Click here for PDF format of this essay
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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
8 "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".
9 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.
10 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!".
11 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.
12 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.
13 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".
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
25 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.
26 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.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
30 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.
31 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.
32 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.
33 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.
34 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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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".
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 "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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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!
24 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.
25 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?
26 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.
27 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.
28 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!
29 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.
30 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.
31 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.
32 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.
33 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.
34 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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.
6 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?
7 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.
8 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.
9 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?
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
25 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.
26 Why should we not make a serious
attempt to understand the philosophy and objective of the
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
30 Certainly, in a
31 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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 "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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
25 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.
26 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.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
30 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.
31 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.
32 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.
33 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.
34 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.
35 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.
36 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.
37 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.
38 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.
39 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.
40 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.
41 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.
42 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!
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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?
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
25 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.
26 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.
27 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.
28 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?
29 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.
30 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.
31 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.
32 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.
33 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.
34 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.
35 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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
25 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.
26 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.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
30 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.
31 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.
32 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.
33 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.
34 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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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?
6 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?
7 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
8 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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!
17 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.
.......