Government Corruption

[Sétanta]

Why does nearly everybody in the Government have to be corrupt in any way or another.
i think every politician should watch the movie Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
show them what a patriotic, uncorrupted man can do for his country just as much as a politician.

ps. i suppose this applies for countries other than the US

[Darth Wong]

The cost and complexity of a modern high-level political campaign is enormous, so you need large networks of friends in high places and well-monied financiers in order to pull it off. In order to secure the assistance of these networks of friends and financiers, you have to assure them that it will be worth their while to help you. Once you get into power, you are now beholden to them, as you sold your soul for power a long time ago.

[Sétanta]

so they sell their soul for power at the expense of getting anything done.
I am no idealist, i understand why they want to stay in power but once they are in that position of power why don't they use it for good, instead of just trying to stay there

well "Power Corrupts"

[MaximiIian]

well "Power Corrupts"

Which is precisely why I do not like government and authority on ANY level...
...unless I am that authority.

[Kanaric]

Which is precisely why I do not like government and authority on ANY level...
...unless I am that authority.

hah, i definately agree.

Modern demcratic governments, at least what I get from the US government and countries in europe, you need massive amounts of money and various allies to run for office. Eventually this will cause you to become corrupt. Which is why by the time someone is at the top and get a nomination for say, president, the person is almost guarnteed corrupt.

The only way you can avoid that is if you were highly popular before you were a politician, like a general or someone of that nature. Only problem is that most generals who become leaders are also HIGHLY corrupt simply because they know how to manage an army, not a government. Like U.S. Grant for example.

[Tiwaz]

so they sell their soul for power at the expense of getting anything done.
I am no idealist, i understand why they want to stay in power but once they are in that position of power why don't they use it for good, instead of just trying to stay there

well "Power Corrupts"

Define "good"? Besides, like Wong said they sold their soul. When they get the power they have to start to make payments to those who own them. Financers and supporters expect to get lots of nice things to come to them in exchange for help, they do not let the polician off the hook after getting him to office.

[Sétanta]

Define "good"? Besides, like Wong said they sold their soul. When they get the power they have to start to make payments to those who own them. Financers and supporters expect to get lots of nice things to come to them in exchange for help, they do not let the polician off the hook after getting him to office.

good would be what the voters want them to do.
i mean does anything the average american wants to get done ever really happen.
we might get behind the politician's platform but that doenst mean we like it

[The Alcotroll]

so they sell their soul for power at the expense of getting anything done.

Consider the following:

You're elected to a constituency in the North West of England (but you could generalise this example to anywhere). It's a post industrial area; once bristling with cotton mills, steel works, car plants and all sorts of medium and heavy industries that brought jobs and income to the area.
Unfortunately, in the era of globalisation, it's cheaper for companies to do their manufacturing in the developing world, where there are fewer Unions and you don't need to pay workers as much.
As a result, the area's industry has died off, causing much unemployment. Because of this, crime is higher, ill-health is higher and the Local Authority has less income to spend on inprovments to infastruicture and quality of life.

You were elected to power in the Local Authority on a promise to raise Employment and bring investment into the area. Before long you're approached by a large corporation, who wants to build a manufacturing plant for soft drinks cans in your area.
Not only will this bring jobs for the workers in the plant, it'll provide work for local construction firms, suppliers of building materials, plumbers and electricians. The plant will need security guards, cleaners and caterers, hauliers for the raw materials and finished product. The influx of cash at individual level (when the plant workers get paid) will mean more business for shop owners and leisure workers, stimulating the local economy.
However. The company wants to build their plant over four acres of unspoilt green-belt (open space, protected by law). They refuse to re-develop a brown-field site, but insist on having this particular plot of land.

Do you tell them to shove it? Do you risk losing all those jobs that you promised to provide; that massive stimulus to your local economy?

You let them build the plant, and the money rolls in. Unemployment plummets, gross spending is up. Everyone is happy, but for a few Environmentalists (and since they're mostly layabout students with long hair, no-one cares about them).

Then people living downwind from the plant make complaints about the pollution it's causing. Plants are showing black spots on their leaves, more children are showing signs of Asthma.
You approach the company and demand that they take steps to reduce the level of pollution that their plant is producing. The company informs you that there are already stringent measures in place, delivers a bundle of paperwork to back up their claim, then points out that any further action would make them un-competetive in today's dynamic markets, and they would be forced to re-locate the plant.

Not long after, the company approaches you again. They regret to inform you that the plant is not as financially viable as estimates had led them to believe. A combination of market forces et -cetera et-cetera.... Unless the enterprise can be turned around soon, the company will have no option but to 'downsize' and 're-locate'. In other words, they'll lay off a load of workers, or else shut down the place and bugger off to Mexico.
Perhaps if the Local Authority could smooth this process by offering certain 'subsidies' or 'financial incentives', maybe even a few tax-exemptions....?
Of course, you could always tell them to do one, but then you'd lose all those jobs and the income they bring.

It's easy to see how Politicians have their hands tied even before we start throwing bribes around or threatening to reveal the affair they had with that school boy...

[leeho730]

Just for your information:

top 10 least corrupt countries: Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, and Switzerland (Transparency International, 2005) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_o..._of_corruption

top 15 least corrupt countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, UK (World Bank Governanace and Anti-Corruption Data, 2002) http://info.worldbank.org/beeps/kkz/worldmap.asp#map

[Last Roman]

I would have figured Singapore to be very corrupt, with all that money moving around

[Kanaric]

I would have figured Singapore to be very corrupt, with all that money moving around

They execute people for EVERYTHING their, people probably fear being corrupt.

[RZZZA]

Y'know, just because a president may be "corrupt" in whatever sense of the word you want to use doesnt mean they cant also do good things for America. Case in point, Nixon, probably our most corrupt president who also did a lot of good things. His faults as a person...paranoia, lust for revenge, moral bankruptcy...didnt get in the way of some of his better qualities and I think he's far from our worst president. (though some people may have a thing or two to say about that...) All of Nixons lies and all his deciet...he did it all with his country in mind, so I think its truly very rare for a politician to NOT have the best intentions in mind.

[stop-3]

Strangly, I agree with above poster about Nixon. There is no doubt he was a scoundrel (as all politicians are) yet he seems less of a scoundrel than most. He was a much nicer person than (say) Kennedy.