by our egocentric orientation, we will not see any warning signs, and, we will still be "living it up", laughing and drinking, as the chaotic vestiges of our society start collapsing all around us.

I have no illusion, that people will be able to recognise the validity of my view-point, and, I know, that they will laugh or joke-away such disturbing thoughts. We do not want to know, or, even, think about these problems, because we have no solutions or alternatives. Even, if we could acknowledge the diagnosis, we have no idea how to change course, and, the massive momentum of rising expectations, economic demands and corrupt social practices, will continue, until there is nothing left of society. The collapse will be swift and complete.

It depresses me to keep repeating such gloomy images about the likely course of events for the affluent societies, and, I have to remind myself about the fact, that, very rarely, trends perceived at a certain time will follow their projected course without unexpected changes. I hope to keep reminding myself, that it is dangerous and erroneous to predict the imminent demise of the Capitalist societies, because I just do not know, how people will think and react over the next few decades, and, to what extent they will have become aware of the problems that threaten them.

Situations can change so swiftly. Disasters, either natural or man-made, can alter the mood and outlook of people almost overnight. The willingness of people to listen to sensible advise, may have been sharply underestimated. We should acknowledge the likelyhood, that, continuous propaganda and advertisement has created such a strong atmosphere of disbelief that the ideas of a frugal existence and a global harmony in essential equality, may find a surprisingly fertile soil to grow in.

We may, indeed, see an exchange of ideas all over the world. There may be a rapid increase in inter-cultural contacts and a quickly growing realisation of the essential similarities between all peoples, including those we fear or despise. Therefore, I am not predicting, that the affluent Western societies will soon go-down in a dramatic and colossal collapse, but, if they survive and find a new lease on life, it will be the result of a dramatic change in our collective outlook.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Corrupt leadership and their equally corrupt institutions.
The subtle corruption of politicians and other leaders.
The problem, that the electorate often does not know what it wants.
"Bolstering confidence", by openness and honesty.
Competence and openness; an unbeatable combination of sound leadership.
Conditions for social well-being.
The responsibility of the leadership to educate its electorate.
The effects of poor leadership.
A plea for social transparence.
When relationships turn sour within a social environment.
The wider implications of corruption.
International considerations, and the need to be concerned for future generations.
Corrupt attitudes and opinions in relation to the unborn child.
How corrupt we are!

Let us now consider the corrupt practices a leadership and the governing institutions of society may engage in. We are not primarily concerned, here, with the more obvious forms of fraud and gross abuse, which occur, when the facilities of a government and its institutions are used to maintain a leadership in power by brute force. We will focus our attention upon the subtler forms of corruption that may shine through in attitudes, policies, communications, as well as those minor forms of deception that are used to influence the mood and opinion in society for the benefit of the leadership.

Is any attempt to govern with an eye on re-election, rather than the needs of society, not a form of corruption? Such an attitude may not always clash with the best interests of society, but, it easily does, if tough and unpopular decisions are necessary for the good of society as a whole. The electorate is, often, not informed enough to scrutinise, closely, the motivations and decisions of their political leadership. Leaders are, therefore, given a large amount of trust, and, they are expected to behave in a way that is best for society, and, they are expected to take unpopular decisions, if necessary.

Besides, people have rarely a clear-cut idea, what they want their leaders to do for them, and, the need for leaders to "lead" and inspire a population to attitudes and actions that are beneficial to the community as a whole, can easily lead to a subtle form of deceit, if a leadership is tempted to manipulate the electorate for its own purposes.

Here again, we see the need arise for clear Constitutional Guidelines to spell-out the collective insights and decisions of the people. A Constitution will guide the people and their leadership, not only, in their long-term objectives, but also, in the management of daily affairs. Constitutional Guidelines are essential for the proper education of the people and their leaders. Only then, can they work together, and, only then, can the leadership bring society through contemporary problems, with an eye on long-term goals of viability, as well as a good quality of life for everyone. Therefore, any form of deception, any deliberate or inadvertent slanting of information to hide areas of short-comings, failures or embarrassment, is corrupt, because it deceives the society for the purpose of personal gain, nl., to shield those responsible for failures and short-comings.

Under such a stringent definition of corruption, we see, that, no government or leadership is completely free from corrupt practices, since no government or leadership will be able to admit, fully and objectively, all its short-comings. Many people in a position of leadershp will argue, that it is necessary to "bolster confidence", and, that they have, therefore, a duty to "inspire", rather than tell an objective and somewhat painful truth. This is nonsense, because people will sense, quickly, the empty rethoric behind attempts to bolster confidence while hiding essential information. There is no better way to build confidence than by showing the people, that their leadership is honest and truthful, and, that it is not afraid to admit to mistakes, while maintaining the ability to put short-comings and failures into a reasoned perspective.

Once the people have been deceived and an atmosphere of suspicion has developed, it is almost impossible for a leadership to overcome this atmosphere of mistrust. The leadership should step-down in order to give others a chance to do a better and more honest job. A leadership has to be scrupulously honest and competent, in order to be able to give a truthful picture of a problematic situation, but, it also needs a competent machinery of information-gathering and executive channels to make sure, that it is informed, and, that its decisions are carried-out as intended and are leading to the desired results.

A body of well-integrated and categorised information will make it possible to dispel, quickly and effectively, erroneous conclusions or unwarranted suspicions, and, there is no greater tool to bolster confidence, than to give the people a truthful and balanced review of the facts, as well as a richly deserved impression, that they are honestly informed and competently led.

Any form of deception or secrecy is, therefore, corrupt and counter-productive, because it leads to a cancer of suspicion and mistrust; not only, between the people and their leaders, but also, between the people themselves. The relationships between individual people and groupings sour quickly, if incompetence and secrecy conspire to defeat the attitudes of openness and trust. Unless we learn to see, that each and every form of deception is, in essence, corrupt, (in spite of short-term gains), we will perpetuate all the social ills that are so obvious in our affluent societies of today. Unless we know, that the information given to us by our leaders, and the public media, is honest, complete and well-balanced, we will never stop mistrusting our fellow citizens.

You would like to argue, here, that most people want to be deceived; at least, they want to be told what they like to hear. You believe, that most people are incapable of appreciating or analysing a balanced presentation of an argument. Very true, if a majority of the population is uneducated and has not been taught the skills of a balanced evaluation, societies will remain in the present doldrums of chronic deception and corruption. Once again, we come to the conclusion, that an elected leadership can only be as competent as the majority is able to understand and appreciate, and, it is, therefore, an on-going task of responsible and concerned leadership to educate its electorate and upgrade the quality of reality perceptions in their societies.

People have to learn, in a well-balanced and extensive educational curriculum, the many techniques and skills necessary to cope with the complexities of modern existence, and, the skillful evaluation of an honest and balanced presentation of facts is one of these essential techniques for collective survival.

If a leadership fails to appreciate this responsibility, or, if it fails to act accordingly, it is corrupt and ignorant, and, its viability will be limited. If a leadership decides to make use of the emotional demands and needs of the masses in a cynical bid to profit from such ignorance, the leadership is callous and corrupt. A leadership that tries to keep the attention of the people deliberately focussed on a common target of hatred, or, on an attitude of self-indulgent consumerism and introvert gratifications, abuses the human potential and perverts the meaning of society.

Ordinary people will suffer as a result of such poor and unworthy leadership attitudes, and, civil strife or outright warfare, will, once again, be the outcome. As always, the short-sighted policies of an immediate and egocentrically oriented gain, lead, in one way or another, to conflict, strife and disillusionment, because these attitudes are corrupt, and, they have to be recognised as corrupt, before we can correct them.

Often, a leadership is not fully aware of the degree of deception it practices. The people, who reach the top of a leadership structure in their social environment, are very much influenced by the prevailing attitudes, prejudices and cultural guidelines of the social environment, and, the attitudes of the leadership are, therefore, a reflection of the cultural perceptions and established practices of their own times. Often, personal experience shows the leaders, how they can manipulate public opinion even more "expertly", and, the subconscious, culturally determined level of corruption is, then, augmented with a layer of deliberate deceit.

Let us look at the other side of the argument as well. We have emphasised the obligation of the leadership and its institutions to be completely open and honest, and, to disclose, fully, all the information that may concern the citizens of their society. If the citizen has the right of free access to complete and well-balanced information, he has, by definition, the obligation to provide all particulars about his own existence, e.g., assets, activities, income, etc. After all, his existence and the existence and activities of every member are part of a huge human inventory, and, this is information all citizens, including the leadership, should have access to.

We visualise, eventually, a completely transparent society, where the opennness of all governmental transactions and other social events is matched by a complete openness of the activities of every individual in society. We have asked the question before; why should we abhor the idea to give-up our privacy, if we have nothing to hide? Why should other people not be allowed to know all the particular data about my existence, including my activities, financial income and status, possessions, even, my ideas and opinions? How else can we create or maintain an atmosphere of mutual trust?

I can only trust, if I have good reasons to trust, and, I can not trust someone, who is unknown to me; who is secretive, hidden, furtive and indirect in his actions and attitudes. Yes, we will all live in glass houses, and, if we think about it, clearly, we can not find one, single objection to it, without, in essence, acknowledgeing, that we have something to hide; that we are corrupt, in one way or another.

You will find, that, anyone, who is seriously and strenuously opposed to these ideas of total transparence, is full of mistrust, and is completely egocentrically oriented. Such an individual has given little thought to the needs of social cohesion as a foundation for future viability. If we analyse the situation, carefully, we will come to the conclusion, that, any form of secrecy, be it by the individual citizen or the leadership and its institutions of government, forms a barrier to trust and social cohesion, and, secrecy is, therefore, a factor of fragmentation and decay; ergo, it is corrupting.

We should focus, once more, our attention upon the relationships between the members of society in order to scan the entire range of corrupt attitudes and behaviour. Any form of deception, abuse of confidence and trust, the breech of contracts and agreements, the intimidation of people, the abuse of power; in short, all egocentric actions that hurt other people or exploit them, have to be classified as corrupt, since these attitudes and actions contribute to a rising feeling of antagonism, hostility and resentment, and are disruptive to the cohesion of society.

In such a sweeping view, few of our inter-actions are completely free from a tinge of corruption, and, indeed, this is the case. People are often forced to remain within a social environment, in spite of the fact, that the relationships are unsatisfactory, depressing or abrasive. Resentment and hatred are the result of pent-up frustrations and suppressed feelings of hostility, and, this explains the violent explosions that occur, after a critical level of tolerance has been reached. The factors binding people to their position in society have then been overwhelmed by the dispersive forces of resentment and hatred. Again, we have to classify such a development as a form of corruption because of its fragmenting results.

Corruption can, therefore, be defined, broadly, as any action or attitude that leads to harm or an unjust disadvantage for other members of society. The harmful effects may be limited to the immediate environment of an act of corruption, but the effects may also be more subtle and widespread, e.g., by inefficiency, poor workmanship, wasteful or irresponsible attitudes, an unnecessary increase in the public debt, etc.

Yet, we should see the effects of corruption in an even wider context. We should be able to see, that nationalistic sentiments and attitudes may harm neighbouring societies or the world community at large. It should not be difficult to realise, that a life of luxurious consumption by some, is mirrored by the want and poverty of others, and disparity in living conditions is the inevitable result of a violation of the contract of essential equality. Corruption includes, also, attitudes and practices that place an unnecessary burden on our environment and future generations. The degree of pollution caused by our life-style and the rapid rate of exhaustion of natural resources, are corrupt attitudes and practices, because they violate the contract of essential equality between contemporary and future generations.

In a final broadening of the concept of corruption, we should pay attention to the effects of our present life-style and behaviour upon the future generations of mankind. Perhaps, the most serious and least recognised forms of corruption prevail in the low level of concern and awareness for the conditions of existence, future generations will have to cope with. In our short-sighted efforts to increase, continuously, our level of consumption, we pay little attention to the long-term effects of resource depletion and environmental pollution. If present trends continue, even a few generations from now, human life will consist of a continuous struggle against highly toxic waste-products, and, it will require a frantic effort by contemporary generations to maintain viability.

We have to reflect upon the future of these unborn generations, but our thinking is so muddled and egocentric at the present time, at least, in the affluent societies, that certain influential groups advocate, in all seriousness, the right to determine, arbitrarily, the life or death of an unborn child. In a perverted interpretation of property rights and personal freedoms, some militant women groups advocate that the child growing in their womb is their absolute property, and, that they can dispose of this life any way they see fit. If there was ever a corrupt and perverted attitude, we see it here, because such an attitude denies, not only, the existence of the instincts of maternal care and concern, but, it shows, clearly, how disastrous the influence is of erroneous concepts and ideas arising from a decaying cultural code.

Here, we touch upon another aspect where our attitudes and actions have become corrupted by egocentricity and a lack of concern. We have failed to realise the important role of the cultural code in shaping viable behaviour-patterns for the young and adolescent members of society, and, we are not aware of, nor concerned with, the need for a determined and structured effort to educate the younger generations in a way that gives meaning to their existence. All that is left of our Western cultural education, is a haphazard, poor quality system, where some of the basic cultural skills are taught in a short-sighted effort to equip our youngsters for an egocentric struggle to survive in society. We have lost all insight about the need for social cohesion, and, this form of corruption, (partly due to ignorance, partly due to a lack of concern), is one of the most important contributing factors to the low level of viablity that seems to be present in the affluent societies of today.

We are corrupt in our dealings with each other, with our community, as well as with the society at large, and, we are corrupt in groups, bonding together in elitist cliques of hungry pressure-groups or lobbies. We are corrupt and egocentric as societies and nations in our dealings on an international scale, and, we are corrupting our possibilities of existence, especially, for the future generations, by depleting our resources rashly, and by contributing, ever more rapidly, to devastating levels of pollution and environmental toxicity.

We are corrupt in our attitudes towards the future generations of mankind, to an extent that has never occurred before. Not only, are we rapidly destroying the ecological niche upon which human existence depends, but, we are neglecting to transmit a viable cultural heritage, leaving the younger generations confused and bewildered, and, probably, quite soon, angry and rebellious. We are corrupt in our attitudes towards the unborn generations, resenting their intrusion into our consumerist way of life. We do not even agree, that they are human beings in an early state of development, and, we think that we may kill them in the sterile sanctity of an operating room.

We are through and through corrupt as individuals and as a community; as a society, and, as a member of an affluent elite. We are ignorant to an astonishing degree, without, of course, the insight that we are ignorant. We kill off our unborn young, but we would be extremely upset and incredulous, if our youngsters would decide to eliminate us as superfluous, dangerous polluters and destroyers.

Is it really justified, you will ask, to see things in such a gloomy perspective? Is it realistic to broaden the definition of corruption to such an extent, that all egocentric orientation acquires a tinge of corruption? Is it realistic to call the egocentric orientation of the living organism corrupt, since, after all, the egocentric orientation of all actions and attitudes, including those of the human being, reflect primary, biological instincts; the first prerequisite for survival?

True, we should not forget, that, long before nature experimented with the increased possibilities of existence arising from social integration, each individual organism inherited a long-standing and carefully sharpened instinct of self-preservation. The behaviour-patterns that are necessary to make social cohesion a viable way of life, are a rather late evolutionary experiment, and, we have outlined the contradictory drives that became accentuated or selected by natural evolutionary mechanisms during the processes of secondary social integration.

Aggression and dominance, yes, but only, towards the alien, the enemy, the "other society", but, care and protection for those, who have shown their allegiance to the small group of individuals who belong together. However, the social entity we really depend on, is becoming ever larger, and our sphere of concern and identification has a hard time keeping-up with changing demands.

It is, therefore, not our purpose to condemn all human actions that have an egocentric flavour or orientation. We have argued, on many occasions, that it is necessary for our understanding of human nature, to acknowledge this strong, instinctive drive of self-preservation and personal gain. The whole excercise of this discussion is to show the orientation of our behaviour-patterns; to make us aware, how easily we profess or think to act and behave in a communal interest, when we have, in reality, already reverted to egocentric attitudes and actions.

We do not condemn. We try to understand, and the sharp differences between the commonly perceived realities and the reality as seen by me, is the reason for the occasional mood of pessimism and weariness about the existing tensions and disparities, which, at least to me, seem so unnecessary. Rather than experiencing a sense of depression over the seemingly insurmountable obstacles to overcome the egocentric drive, let us marvel over the capabilities of so many human beings to be sensitive to the problems of others.

We should cultivate this sensitivity and insight, rather than concentrate on the obstinate tendency of this same human being to pervert social mechanisms for his own advantage. By exposing, clearly, what we are doing, and, by acknowledgeing, that we are prone to become corrupt, we may cultivate a greater level of insight into our own psycho-dynamics, and, we are certainly going to need this insight for a more viable and more equitable future. However, as always, the human being will have to experience disasters and severe tensions, before the advantages of mutual cooperation and inter-dependencies are remembered and revived.

A society that lives on the remnants of its irrelevant cultural guidelines and non-understood social structures, will respond to increasing tensions and pressures with a confused, anxious and uncoordinated mode of behaviour, hastening the process of decay. Obviously, this is a time of crisis, and a predatory attack is likely to succeed. Even, if there is no attack from the outside, the internal strains of dissent may cause a complete fragmentation of society. We may consider the larger social environment to have "perished", after it has fallen-apart completely and irreversibly, but, as we have emphasised before, the disapearance of the social structure and the fragmentation into smaler, mutually competitive and hostile units,does not necessarily mean, that individual human existence has become impossible.

The structure of large-scale social inter-relationships has disappeared, but the fragments of the previous social unit seek new levels of existence and new patterns of integration and cooperation. The standard of living and the ease of survival are severely affected, and, in a retrospective study, we usually come to the conclusion, that such a process of social decay led to a significant impoverishment for nearly everyone.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

A summary, and a further generalisation of the concept of corruption and corrupt behaviour.
The complete fragmentation of society; open rebellion.
Siphoning-off the energy flowing through the bureaucratic channels in society.
The weakening effects of corrupt, parasitic leeches.
The dictatorial solution, and its limitations.
The social vector-diagram; the bonding and dispersive forces operating in society.
The corruption of neoplastic growth.
A review of the functions of Constitutional Guidelines.
The need for a mechanism to modify the Constitutional Code.
A social organism of global dimensions, living at an acceptable level of harmony and discord.
A question of interpretation, and a note of optimism.

The widespread inter-dependencies between the members of a society and the positions that have been created or developed to keep this society running smoothly, have given almost every individual the opportunity to use these mechanisms of inter-dependence for his or her own benefit. As a result, the attitudes of cooperation and mutual trust, which were generated by the tacit agreements of a social contract of essential equality, revert back to those of egocentric anxiety and opportunism. The reasons for such a reversal of attitudes, which is a regression to a more primitive level of behaviour, are related to an erosion of the feelings of security associated with an implied social contract of essential equality. If this contract is not honoured anymore, there will be an increase in the level of anxiety and concern for personal safety and well-being. Smooth and trustful relationships are the lubricant for the mechanisms of inter-dependence, and, if people can not rely, anymore, on these mechanisms, it is logical, that their attitudes will become more egocentric and defensive. The social surroundings are, then, seen as potential enemies and rivals, rather than as trusted partners in a joint-effort or project.

Mutual trust disappears as a result of experiences of injustice, indifference and incompetence. Enthousiasm and inspiring leadership vanish, together with relevant, communally shared goals and ideals. Quickly, we see the emergence of a pre-occupation with personal gratification and an indulgence in sensual pleasures. This egocentric orientation sets the stage for a further erosion of the attitudes of mutual trust and cooperation, and, we should remind ourselves, that the need for attitudes of mutual trust and cooperation was already undermined by the fact, that the society had achieved its goals and became more secure.

The attitudes of increased egocentric orientation spread quickly, like a contagious disease. Mutual trust is replaced by friction, envy and suppressed hostilities. The level of anxiety rises as confusion becomes rampant, and, this anxiety, coupled with egocentric attitudes and a mistrust of communal guidelines and beliefs, starts to eat away at the traditional channels of authority, which are needed for smooth and stable social mechanisms. Checks and balances disappear, and the decisions of the leadership become erratic. Penalties against abuse become selectively applied, and, they are, then, a source of corruption in themselves. The rate of social break-down is accelerating, and, we see chaos, confusion and injustice mounting steadily.

The process of social autolysis feeds on itself. A little bit of corruption becomes a catalyst for people in contact with such an area of rot, to become a little rotten themselves, and the rot of corruption spreads ever more widely and openly. Eventually, the processes of decay reach the point of open and violent hostilities, and, we see new centers of growth, leadership and authority emerge, often with more "localo-centric" or narrower goal-patterns.

As long as the remnants of the social structure give a semblance of cohesion, and, as long as government bureaucracies and corporations function, at least, to some extent, the energy flowing through these channels can be tapped by people who are in a position of power and opportunity, and, the energy is, then, siphoned-off for their own personal benefit, or the benefit of a small grouping.

The enormous drain of energy through these channels of corruption, makes it understandable, why the whole system becomes exceedingly inefficient. Large amounts of energy, or money, (which acts as a form of "social energy", flowing through the bureaucratic and commercial channels of society), have to be gathered, borrowed and squeezed-out from somewhere, mostly from the common people; the public, from all of us. The consequences of this large loss of "social energy" are disastrous, and all attempts at governing society remain indecisve, inefficient and incompetent, and, they contribute only to confusion and chaos.

The social structure is bled to death by the leeches that feed on its energy channels. There are thousands, perhaps, millions of parasites, who thrive on this source of energy. This energy belongs, in essence, to the community as a whole, but, it is used, almost entirely, by those leeches of corruption. Decay, inexorable decay is taking place, and nothing can prevent the eventual collapse of society.

Occasionally, at the expense of personal freedoms and the arbitrariness of absolute rule, the strongly-willed and dedicated efforts of a dictator may, temporarily, clean-off some of the leeches of society, but, nearly always, the despot becomes also corrupted by flattery, egocentric advisors, as well as by the heady sense of power. He relaxes his efforts to reform society, and, he begins to concentrate on personal satisfactions and concerns. Then, he is unable to bring-up the constant effort necessary to make sure, that he gets an accurate and complete picture of what is going-on. He does not know, anymore, whether or not his decisions and decrees are executed fairly and incidences of abuse or injustice are avoided or corrected.

The task of restoring beneficial leadership is, in essence, beyond the capabilities of a single individual, except in very small-scale and transparent social conditions. Repression, with the help of an armed and loyal elite, has been, until recently, the only mechanism that allowed a dictator to remain in control of a fairly large society, and, as a result, the corruption of the past, is replaced by an injustice of the present.

Singlehanded leadership is, therefore, a rather primitive solution, and it is essentially unworkable in a complex society, where the organisation of social events and the digestion of the flow of relevant information, require the cooperation of many people. Only a Constitutional Structure with guidelines for the behaviour of the people and their leaders, together with safeguards to make sure that the intended results are obtained, can lead to a stable, healthy, large and well-organised society. Such a Constitutional Structure will have to be based upon a consensus of the people, which is not possible without a sensible and coherent philosophy.

Corruption starts, therefore, as a surreptitious idea and an exciting opportunity for personal gain, but, it develops, quickly, into a stealthely executed act generating a large variety of ambivalent feelings and contradictory emotions. If corruption is rewarded, it spreads quickly. The level of mistrust rises and corruption becomes openly accepted. Sanctions and penalties become less effective as a deterrent, and, we see, then, that the amount of energy siphoned-off from society becomes gigantic. The whole society becomes dependent upon the mechanisms of corruption and accepts it as an inevitable reality.

However, the mechanisms of corruption quickly destroy their own possibilities of existence. The channels of energy dry-up, as the various bureaucracies shrivel into insignificance and the level of frustration rises dramatically. The source of energy disappears, and, at the same time, the relevance of most social structures has vanished. Corruption, then, changes into open hostility and armed conflict, where each grouping fights for its own interests without any pretense about the need to keep the overall social structure intact.

Corruption, or the tendency towards corrupt behaviour, is, therefore, nothing more than one of the forces in the vector-diagram that plays a role in the existence of every social unit. It is one of the dispersive forces. In the structural cohesion of a multi-cellular organism, these forces are controled by explicit chemical restraints, but, in the structure of a social entity of human beings, these force-fields are controled by man-made regulations and guidelines. Yet, the element of behavioural flexibility, with the possibility of an arbitrary choice, introduces the need for a voluntary and conscious contract of deliberate cooperation, and, without such an agreement, social integration on a large scale is not possible.

The social vector-diagram of cohesive and dispersive forces is a fascinating field of observation and study, and, it becomes a rich source for correlative insights, especially, when we compare these phenomena with the biologically structured cohesion of a multi-cellular organism. We have analysed, on previous occasions, these mechanisms in more detail, and, we will only recapitulate some of the conclusions. While the structures for the control and behavioural guidance of the individual cell are completely under the control of genetic instructions, the feature of behavioural flexibility requires the construction of consciously grasped behavioural regulators to guide the behaviour of the members of society in a constructive manner. These behavioural regulators form a cultural code of guidelines and controls, and, this behavioural code has been super-imposed on the genetic instructions that suffice for the organisation of a multi-cellular uit.

The functions of Constitutional Guidelines are a cultural parallel of the genetically encoded biological and biochemical guidelines that regulate the differentiation, growth and inter-dependencies of a multi-cellular community. It is clear, with study and reflection, that a deliberate, well thought-out structure of Constitutional Guidelines is far more likely to meet the challenge of regulating the mechanisms of a complex society, than the abilities of an exceptionally gifted, enlightened and well-motivated dictator.

Apart from the inevitable short-comings that become apparent when a single individual tries to rule a complex society, the reliance upon the capabilities of an individual with dictatorial powers, does not provide any checks against the common temptation to slide towards a defensive, corrupt, introvert and egocentric form of behaviour. The willingness of people to accept dictatorial leadership, in particular, during a period of confusion and stress, shows, that we still lack sound ideas about how to keep a large society in a state of good health.

The idea of a viable, Constitutional pattern of behavioural regulators is still so poorly accepted, that people grasp, again and again, for the solution of a persuasive dictator, who promises to restore the former glory and strength of society by persecuting real or imaginary culprits and scapegoats. Even a preliminary review of the nature of corruption and the causes of social decline, will show us the fallacy of the hope, that a dictatorial regime will restore justice, vitality, confidence and trust for any length of time.

In the past, a fairly small social unit could be rejuvenated, at least, for a while, if a truly concerned, vigorous and far-sighted leader would emerge and stamp the integrity of his own character upon the social entity. However, there was always a high price to be paid for the temporary benefits of absolute rule, and, we see disastrous results, as soon as absolute leadership lost its beneficial qualities or came into the hands of unworthy and incompetent successors.

Besides, there were no alternative solutions. There were no sophisticated concepts of democratic rule, and, there was no efficient, technocratic bureaucracy with computers and other administrative aids. Even the basic mechanisms to elect a multi-individual leadership and create an adequate body of law, were largely absent, until fairly recently. Society was, almost always, in the hands of a small elite, in the form of a self-appointed or hereditary leadership, and, society was always at the mercy of fluctuations in the quality of its overall leadership.

One of the major problems for every social organisation that saw itself expand into an empire, (either by conquest, or, by the mechanisms of fortunate growth and beneficial alliances), was, always, the cumbersome channels of administration and communication, because these channels had insufficient technological capabilities to build into themselves the necessary transparance and monitoring capabilities. These facilities have given our modern bureaucratic structures, in spite of all their short-comings and possibilities for corruption, a level of efficiency and competence that is unique in history.

Our intuitive search for primitive and easily identified symbols of strength and admiration, is, really, an anachronism in our times. It is a facile escape into superficial and emotional solutions that are not going to work and are fraught with innumerable unforeseen and often tragic consequences. A careful and reasoned analysis of the problems we face in the large and complex societies, will show us, that the only sensible way to create a worthy, just, adaptable, and, even, beautiful society, is the construction of a Constitution; a set of Guidelines, which a great majority of the people can identify with and acknowledge as being just, right and constructive.

This Constitution should be inspiring, uplifting, yes, outright beautiful. These Guidelines should also provide explicit methods for choosing the leadership, and, they should detail the construction and functioning of governing channels. They should also provide guidelines for the development of individual talents and insights, as well as communal needs and responsibilities. These Constitutional Guidelines will, then, form the backbone for communal harmony and vitality, and, without Constitutional Guidelines, the entire structure of a modern society will fall flat on its face.

However, we should not come to the conclusion, that it is possible to construct, once and for all, a set of Constitutional Guidelines, which is going to secure complete justice, fairness, happiness and prosperity for us all. It will remain obvious, at least, to the serious student of social phenomena, and, certainly, to those professionals whose duty it is to apply, as a judge, one section or another of this Constitution, that there will be instances where the application of certain Constitutional Guidelines will lead to a situation of essential injustice. We will, therefore, have to watch-out, very carefully, for incidences of inadvertent injustice, and, we have to make sure, that the application of the laws and guidelines of the Constitution does indeed lead, in all cases, to the desired result of increasing and safeguarding justice and essential equality for everyone.

We need a large, broadly based, but well-structured Legislative Assembly of scholars, students and ordinary people, in order to review, permanently, these Constitutional Guidelines, amending and refining them, carefully and cautiously, as the circumstances demand, but, always mindful of the possibility that amendments, even those with the best of intentions and the most careful study, may turn-out to be no improvement at all. It should be possible to apply provisional amendments to the Constitution. These are simple changes in the wording or intent of some of the guidelines, which have to prove themselves over a number of years, with a certain number of practical applications, before they will become permanently incorporated into the Constitution.

We have talked about these ideas before, and, we have also outlined the guidelines that should govern the intended changes for these Constitutional Guidelines; a code, so to speak, regulating the rate of adaptation of the general Constitutional Code as a whole. Along such lines of thought, it will be possible to master and manage the apparently ever more complex considerations and mechanisms that are going to play a role in the fusion of the societies of mankind. These social entities will be fusing into a living, functioning, and, hopefully, quite viable social organism with global dimensions, where people are living together in acceptable levels of harmony and discord.

We are a long way from reaching such a happy state, you will argue, and, you are wondering, whether or not such a utopia will really ever materialise. Yet, the conclusion, whether or not we have arrived at a state of global inter-dependence, is very much a matter of definition, and, it depends on the way we look at these matters, or, it depends on the characteristics we choose to emphasise in an overall view. If we tacitly assume in the definition of global integration and harmony, a state of idyllic human relationships, with complete equality of rights, education and standards of living, as well as an attitude of global awareness and mutual concern on a very large scale, then, we seem to be so far away from realising such a situation, that we may justifiably ask ourselves, whether or not it will ever be possible to create such a reality.

However, if we look at the presently existing economic inter-dependencies of large, conglomerate nations, including the flow of communications, goods and services, capital and other financial transactions; if we look at the degree of inter-dependence many countries have already formed economically and financially, (and, to some extent, politically), we see a reality that comes already fairly close to our concepts of a "global social entity"; a functioning, integrated humanity, linked in ever more important balances of power and alliances of inter-dependence.

Therefore, we have to acknowledge, that we may interpret the reality of human development, and, in particular, the reality of social integration, in many different ways, depending on the subconscious or deliberate aspects of reality we choose to bring into focus. If we compare society, and, especially, the global inter-dependencies of human existence with the smooth and tight integration of a multi-cellular community, the discrepancies are so enormous, that they provoke a sense of hopelessness, but, then, in such a comparison, we tend to forget the enormous differences in the mechanisms of evolution between the cellular communities and the societies of mankind. On the other hand, if we complacently focus our attention, exclusively, on economic inter-dependencies, we may reach an assessment of global integration that leaves-out many of the potentially explosive factors threatening viability, such as persistent conditions of injustice, frustration and disparity.

Rather than using only one set of criteria in our efforts to evaluate the realities of human existence, we should discipline ourselves to scan, continuously, through the entire spectrum of reality images, emphasising, in some of these reality perceptions, the remarkable progress and possibilities for further integration, and, pointing-out in others, the severe, potentially lethal defects that still persist. Only in such a flexible, multi-facetted and continuously shifting pattern of evaluation, will it be possible to free ourselves from a persistent bias in opinion or judgement.

A complete absence of tensions and frustrations, caused by situations of injustice and attitudes of corruption, is an "asymptotic limit", which can be approached, but never reached. Fortunately, viability does not require a total absence of stressful factors, just as we, individually, do not have to die, if we are subjected to the stress of a tolerable pathological process. Viability is a complex, essentially retrospective evaluation, where the resultant vector-diagram of forces determines the direction of development; either, forwards and upwards, towards increasing vitality and growth, or, stagnant, decaying and weakening, because of a preponderance of forces that are negative, dispersive and destructive in nature.

The momentum of the vector-diagram of social forces determines, therefore, what level of viability we reach or enjoy as a community, or, as a global society, and, we should not forget, that, death and decay, collapse or disaster, may strike because of the inadvertent collusion of a number of important factors or vectors. These force-fields may bring us to a point of no return on the road towards extinction, in spite of the fact, that one may see many forces at work that are beneficial to society. For example, we do not have to see the total absence of good-will, moral fortitude, ethical behaviour or sound ideas, before a society collapses and dies, just as we do not have to see the total absence of corruption, injustice or other tensions, before a social structure is able to continue its existence.

Just as our body can survive various stressful disease processes and accidents, so can we, also, point to the fact, that, at the time of death, many, if not most of the organs and cells of our body are still in excellent condition; yet, because of a crucial failure, the overall viability of the organism has been lost. The mechanisms of survival and the criteria for the occurrence of death are much the same for a social organisation.

The birth, growth and development of an organism, as well as the effects of many complex and contradictory force-fields, take a lot of time to make their influence felt, and, we have discussed the increasing importance of the forces that are generated by our deliberate, collective Will. It takes time for the detrimental, decaying forces to do their work of attrition and subversion, and, a society can persist for a long time in a state of near-death, but, at the same time, rejuvenating forces, also, take a long time, before they bring-about a change for the better in the unfolding of social developments. The massive inertia of a large system of living organisation requires a large amount of energy, before this energy-gradient creates a significant momentum in either direction.

Even, after we have developed the ideological tools and technological means to construct viable bureaucratic structures, it will take a long time, before we see a significant reduction in the level of corrupt practices and attitudes. While the most blatant forms of corruption will rapidly disappear because of their high visibility and vulnerability to specific criticisms and criminal prosecution, the curbing of mildly corrupt or somewhat unethical attitudes will take a long, laborious, educational effort, where the ideas and ideals of ethical behaviour and the effects of corrupt attitudes, are slowly absorbed, digested and understood. The level of mutual trust will, then, slowly rise, as anxieties subside and viability will slowly, almost imperceptibly, improve.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The epilogue of a long discussion.
The many faces of corruption.
A review of our conclusions.
The plight of the conscientious official.
A series of questions.
Mind-boggling problems.
A willingness to mend our ways.
Conditions for change.

As an epilogue to a long discussion, we should summarise, what the objectives have been of this excercise. We have defined, as "corrupt", this entire complex of attitudes and actions, where social channels and positions of trust, responsibility and authority are used for the purpose of personal or egocentric gain.

Open confrontation, social fragmentation and decay are the inevitable results of rampant corruption, since this process bleeds the energy-flow through society, raises levels of mistrust, alienation, frustration and hostility, and, destroys the meaning of belonging to society for most people. Once the channels of social inter-dependence and integration have ceased to exist, society has, of course, "died", and, an irreversible process of decay and fragmentation is taking place. The mechanisms of corruption have, then, changed to open warfare. The essential element in corruption is the misuse or perversion of existing social channels, which are, invariably, based on some sort of a social contract of essential equality, while, in a state of open warfare, these channels have already been destroyed.

We have briefly discussed the more obvious and easily recognised forms of corruption, such as fraud and theft, but, we have emphasised a much broader concept of corruption in the existence of attitudes and deeds that are ever so slightly harmful to the atmosphere of cooperation and social integration. These subtle forms of corruption are so widespread, so common and so poorly recognised, that their cumulative effects are devastating the vitality of society, without anyone realising or understanding what is happening.

We have seen, how chaotic bureaucratic structures and contradictory guidelines for the people working in a bureaucracy, cause confusion and anxiety, and, we can not blame the bureaucrat for the fact, that he becomes defensive, and, that his actions or inactions are, then, designed to shelter himself from criticism and blame. Even the competent and conscientious official, burdened with the reponsibility of carrying-out a task according to muddled guidelines, may, in times of confusion, social stagnation and rampant corruption, be tempted to behave defensively, trying to placate his superiors and minimise the most powerful pressures upon him, and, in the process, his sense of justice will suffer, his actions will aggravate injustice, and, the people will react with cynicism and mistrust.

How else, but as corrupt, should we classify the attitudes of politicians and legislators, if their policies, decisions and attitudes reflect, primarily, a concern for their own popularity or re-election, which is, unfortunately, so often the foundation of their security? Is it not corrupt, if an elected representative favours a piece of legislation, or a proposal for action, which will win him support at his home base, while it may be contrary to the interests of the community at large? Is it not corrupt for a judicial system to bow to pressures from government and other powerful groups in society? Is it not corrupt for a government to influence the flow of information in order to safeguard itself against embarrassing criticisms? Is it not corrupt to manipulate public opinion for the benefit of the leadership or the interests of the business community? Is it not corrupt to make ourselves believe in a smug, self-righteous image of our society, deliberately slanting the facts, or, selectively suppressing contradictory and somewhat embarrassing information?

Is it not a corruption of the system, if medical and legal care become only available to those with money? Is this not an example of injustice? Is it not corrupt for a business enterprise to use the heritage of natural resources for its own benefit? Is it not corrupt to entice the public to consume more and largely unnecessary products, or, to stimulate sensual appetites and egocentric desires, because such a behaviour is profitable to a small group of entrepreneurs? Is it not a form of outright corruption to influence public habits, ethics and ideals for the sake of profit or control? Is it not highly corrupt to direct public attention and the sentiments of hostility towards a neighbouring community with the purpose of diverting attention away from internal problems? It is not corrupt to use the influence, prestige and contacts of public office to seek a subsequent career in business?

If we look at society with such a broad definition of corruption in mind, we become, finally, aware of the mind-boggling problems and the pervasiveness of corrupt attitudes and practices, and, we may justifiably wonder, how it is possible for society to survive the weakening onslaught of these pernicious forces for any length of time

Is it not a sign of moral bankruptcy, when we neglect to teach our younger generations the fundamental necessities of social cohesion? We fail completely in these tasks, because we have lost, or, we never developed, the coherent ideas that make us aware of the reasons, why, and how, a large society functions. We neglect our youngsters, when they go through the most active and malleable period of their lives. We fail to harnass and guide their energies, and, we are surprised, when they turn in frustration to drugs and crime.

We actually encourage corrupt and egocentric behaviour in our youngsters, because we hope, that such attitudes will help them survive in a hostile and competitive social environment. Yet, we have no idea, what such attitudes and practices are doing to our social structures and institutions. We encourage our economy to grow and expand in the mistaken belief, that a mere lessening of the number of unemployed people will bring social peace. We fail to see, how recklessly we exploit the future, and, we are gradually learning that decades of developing automation are now making it possible to exploit the natural resources at an alarming rate, without even providing a large number of jobs for ordinary people. The future generations of mankind will have to live with the impoverishment we created in our greed to satisfy our desires for power, wealth and unlimited consumption.

We are corrupt in our lack of concern for the future generations of mankind. We are corrupt in our failure to learn about our evolutionary nature and our unwillingness to assume the responsibilities of our biological and environmental heritage. We still fail to understand the responsibilities that come with the development of a free behavioural choice and the possibilities of rational evaluation. We fail to take the necessary actions to face-up, squarely, to our problems, because such an attitude requires self-discipline, and, we may have to tell ourselves, and our fellow human beings, things nobody likes to hear. We do not want to deal with unpleasant facts or think about frightening possibilities, because we lack the energy, and the will, to deal effectively with many of the major threats that confront us.

We are corrupt as leaders, because we are afraid of a sober, honest and far-reaching evaluation of the trends that are before us. We rather pray to the gods of economic recovery, and, we hope, that our problems will go away. We are corrupt as a leadership, because we fear the inquisitive disturbance of a large number of questions, and, we are afraid for dissent, because we do not have an adequate defense against the criticisms of intelligent people.

We are corrupt, because we have perverted our ideals of collective ownership and essential equality, and, we let ourselves be dragged into a competitive struggle with other nations and societies. We profess total equality for all, but we practice ideological elitism and hidden privileges for the faithful. We are corrupt in professing essential equality on a global scale, because we practice a narrow nationalism and armed conflict with our ideological brothers.

We are corrupt, primarily, because we do not understand or realise what corruption is, nor, how it comes-about. Fortunately, most of us are willing to reconsider our actions, if the corrupt nature of our behaviour has been clearly demonstrated and understood. It may be painful and somewhat embarrassing to acknowledge, that our ideals and actions are not as pure and free from egocentric or localo-centric narrow-mindedness as we thought them to be. It may be difficult for our leaders and prominent citizens to see themselves in a detached light and re-examine their own behaviour and motivations with scrupulous and complete honesty. It may be difficult for most of us to strip-away our defensive rationalisations and prejudices, but, it is possible, and it is possible for us to set, collectively, guidelines for our behaviour, in order to facilitate such self-purges, where we rid ourselves from socially disruptive attitudes and unrealised egocentricities.

After all, the construction of a Constitutional framework of behavioural regulators will be the ultimate defense against the persistent and ever-present threat of corruption and corrupting attitudes. We can not stamp-out our biological heritage. We can not kill injustice by pointing to scapegoats. We can not ensure justice by a dictatorial regime. We can only keep diagnosing our motivations and impulses, the mechanisms of life, the differentiations in function, as well as the emergence of social inter-dependencies. We can only study, nurture and protect the attitudes of trust, compassion and understanding.

Unless we recognise, that the tendency towards corruption is inherent in our nature, we fail to come to grips with the problem of corruption. Unless we are willing to acknowledge the birth-rights of each human being as a member of our species, we will not master the problems and tensions of injustice and frustration. Unless we are familiar with the entire range of human behaviour, we will keep falling into this tempting trap to suppress criticism and dissent.

Unless we understand the phases of our life-cycle and the varying needs of individuals, (according to the different circumstances they find themselves in), we will not come to grips with the problems of criminal and rebellious behaviour. Unless we keep monitoring and studying, adapting and refining the Constitutional Regulators of our behaviour, we will revert back to the problems associated with a belief in absolute truths and comforting certainties. Unless we see ourselves as a living, breathing and metabolising social organism, we fail to keep in focus the essential requirements of viability. Unless we keep in mind the future generations of mankind, we lose an entire dimension in our perspective on reality, and, no species has ever survived a failure to appreciate the existence of an entire dimension!

Is this all possible? Is it all a pipe-dream? Time will tell. There are no guarantees that we will be able to develop a greater degree of viability for our species. It is certainly possible, that viability will be found in a direction that is quite different from the outlines we have sketched, here, but, these ideas may form, hopefully, a working hypothesis, until the time, that we have become more certain of ourselves, and know, how to maintain viability for ourselves, as well as the generations that are still to come.

.......

Summary

1. Corruption; the abuse of a position of trust and responsibility.
   An emphasis upon the more subtle and least recognised forms of corruption.
   The problems of a complex society.
   A case of "naive idealism".
   Understanding, not condemnation, as the motivation for this essay.
   The official as a computer.
   Defensive and aggressive forms of corruption.
   Social positions and the ego-drive.
   A need for Constitutional Guidelines.
   A review of natural leadership functions in small social units.
   Parental care and behavioural flexibility, seen as the main pillars for the evolutionary experiment with social integration.
   Egocentric, localo-centric, socio-centric and "family-centric" concerns.
   Leadership channels and the qualities of good leadership.
   Leadership requirements for the large and complex societies.
   The ever-present balance between an egocentric and a socially integrated orientation of our behaviour.
   All members of society have to benefit from belonging to society.
   Problems with hierarchical positioning in large and complex societies, and the "break-through" of the concept of essential equality amongst the members.
   
   
   
2. The stratification of social classes in a complex society.
   Inter-dependencies, and the need for mutual trust.
   The more subtle forms of corruption are due to ignorance and a lack of insight.
   The need to understand the essentials of human behaviour, before the requirements of social health can be defined.
   The social contract, and the mechanisms of elected representation.
   The natural experiment with the living organisation, and the limitations of the genetic code.
   Social decay; the divergence between social groupings.
   The diagnosis of social ills.
   A series of examples of social ills and corrupt practices.
   Tax-avoidance; the battle of the "experts" at the expense of the tax-payer and the consumer.
   The vague outlines of public morality.
   Lobbying, selling influence, connections, special-interest and pressure-groupings.
   The distortion of democratic ideals.
   Corruption in its many disguises; a contagious disease.
   The need for openness in society.
   Corrupt behaviour of the large corporations.
   Modern dinosaurs, and the philosophy of consumerism.
   Far-reaching and pernicious effects of the power of money.
   The cancers in society.
   
   
   
3. The potentials for social rejuvenation, short of revolutionary change.
   The need to improve our level of understanding and insight.
   The limits of tolerance, whenever there is an assault on sacred beliefs.
   The limits of our "free" societies to tolerate serious dissent and criticisms.
   The illusion of equal democratic powers.
   The relationships between governments and big business.
   The stench of corruption, and our adaptation to it.
   Corruption is a problem for every society, and not only for those with a Capitalist system of free-enterprise.
   The corrupt features of some forms of dissent.
   The absence of tolerance in a vigorous and confident society.
   The importance to understand our enemies, and the expectation that our enemies will understand us.
   The pitfalls of communal smugness.
   
   
   
4. The relationships between corruption and confrontation.
   A definition of propaganda.
   The differences between useful and harmful forms of dissent.
   A question of basic loyalties.
   Confidence and skill; the foundations for tolerating dissenting opinions.
   The drive for local autonomy; ways to avoid a damaging conflict with the overall society.
   The ever-present balance between local and overall social interests.
   The ability to disarm foolish dissent with ridicule and pointed counter-arguments.
   Corruption and increasing disparities.
   A definition of ownership.
   Society grants the basic rights of existence and privileges of conduct to every enterprise.
   Society is increasingly responsible for the short-comings and harmful effects of economic activities.
   The undesirable effects of unlimited property rights.
   The need for major political and philosophical changes in societies all over the world.
   A fresh start in designing a viable social system.
   A definition of property rights in accordance with human rights and psychological needs.
   Pressure-groupings within society.
   The processes of social decay.
   The inability to predict, precisely, impending social events.
   
   
   
5. Corrupt leadership and their equally corrupt institutions.
   The subtle corruption of politicians and other leaders.
   The problem, that the electorate often does not know what it wants.
   "Bolstering confidence", by openness and honesty.
   Competence and openness; an unbeatable combination of sound leadership.
   Conditions for social well-being.
   The responsibility of the leadership to educate its electorate.
   The effects of poor leadership.
   A plea for social transparence.
   When relationships turn sour within a social environment.
   The wider implications of corruption.
   International considerations, and the need to be concerned for future generations.
   Corrupt attitudes and opinions in relation to the unborn child.
   How corrupt we are!
   
   
   
6. A summary, and a further generalisation of the concept of corruption and corrupt behaviour.
   The complete fragmentation of society; open rebellion.
   Siphoning-off the energy flowing through the bureaucratic channels in society.
   The weakening effects of corrupt, parasitic leeches.
   The dictatorial solution, and its limitations.
   The social vector-diagram; the bonding and dispersive forces operating in society.
   The corruption of neoplastic growth.
   A review of the functions of Constitutional Guidelines.
   The need for a mechanism to modify the Constitutional Code.
   A social organism of global dimensions, living at an acceptable level of harmony and discord.
   A question of interpretation, and a note of optimism.
   
   
   
7. The epilogue of a long discussion.
   The many faces of corruption.
   A review of our conclusions.
   The plight of the conscientious official.
   A series of questions.
   Mind-boggling problems.
   A willingness to mend our ways.
   Conditions for change.

.......