Insecurity, Corruption, and Democracy

You may be able to have one without the other, but insecurity certainly fosters corruption

There is a concept called baksheesh in the Middle Eastern world (it also exists elsewhere). It can refer to positive actions such as charitable giving or a non-European type of tipping. In these cases it is voluntary (though requests may be persistent and forceful). But the other side of the word is the negative side — the forceful, requisite (but not always openly stated) giving for corruption and bribery. In this newsletter/blog, I will focus on the latter.

From the viewpoint of those who have had the good fortune to have been raised, and lived, in a society where even the poor have some place to turn, this forced giving for corruption or bribery seems very bad — a multiple type of corruption. Within many economically poorer cultures, it is just an aspect of life — like having to put a stamp on a letter before mailing it.

There is a large correlation between corruption and bribery and being part of a society with large income discrepancies. A few rich, many poor, and many poor that don’t see (a viewpoint that may be true) a path to non-poverty other than making use of their position to get what economic, and further leverage, they can.

In such societies, getting such civil positions is a huge achievement in itself. Loyalty and connections are much more important than ability or qualification. The position may not include salary or benefits. Such is the role, and requirement, of baksheesh within the system. Why tax all for paying reasonable salaries and benefits for the bureaucracy and civil servants? Force those using such services to “pay as they go”. And if some must pay more, and possibly pay in “coin” other than money, that is part of the economic game.

When people think about democracy, they often think about voting. People vote for, or against, certain issues or people. In the case of representative democracies (the majority of global democracies), they are actually voting for, or against, people who will represent their views — they do not vote directly on issues. But democracy is closely related to egalitarianism. All people equal under the law. All people equal in access to resources. All people equal in treatment as having an innate worth.

As this is expanded, it is easy to see that egalitarianism does not co-exist well with income inequality. In actuality, income inequality is rather the antithesis of the idea of “we the people” or any other type of egalitarianism. Baksheesh, social levels, perhaps even hereditary rankings, all are at odds with democracy although there is no “pure” democracy in existence.

The “Founding Fathers” of the United States recognized that a “pure” democracy was only a goal. George Washington said “Democracy is not always easy, but it is worth fighting for.” John Jay said “Democracy is about building a society that is fair and just for all.” There are a lot of such quotes, which can be found here. The general gist is that democracy can be a great system, but it requires a lot of work, and can only be done when everyone stays properly informed and participates.

Here in the United States, we are having a lot of difficulty with the requirements. Our populace is not well informed, we consider ourselves lucky if 50% of the eligible voters actually vote, and the ability to connect with, and communicate needs to, our legislators is being strangled by an election system that overwhelmingly favors the rich. Even the highest level of the court system is badly corrupted by income inequality and the oligarchy. Baksheesh, long considered inappropriate for United States politics and economy, is becoming acceptable — or, within the current Administration, required — even though it is not called by that name. Position via loyalty. Competency is no longer required — it may even be a negative item for consideration for a position. Such is the path for making a country much worse than it has been.

We have a large number of problems in the United States that have not been properly dealt with, largely because the primary efforts have been to redirect the resources and wealth into the hands of the already excessively wealthy.

Concentration of wealth and the lack of a coherent approach to change and the future creates huge problems for the 98% iin the United States. We have three younger children in the family who cannot find jobs that will allow them to move out of the house. Two have recent bachelor’s degrees in previously marketable skills (Computer Science) and the third has been scared away from his major (secondary school english teaching) by the attacks on teachers, education, and libraries. Their friends can give them a listening ear but those friends are facing their own problems.

But it can change, and current generations are waking up to the problems that have been let slide for too long. Within the United States, that can be addressed within the primary system by making the less corrupted, and the more dedicated to the citizens, be the candidates. But it requires active involvement. As John Adams said — “Democracy is about building bridges, not walls”.