Like this? Share it with your network

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 1,143 1,012 127 2 1 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. FORMER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN: This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the EXISTING government, they can exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL Right of amending it, or exercise their REVOLUTIONARY Right to OVERTHROW it.” “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we FALTER and LOSE our FREEDOMS, it will be because we DESTROYED ourselves!”CUT AND PASTED FROM: accordance with Federal Laws, this information is provided for Educational and Information Purposes – i.e.of PUBLIC InterestRight of revolutionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
  • 2. The storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789 has come to symbolize the French Revolution, when a people rose upto exercise their right of revolution. Part of a series on RevolutionIn political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty, variously statedthroughout history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests.Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used throughout history to justify variousrebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.Contents[hide] • 1 Origins o 1.1 China o 1.2 Islamic tradition o 1.3 Medieval Europe o 1.4 Early Modern Europe • 2 Use in history • 3 The Right of Revolution as an individual or collective right • 4 Duty versus right • 5 Preconditions to the right of revolution • 6 Natural law or positive law o 6.1 Examples of the right of revolution as positive law
  • 3. o 6.2 An end to the right of revolution in positive law • 7 See also • 8 References • 9 External links[edit] Origins[edit] ChinaThe right of revolution was perhaps first articulated as part of an official state philosophy by the Zhou Dynasty(1122 – 256 BC) of China.[1] To justify their overthrowing of the earlier Shang Dynasty, the Zhou kingspromulgated the concept known as the Mandate of Heaven, that Heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler,but would be displeased and withdraw its mandate from a despotic ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would thentransfer to those who would rule best. Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that theMandate of Heaven had passed on. Throughout Chinese history, rebels who opposed the ruling dynasty made theclaim that the Mandate of Heaven had passed, giving them the right to revolt. Ruling dynasties were oftenuncomfortable with this, and the writings of the Confucian philosopher Mencius (372 – 289 BC) were oftensuppressed for declaring that the people have the right to overthrow a ruler that did not provide for their needs.See also: Mandate of Heaven[edit] Islamic traditionAccording to scholar Bernard Lewis, the Quran and Sunnah have several points to make on governance regardingthe right of revolution in Islam.The Quran, for example, makes it clear that there is a duty of obedience:"Obey God, obey the Prophet, obey those who hold authority over you."And this is elaborated in a number of sayings attributed to Muhammad. But there are also sayings that put strictlimits on the duty of obedience. Two dicta attributed to the Prophet and universally accepted as authentic areindicative. One says, "there is no obedience in sin"; in other words, if the ruler orders something contrary to thedivine law, not only is there no duty of obedience but there is a duty of disobedience. The other pronouncement,"do not obey a creature against his creator," again clearly limits the authority of the ruler, whatever form of rulerthat may be.[2][edit] Medieval EuropeThe Magna Carta marks one of the earliest attempts to limit a sovereigns authority and it is seen as a symbol of therule of law.[3]
  • 4. In Europe, the right of revolution may be traced back to Magna Carta, an English charter issued in 1215, thatrequired the King to renounce certain rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It included a"security clause" that gave the right to a committee of barons to overrule the will of the King through force ifneeded. Magna Carta directly influenced the development of parliamentary democracy and many constitutionaldocuments, such as the United States Constitution.The Golden Bull of 1222 was a golden bull, or edict, issued by King Andrew II of Hungary. The law establishedthe rights of Hungarys noblemen, including the right to disobey the King when he acted contrary to law (jusresistendi). The Golden Bull is often compared to the Magna Carta; the Bull was the first constitutional documentof the nation of Hungary, while the Magna Carta was the first constitutional charter of the nation of England.Thomas Aquinas also wrote of the right to resist tyrannical rule in the Summa Theologica. John of Salisburyadvocated direct revolutionary assassination of unethical tyrannical rulers in his Policraticus.[edit] Early Modern EuropeMain article: Resistance theory in the Early Modern periodIn the Early Modern period, the Jesuits, especially Robert Bellarmine and Juan de Mariana, were widely knownand often feared for advocating resistance to tyranny and often tyrannicide—one of the implications of the naturallaw focus of the School of Salamanca.John Calvin believed something similar. In a commentary on the Book of Daniel, he observed that contemporarymonarchs pretend to reign “by the grace of God,” but the pretense was “a mere cheat” so that they could “reignwithout control.” He believed that “Earthly princes depose themselves while they rise up against God,” so “itbehooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them.” When ordinary citizens are confronted with tyranny, hewrote, ordinary citizens have to suffer it. But magistrates have the duty to “curb the tyranny of kings,” as had theTribunes in ancient Rome, the Ephori in Sparta, and the Demarchs in ancient Athens. That Calvin could support aright of resistance in theory did not mean that he thought such resistance prudent in all circumstances. At leastpublicly, he disagreed with the Scottish Calvinist John Knox’s call for revolution against the Catholic Queen MaryTudor of England.[4]The Catholic Church shared Calvins prudential concerns—together with a concern for saving the souls even oftyrants, a concern that was irrelevant in double-predestinarian Calvinism. Thus, the Pope condemned Guy FawkesGunpowder Plot, and Regnans in Excelsis was widely considered to be a mistake. St. Thomas Aquinas had arguedthat fear of tyrannicide drove tyrants to worse conduct, and that tyrannicide and rebellion tended to end in theplacement of an even worse tyrant on the throne—so that the safest course of action for the people was to enduretyranny for as long as it could be borne, rather than run the larger risks of armed revolution.The presumption in favor of peace, in just war theory, came to be the more common belief and is the one officiallyheld by the Catholic Church as of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.[edit] Use in historyAmong the revolutionary movements claimed to seek justification as an exercise of the right of revolution include: • French War Of Religion: The right of revolution was expounded by the Monarchomachs in the context of the French Wars of Religion, and by Huguenots thinkers who legitimized tyrannicides. • Glorious Revolution: The right of revolution formed the basis of the philosophical defense of the Glorious Revolution, when Parliament deposed James II of England in 1688 and replaced him with William III of Orange-Nassau.
  • 5. • American Revolution: The right to revolution would play a large part in the writings of the American revolutionaries. The political tract Common Sense used the concept as an argument for rejection of the British Monarchy and separation from the Empire, as opposed to merely self-government within it. It was also cited in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, when a group of representatives from the various states signed a declaration of independence citing charges against King George III. As the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 expressed it, natural law taught that the people were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and could alter or abolish government “destructive” of those rights. • French Revolution: The right of revolution was also included in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen during the French Revolution.[edit] The Right of Revolution as an individual or collective rightAlthough some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individualright, it was clearly understood to be collective right under English constitutional and political theory.[5] As PaulineMaier has noted in her study From Resistance to Revolution, “[p]rivate individuals were forbidden to take forceagainst their rulers either for malice or because of private injuries....”[6] Instead, “not just a few individuals, but the‘Body of the People’ had to feel concerned” before the right of revolution was justified and with most writersspeaking of a “ ‘whole people who are the Publick,’ or the body of the people acting in their ‘public Authority,’indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society.”[7]The concept of the right of revolution was also taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part ofhis social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, andestate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it actedagainst the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In somecases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard againsttyranny.[edit] Duty versus rightSome philosophers argue that it is not only the right of a people to overthrow an oppressive government but alsotheir duty to do so. Howard Evans Kiefer opines, "It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much moreunderstandable than that right to rebel, because the right to rebellion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty torebel goes beyond and breaks it."[8]Morton White writes of the American revolutionaries, "The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremelyimportant to stress, for it shows that they thought they were complying with the commands of natural law and ofnatures God when they threw off absolute despotism."[9] The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that "when along train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them underabsolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government" (emphasis added). MartinLuther King likewise held that it is the duty of the people to resist unjust laws.[edit] Preconditions to the right of revolution
  • 6. The presentation of the draft of the Declaration of Independence in Trumbulls Declaration of Independencedepicts another idealization of the exercise of the right of revolution.Some theories of the right of revolution imposed significant preconditions on its exercise, limiting its invocation tothe most dire circumstances. In the American Revolutionary context, one finds expressions of the right ofrevolution both as subject to precondition and as unrestrained by conditions.On the eve of the American Revolution, for example, Americans considered their plight to justify exercise of theright of revolution. Alexander Hamilton justified American resistance as an expression of “the law of nature”redressing violations of “the first principles of civil society” and invasions of “the rights of a whole people.”[10] ForThomas Jefferson the Declaration was the last-ditch effort of an oppressed people—the position many Americanssaw themselves in 1776. Jefferson’s litany of colonial grievances was an effort to establish that Americans mettheir burden to exercise the natural law right of revolution.Certain scholars, such as Christian Fritz, have written that with the end of the Revolution, Americans did notrenounce the right of revolution. In fact they codified it in their new constitutions.[11] For instance, constitutionsconsidered to be "conservative," such as those of post-revolutionary Massachusetts in 1780, preserved the peoplesright "to reform, alter, or totally change" government not only for their protection or safety but also whenever their"prosperity and happiness reduire[d] it."[12] This expression was not unusual in the early American constitutions.Connecticuts 1818 constitution articulated the peoples right "at all times" to alter government "in such a manneras they may think expedient."[13]Legal historian Christian Fritz in American Sovereigns: The People and Americas Constitutional Tradition Beforethe Civil War, describes a duality in American views on preconditions to the right of revolution: "Some of the firststate constitutions included alter or abolish provisions that mirrored the traditional right of revolution" in that theyrequired dire preconditions to its exercise.[14] Marylands 1776 constitution and New Hampshires 1784constitutions required the perversion of the ends of government and the endangering of public liberty and that allother means of redress were to no avail.[15] But in contrast, other states dispensed with the onerous preconditions onthe exercise of the right. In the 1776 Virginia constitution the right would arise simply if government was"inadequate" and Pennsylvanias 1776 constitution required only that the people considered a change to be "mostconducive" to the public welfare.[16][edit] Natural law or positive lawDescriptions of the Right of Revolution also differ in whether that right is considered to be a natural law (a lawwhose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere) or positive law (law enacted or adoptedby proper authority for governing of the state).An example of the dual nature of the right of revolution as both a natural law and as positive law is found in theAmerican revolutionary context. Although the American Declaration of Independence invoked the natural law
  • 7. right of revolution, natural law was not the sole justification for American independence. English constitutionaldoctrine also supported the colonists’ actions, at least up to a point. By the 1760s, English law recognized whatWilliam Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England called “the law of redress against publicoppression.”[17] Like the natural law’s right of revolution, this constitutional law of redress justified the peopleresisting the sovereign. This law of redress arose from a contract between the people and the king to preserve thepublic welfare. This original contract was “a central dogma in English and British constitutional law” since “timeimmemorial.”[18] The Declaration’s long list of grievances declared that this bargain had been breached.[19]This well-accepted law of redress justified a people resisting unconstitutional acts of government. Libertydepended upon the people’s “ultimate” right to resist. Unconstitutional commands breaching the “voluntarycompact between the rulers and the ruled” could be “ignored” and arbitrary commands opposed with force.[20] Thisright implied a duty on the part of the people to resist unconstitutional acts. As Alexander Hamilton noted in 1775,government exercised powers to protect “the absolute rights” of the people and government forfeited those powersand the people could reclaim them if government breached this constitutional contract.[21]The law of redress had limits like the right of revolution under natural law. The law of redress, like the right ofrevolution, was not an individual right. It belonged to the community as a whole, as one of the parties to theoriginal constitutional contract.[22] It was not a means of first resort, or response to trivial or casual errors ofgovernment.[23] Blackstone’s Commentaries suggested that using the law of redress would be “extraordinary,” forexample applying if the king broke the original contract, violated “the fundamental laws,” or abandoned thekingdom.[24] During the Stamp Act crisis of the 1760s the Massachusetts Provincial Congress considered resistanceto the king justified if freedom came under attack from “the hand of oppression” and “the merciless feet oftyranny.”[25] A decade later the “indictment” of George III in the Declaration of Independence sought to end hissovereign reign over the colonies because he violated the original constitutional contract.[26]As explained in legal historian Christian Fritz’s description of the role of the right of revolution in AmericanRevolution, American independence was justified by conventional theories under Anglo-American constitutionalthought at the time about the people’s collective right to cast off an arbitrary king. “Both natural law and Englishconstitutional doctrine gave the colonists a right to revolt against the sovereign’s oppression.”[27] But theseunderstandings about the right of revolution on the eve of the American Revolution rested on a traditional model ofgovernment. That model posited the existence of a hypothetical bargain struck in the mists of antiquity between aking and a people. “In this bargain, the people were protected by the monarch in exchange for the people givingthe king allegiance. This was a contractual relationship. American revolutionaries accused George III of breachinghis implied duty of protection under that contract, thereby releasing the people in the colonies from theirallegiance. The sovereign’s breach of the hypothetical contract gave rise to the subjects’ right of revolution”—grounded on both natural law and English constitutional doctrine.”[28][edit] Examples of the right of revolution as positive lawAlthough many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewerconstitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such aguarantee would likely produce. Among the examples of an articulation of a right of revolution as positive lawinclude: • The szlachta, nobles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, also maintained a right of rebellion, known as rokosz. • New Hampshires constitution[29] guarantees its citizens the right to reform government, in Article 10 of the New Hampshire constitutions Bill of Rights: Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new
  • 8. government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. • The Kentucky constitution[30] also guarantees a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in the Kentucky Bill of Rights: All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper. • Similar wording is used in Pennsylvanias constitution,[31] under Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights: All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper. • Article I, §2 of the Tennessee constitution[32] states: That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. • North Carolinas constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights:[citation needed] 3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind. • The Constitution of Texas[33] also contains similar wording in Article 1, Sect 2: All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. • The post-World War II Grundgesetz, the Fundamental Law of the Federal Republic of Germany contains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its Article 20, recognizing the right of the people to resist tyranny, if all other measures have failed. • The Greek Constitution, in Article 120, states that "[...] it is both the right and the duty of the people to resist by all possible means against anyone who attempts the violent abolition of the Constitution."[edit] An end to the right of revolution in positive lawIn modern times, among other arguments, it can be argued that as democratic governments can be overthrown bypopular vote, the right of the people to remove the government has become embedded into the political system.However, replacing representatives falls short of changing the actual form of government by altering or rewritingits constitution. The ease of peoples to democratically implement such fundamental changes varies widely acrossnations and is generally quite onerous, if not impossible, within existing legal and media frameworks.
  • 9. In a study of the idea of rule by the people in the American Revolution and in early post-revolutionary America,legal historian Christian Fritz notes that the logic of a revolution that would erect a government by the people alsoserved to "impl[y] the irrelevance of a right of revolution" in post-revolutionary America:“The constitutional logic of recognizing the people, not a king, as the sovereign implied the irrelevance of a rightof revolution in America. This did not develop instantly or uniformly after the establishment of Americangovernments. Some of the first state constitutions included ‘alter or abolish’ provisions that mirrored the traditionalright of revolution.... Other state constitutions adopted different versions of this right to ‘alter or abolish’government that did not sound like the traditional right of revolution. In these provisions, the ability of the peopleto revise constitutions existed regardless of the traditional preconditions for the right of revolution.... Increasingly,as Americans included it in their constitutions, the right of revolution came to be seen as a constitutional principlepermitting the people as the sovereign to control government and revise their constitutions without limit. In thisway, the right broke loose from its traditional moorings of resistance to oppression. The alter or abolish provisionscould now be interpreted consistent with the constitutional principle that in America, the sovereign was thepeople.”[34]The third paragraph of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that so that people are notcompelled to rebellion against tyranny, human rights should be protected by rule of law.[edit] See also • Citizen suit • Confederation (Poland) Philosophy portal • Money trail • Occupy movement • Political corruption • Qui tam • Regulatory capture[edit] References 1. ^ Perry, Elizabeth. [2002] (2002). Challenging the Mandate of Heaven: Social Protest and State Power in China. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-0444-2 2. ^ Freedom and Justice in the Middle East 3. ^ Ralph V. Turner. Magna Carta. Pearson Education. (2003). ISBN 0-582-43826-8 p.1 4. ^ Dave Kopel: The Calvinist Connection, Liberty magazine, October 2008, pp. 27-31 5. ^ See Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and America’s Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008), 14 (noting that under English constitutional law the right of revolution “belonged to the community as a whole, as one of the parties to the original constitutional contract”). See also John Phillip Reid, Constitutional History of the American Revolution (4 vols., University of Wisconsin Press, 1986-1993), I:111 (identifying the collective right of the people “to preserve their rights by force and even rebellion against constituted authority”), III:427n31 (quoting Viscount Bolingbroke that the “collective Body of the People” had the right to “break the Bargain between the King and the Nation”). 6. ^ Pauline Maier, From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776 (Alfred A. Knopf, 1972), 33. 7. ^ Maier, From Resistance to Revolution, 35-36.
  • 10. 8. ^ %22&source=web&ots=xdUGaHk_fz&sig=KbTANyl6oRDdLrb736Hq1iK017s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_ result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA327,M19. ^ %22&source=web&ots=AmncN84fAl&sig=f9RHPgKdL2XXRekmS6OXc2- gcgg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result10. ^ Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, [Feb. 23], 1775, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, I:13611. ^ See Christian G. Fritz, <a href=" PA168&lpg=RA1-PA168&dq=christian+g+fritz+%22american+sovereigns %22&source=web&ots=UjY_WKHNjv&sig=Y2_7OZMg6ksk_866oiD44FArH-w&hl=en#PRA1- PA1,M1" class="external text" rel="nofollow">American Sovereigns: The People and Americas Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (In Chapter 2, entitled "Revolutionary Constitutionalism," Professor Fritz notes that after the Revolution, "[i]ncreasingly, as Americans included it in their constitutions, the right of revolution came to be seen as a constitutional principle permitting the people as the sovereign to control government and revise their constitutions without limit.")(Cambridge University Press, 2008) at p. 25 [ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3</a>12. ^ Massachusetts 1780 Constitution, Bill of Rights, Art. 7.13. ^ Connecticut 1818 Constitution, Bill of Rights, Sec. 2.14. ^ Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and America’s Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008), 24.15. ^ See Maryland 1776 Constitution, Bill of Rights, Sec. 4; New Hampshire 1784 Constitution, Bill of Rights, Art. 10.16. ^ Virginia 1776 Constitution, Bill of Rights, Sec. 3; Pennsylvania 1776 Constitution, Bill of Rights, Sec. 5.17. ^ William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (4 vols., Oxford, 1765-1769, Facsimile ed., repr., 1979), I:238.18. ^ John Phillip Reid, “The Irrelevance of the Declaration,” in Hendrik Hartog, ed., Law in the American Revolution and the Revolution in the Law (1981), 72.19. ^ New Jersey 1776 Constitution, Preamble in Francis Newton Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the ... United States of America, V:2594 (noting that the King breached his contract with the people).20. ^ John Phillip Reid, Constitutional History of the American Revolution (4 vols., 1986-1993), III:140.21. ^ Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted,” [Feb. 23], 1775, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, I:88.22. ^ See Reid, Constitutional History, I:111 (identifying the collective right of the people “to preserve their rights by force and even rebellion against constituted authority”), III:427n31 (quoting Viscount Bolingbroke that the “collective Body of the People” had the right to “break the Bargain between the King and the Nation”); Pauline Maier, From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776, 33-34 (“Private individuals were forbidden to take force against their rulers either for malice or because of private injuries, even if no redress for their grievances were afforded by the regularly constituted government”).23. ^ Some commentators endorsed the right of resistance if Parliament “jeopardized the constitution,” but most identified the need for oppression and tyranny before its exercise. See Reid, Constitutional History, III:121, 427n31; Maier, Resistance, 33-35.24. ^ Blackstone, Commentaries, I:243 and 238.25. ^ Reid, Constitutional History, I:11226. ^ Reid, “Irrelevance of the Declaration,” 84.27. ^ Fritz, American Sovereigns, 14.28. ^ Fritz, American Sovereigns, 13.29. ^ Constitution of the State of New Hampshire30. ^ Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky31. ^ Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania32. ^ Constitution of the State of Tennessee33. ^ The Texas Constitution
  • 11. 34. ^ Fritz, American Sovereigns, 24-25.[edit] External links • Locke and the Social Order • The Founders Constitution, Vol. 1 Chapter 3, Right of Revolution • North Carolina Constitution of 1789
  • 12. CUT AND PASTED FROM: accordance with Federal Laws, this information is provided for Educational and Information Purposes – i.e.of PUBLIC InterestPolitical corruptionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchWorld map of the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, which measures "the degreeto which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians". High numbers (blue) indicate lessperception of corruption, whereas lower numbers (red) an indicate higher perception of corruption.Political corruption is the use of power by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Misuse ofgovernment power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is notconsidered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involvedwith the government. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directlyrelated to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement.Corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking,though is not restricted to these activities.The activities that constitute illegal corruption differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. For instance, somepolitical funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, government officialshave broad or ill-defined powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions.Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually.[1] A state of unrestrainedpolitical corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning "rule by thieves".Contents[hide] • 1 Effects o 1.1 Effects on politics, administration, and institutions
  • 13. o 1.2 Economic effects o 1.3 Environmental and social effects o 1.4 Effects on Humanitarian Aid o 1.5 Other areas: health, public safety, education, trade unions, etc. • 2 Types o 2.1 Bribery o 2.2 Trading in influence o 2.3 Patronage o 2.4 Nepotism and cronyism o 2.5 Electoral fraud o 2.6 Embezzlement o 2.7 Kickbacks o 2.8 Unholy alliance o 2.9 Involvement in organized crime • 3 Conditions favorable for corruption o 3.1 Size of public sector • 4 Governmental corruption • 5 Judiciary corruption • 6 Fighting corruption • 7 Whistleblowers • 8 Campaign contributions • 9 Measuring corruption • 10 Institutions dealing with political corruption • 11 In fiction • 12 See also • 13 References • 14 Further reading • 15 External links[edit] Effects[edit] Effects on politics, administration, and institutionsDetail from Corrupt Legislation (1896) by Elihu Vedder. Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building,Washington, D.C.Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and goodgovernance by flouting or even subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies
  • 14. reduces accountability and distorts representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises therule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the inefficient provision of services. It violates abasic principle of republicanism regarding the centrality of civic virtue. More generally, corruption erodes theinstitutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public officesare bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democraticvalues as trust and tolerance.[edit] Economic effectsSee also: Corporate crimeIn the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves, themanagement cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although someclaim corruption reduces costs by cutting bureaucracy, the availability of bribes can also induce officials tocontrive new rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy regulations are better than covertly allowingthem to be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playingfield, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.[2]Corruption also generates economic distortions in the public sector by diverting public investment into capitalprojects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of publicsector projects to conceal or pave the way for such dealings, thus further distorting investment.[3] Corruption alsolowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations, reduces the quality of governmentservices and infrastructure, and increases budgetary pressures on government.Economists argue that one of the factors behind the differing economic development in Africa and Asia is that inAfrica, corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the resulting financial capital movedoverseas rather than invested at home (hence the stereotypical, but often accurate, image of African dictatorshaving Swiss bank accounts). In Nigeria, for example, more than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury byNigerias leaders between 1960 and 1999.[4] University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst researchers estimatedthat from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 sub-Saharan countries totaled $187bn, exceeding those nationsexternal debts.[5] (The results, expressed in retarded or suppressed development, have been modeled in theory byeconomist Mancur Olson.) In the case of Africa, one of the factors for this behavior was political instability, andthe fact that new governments often confiscated previous governments corruptly-obtained assets. This encouragedofficials to stash their wealth abroad, out of reach of any future expropriation. In contrast, Asian administrationssuch as Suhartos New Order often took a cut on business transactions or provided conditions for development,through infrastructure investment, law and order, etc.[edit] Environmental and social effectsCorruption facilitates environmental destruction. Corrupt countries may formally have legislation to protect theenvironment, it cannot be enforced if officials can easily be bribed. The same applies to social rights workerprotection, unionization prevention, and child labor. Violation of these laws rights enables corrupt countries to gainillegitimate economic advantage in the international market.The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has observed that "there is no such thing as an apolitical foodproblem." While drought and other naturally occurring events may trigger famine conditions, it is governmentaction or inaction that determines its severity, and often even whether or not a famine will occur. Governmentswith strong tendencies towards kleptocracy can undermine food security even when harvests are good. Officialsoften steal state property. In Bihar, India, more than 80% of the subsidized food aid to poor is stolen by corruptofficials.[6] Similarly, food aid is often robbed at gunpoint by governments, criminals, and warlords alike, and soldfor a profit. The 20th century is full of many examples of governments undermining the food security of their ownnations – sometimes intentionally.[7]
  • 15. [edit] Effects on Humanitarian AidThe scale of humanitarian aid to the poor and unstable regions of the world grows, but it is highly vulnerable tocorruption, with food aid, construction and other highly valued assistance as the most at risk.[8] Food aid can bedirectly and physically diverted from its intended destination, or indirectly through the manipulation ofassessments, targeting, registration and distributions to favour certain groups or individuals.[8] Elsewhere, inconstruction and shelter, there are numerous opportunities for diversion and profit through substandardworkmanship, kickbacks for contracts and favouritism in the provision of valuable shelter material.[8] Thus whilehumanitarian aid agencies are usually most concerned about aid being diverted by including too many, recipientsthemselves are most concerned about exclusion.[8] Access to aid may be limited to those with connections, to thosewho pay bribes or are forced to give sexual favours.[8] Equally, those able to do so may manipulate statistics toinflate the number beneficiaries and syphon of the additional assistance.[8][edit] Other areas: health, public safety, education, trade unions, etc.See also: Police corruptionCorruption is not specific to poor, developing, or transition countries. In western countries, cases of bribery andother forms of corruption in all possible fields exist: under-the-table payments made to reputed surgeons bypatients attempting to be on top of the list of forthcoming surgeries,[9] bribes paid by suppliers to the automotiveindustry in order to sell low-quality connectors used for instance in safety equipment such as airbags, bribes paidby suppliers to manufacturers of defibrillators (to sell low-quality capacitors), contributions paid by wealthyparents to the "social and culture fund" of a prestigious university in exchange for it to accept their children, bribespaid to obtain diplomas, financial and other advantages granted to unionists by members of the executive board ofa car manufacturer in exchange for employer-friendly positions and votes, etc. Examples are endless. Thesevarious manifestations of corruption can ultimately present a danger for the public health; they can discreditspecific, essential institutions or social relationships.Corruption can also affect the various components of sports activities (referees, players, medical and laboratorystaff involved in anti-doping controls, members of national sport federation and international committees decidingabout the allocation of contracts and competition places).Cases exist against (members of) various types of non-profit and non-government organisations, as well asreligious organisations.Ultimately, the distinction between public and private sector corruption sometimes appears rather artificial andnational anti-corruption initiatives may need to avoid legal and other loopholes in the coverage of the instruments.[edit] Types[edit] BriberyMain article: BriberyA bribe is a payment given personally to a government official in exchange of his use of official powers.Bribery requires two participants: one to give the bribe, and one to take it. Either may initiate the corrupt offering;for example, a customs official may demand bribes to let through allowed (or disallowed) goods, or a smugglermight offer bribes to gain passage. In some countries the culture of corruption extends to every aspect of publiclife, making it extremely difficult for individuals to stay in business without resorting to bribes. Bribes may bedemanded in order for an official to do something he is already paid to do. They may also be demanded in orderto bypass laws and regulations. In addition to using bribery for private financial gain, they are also used to
  • 16. intentionally and maliciously cause harm to another (i.e. no financial incentive). In some developing nations,up to half of the population has paid bribes during the past 12 months.[10]In recent years, efforts have been made by the international community to encourage countries to dissociate andincriminate as separate offences, active and passive bribery. Active bribery can be defined for instance as thepromising, offering or giving by any person, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage [to any publicofficial], for himself or herself or for anyone else, for him or her to act or refrain from acting in the exercise ofhis or her functions. (article 2 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council ofEurope). Passive bribery can be defined as the request or receipt [by any public official], directly or indirectly, ofany undue advantage, for himself or herself or for anyone else, or the acceptance of an offer or a promise ofsuch an advantage, to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions (article 3 of the CriminalLaw Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)). The reason for this dissociation is to make the early steps (offering,promising, requesting an advantage) of a corrupt deal already an offence and, thus, to give a clear signal (from acriminal policy point of view) that bribery is not acceptable. Furthermore, such a dissociation makes theprosecution of bribery offences easier since it can be very difficult to prove that two parties (the bribe-giver and thebribe-taker) have formally agreed upon a corrupt deal. In addition, there is often no such formal deal but only amutual understanding, for instance when it is common knowledge in a municipality that to obtain a building permitone has to pay a "fee" to the decision maker to obtain a favourable decision. A working definition of corruption isalso provided as follows in article 3 of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174): For the purpose of thisConvention, "corruption" means requesting, offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or anyother undue advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behaviorrequired of the recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof.[edit] Trading in influenceTrading in influence, or influence peddling in some countries, refers to the situation where a person is sellinghis/her influence over the decision process involving a third party (person or institution). The difference withbribery is that this is a tri-lateral relation. From a legal point of view, the role of the third party (who is the target ofthe influence) does not really matter although he/she can be an accessory in some instances. It can be difficult tomake a distinction between this form of corruption and some forms of extreme and loosely regulated lobbyingwhere for instance law- or decision-makers can freely "sell" their vote, decision power or influence to thoselobbyists who offer the highest compensation, including where for instance the latter act on behalf of powerfulclients such as industrial groups who want to avoid the passing of specific environmental, social, or otherregulations perceived as too stringent, etc. Where lobbying is (sufficiently) regulated, it becomes possible toprovide for a distinctive criteria and to consider that trading in influence involves the use of "improper influence",as in article 12 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council of Europe.[edit] PatronageMain article: PatronagePatronage refers to favoring supporters, for example with government employment. This may be legitimate, aswhen a newly elected government changes the top officials in the administration in order to effectively implementits policy. It can be seen as corruption if this means that incompetent persons, as a payment for supporting theregime, are selected before more able ones. In nondemocracies many government officials are often selected forloyalty rather than ability. They may be almost exclusively selected from a particular group (for example, SunniArabs in Saddam Husseins Iraq, the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union, or the Junkers in Imperial Germany) thatsupport the regime in return for such favors. A similar problem can also be seen in Eastern Europe, for example inRomania, where the government is often accused of patronage (when a new government comes to power it rapidlychanges most of the officials in the public sector).[edit] Nepotism and cronyism
  • 17. Main articles: Nepotism and CronyismFavoring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of illegitimate private gain.This may be combined with bribery, for example demanding that a business should employ a relative of an officialcontrolling regulations affecting the business. The most extreme example is when the entire state is inherited, as inNorth Korea or Syria. A milder form of cronyism is a "Good ol boy network", in which appointees to officialpositions are selected only from a closed and exclusive social network – such as the alumni of particularuniversities – instead of appointing the most competent candidate.Seeking to harm enemies becomes corruption when official powers are illegitimately used as means to this end.For example, trumped-up charges are often brought up against journalists or writers who bring up politicallysensitive issues, such as a politicians acceptance of bribes.[edit] Electoral fraudMain article: Electoral fraudElectoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bringabout an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share ofthe rival candidates, or both. Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms involved include illegal voter registration,intimidation at polls, and improper vote counting.[edit] EmbezzlementMain article: EmbezzlementEmbezzlement is outright theft of entrusted funds. It is political when it involves public money taken by aresponsible public official. A common type of embezzlement is that of personal use of entrusted governmentresources; for example, when an official assigns public employees to renovate his own house.[edit] KickbacksSee also: Anti-competitive practices and Bid riggingA kickback is an officials share of misappropriated funds allocated from his or her organization to an organizationinvolved in corrupt bidding. For example, suppose that a politician is in charge of choosing how to spend somepublic funds. He can give a contract to a company that is not the best bidder, or allocate more than they deserve. Inthis case, the company benefits, and in exchange for betraying the public, the official receives a kickback payment,which is a portion of the sum the company received. This sum itself may be all or a portion of the differencebetween the actual (inflated) payment to the company and the (lower) market-based price that would have beenpaid had the bidding been competitive.Another example of a kickback would be if a judge receives a portion of the profits that a business makes inexchange for his judicial decisions.Kickbacks are not limited to government officials; any situation in which people are entrusted to spend funds thatdo not belong to them are susceptible to this kind of corruption.[edit] Unholy alliance
  • 18. An unholy alliance is a coalition among seemingly antagonistic groups for ad hoc or hidden gain. Like patronage,unholy alliances are not necessarily illegal, but unlike patronage, by its deceptive nature and often great financialresources, an unholy alliance can be much more dangerous to the public interest. An early, well-known use of theterm was by Theodore Roosevelt (TR): "To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." – 1912 Progressive Party Platform, attributed to TR[11] and quoted again in his autobiography[12] where he connects trusts and monopolies (sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) to Woodrow Wilson, Howard Taft, and consequently both major political parties.[edit] Involvement in organized crimeAn illustrative example of official involvement in organized crime can be found from 1920s and 1930s Shanghai,where Huang Jinrong was a police chief in the French concession, while simultaneously being a gang boss and co-operating with Du Yuesheng, the local gang ringleader. The relationship kept the flow of profits from the gangsgambling dens, prostitution, and protection rackets undisturbed.The United States accused Manuel Noriegas government in Panama of being a "narcokleptocracy", a corruptgovernment profiting on illegal drug trade. Later the U.S. invaded Panama and captured Noriega.[edit] Conditions favorable for corruptionIt is argued that the following conditions are favorable for corruption: • Information deficits o Lacking freedom of information legislation. For example: The Indian Right to Information Act 2005 is perceived to have "already engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power equations completely."[13] o Lack of investigative reporting in the local media. o Contempt for or negligence of exercising freedom of speech and freedom of the press. o Weak accounting practices, including lack of timely financial management. o Lack of measurement of corruption. For example, using regular surveys of households and businesses in order to quantify the degree of perception of corruption in different parts of a nation or in different government institutions may increase awareness of corruption and create pressure to combat it. This will also enable an evaluation of the officials who are fighting corruption and the methods used. o Tax havens which tax their own citizens and companies but not those from other nations and refuse to disclose information necessary for foreign taxation. This enables large scale political corruption in the foreign nations.[14][citation needed] • Lacking control of the government. o Lacking civic society and non-governmental organizations which monitor the government. o An individual voter may have a rational ignorance regarding politics, especially in nationwide elections, since each vote has little weight. o Weak civil service, and slow pace of reform. o Weak rule of law. o Weak legal profession. o Weak judicial independence.
  • 19. o Lacking protection of whistleblowers.  Government Accountability Project o Lack of benchmarking, that is continual detailed evaluation of procedures and comparison to others who do similar things, in the same government or others, in particular comparison to those who do the best work. The Peruvian organization Ciudadanos al Dia has started to measure and compare transparency, costs, and efficiency in different government departments in Peru. It annually awards the best practices which has received widespread media attention. This has created competition among government agencies in order to improve.[15] • Opportunities and incentives o Individual officials routinely handle cash, instead of handling payments by giro or on a separate cash desk—illegitimate withdrawals from supervised bank accounts are much more difficult to conceal. o Public funds are centralized rather than distributed. For example, if $1,000 is embezzled from a local agency that has $2,000 funds, it is easier to notice than from a national agency with $2,000,000 funds. See the principle of subsidiarity. o Large, unsupervised public investments. o Sale of state-owned property and privatization.[citation needed] o Poorly-paid government officials. o Government licenses needed to conduct business, e.g., import licenses, encourage bribing and kickbacks. o Long-time work in the same position may create relationships inside and outside the government which encourage and help conceal corruption and favoritism. Rotating government officials to different positions and geographic areas may help prevent this; for instance certain high rank officials in French government services (e.g. treasurer-paymasters general) must rotate every few years. o Costly political campaigns, with expenses exceeding normal sources of political funding, especially when funded with taxpayer money. o Less interaction with officials reduces the opportunities for corruption. For example, using the Internet for sending in required information, like applications and tax forms, and then processing this with automated computer systems. This may also speed up the processing and reduce unintentional human errors. See e-Government. o A windfall from exporting abundant natural resources may encourage corruption.[16] (See Resource curse) o War and other forms of conflict correlate with a breakdown of public security. • Social conditions o Self-interested closed cliques and "Good ol boy networks". o Family-, and clan-centered social structure, with a tradition of nepotism/favouritism being acceptable. o A gift economy, such as the Soviet blat system, emerges in a Communist centrally planned economy. o Lacking literacy and education among the population. o Frequent discrimination and bullying among the population. o Tribal solidarity, giving benefits to certain ethnic groupsIn the Indian political system, for example, it has become usual that the leadership of national and regional partiesare passed from generation to generation[17][18] creating a system in which a family holds the center of power. Someexamples are most of the Dravidian parties of south India and also the Congress party, which is one of the twomajor political parties in India.[edit] Size of public sector
  • 20. Extensive and diverse public spending is, in itself, inherently at risk of cronyism, kickbacks, and embezzlement.Complicated regulations and arbitrary, unsupervised official conduct exacerbate the problem. This is one argumentfor privatization and deregulation. Opponents of privatization see the argument as ideological. The argument thatcorruption necessarily follows from the opportunity is weakened by the existence of countries with low to non-existent corruption but large public sectors, like the Nordic countries.[19] However, these countries score high onthe Ease of Doing Business Index, due to good and often simple regulations, and have rule of law firmlyestablished. Therefore, due to their lack of corruption in the first place, they can run large public sectors withoutinducing political corruption.Like other governmental economic activities, also privatization, such as in the sale of government-owned property,is particularly at the risk of cronyism. Privatizations in Russia, Latin America, and East Germany wereaccompanied by large scale corruption during the sale of the state owned companies. Those with politicalconnections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited privatization in these regions. While media havereported widely the grand corruption that accompanied the sales, studies have argued that in addition to increasedoperating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger without privatization, and that corruption is moreprevalent in non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that extralegal and unofficialactivities are more prevalent in countries that privatized less.[20]There is the counter point, however, that industries with an oligarchy of companies can be quite corrupt, withcollusive price-fixing, pressuring dependent businesses, etc., and only by having a portion of the market owned bysomeone other than that oligarchy, i.e. public sector, can keep them in line. If the public sector company is makingmoney and selling their product for half of the price of the private sector companies, the private sector companieswont be able to simultaneously gouge to that degree and keep their customers: the competition keeps them in line.Private sector corruption can increase the poverty and helplessness of the population, so it can affect governmentcorruption, in the long-term.[citation needed]In the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity is applied: a government service should be provided by thelowest, most local authority that can competently provide it. An effect is that distribution of funds into multipleinstances discourages embezzlement, because even small sums missing will be noticed. In contrast, in a centralizedauthority, even minute proportions of public funds can be large sums of money.[edit] Governmental corruptionIf the highest echelons of the governments also take advantage from corruption or embezzlement from thestates treasury, it is sometimes referred with the neologism kleptocracy. Members of the government can takeadvantage of the natural resources (e.g., diamonds and oil in a few prominent cases) or state-owned productiveindustries. A number of corrupt governments have enriched themselves via foreign aid, which is often spent onshowy buildings and armaments.A corrupt dictatorship typically results in many years of general hardship and suffering for the vast majorityof citizens as civil society and the rule of law disintegrate. In addition, corrupt dictators routinely ignoreeconomic and social problems in their quest to amass ever more wealth and power.The classic case of a corrupt, exploitive dictator often given is the regime of Marshal Mobutu Sese Seko, whoruled the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which he renamed Zaire) from 1965 to 1997. It is said that usage ofthe term kleptocracy gained popularity largely in response to a need to accurately describe Mobutus regime.Another classic case is Nigeria, especially under the rule of General Sani Abacha who was de facto president ofNigeria from 1993 until his death in 1998. He is reputed to have stolen some US$3–4 billion. He and his relativesare often mentioned in Nigerian 419 letter scams claiming to offer vast fortunes for "help" in laundering his stolen"fortunes", which in reality turn out not to exist.[21] More than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury byNigerias leaders between 1960 and 1999.[22]
  • 21. More recently, articles in various financial periodicals, most notably Forbes magazine, have pointed to FidelCastro, General Secretary of the Republic of Cuba since 1959, of likely being the beneficiary of up to $900million, based on "his control" of state-owned companies.[23] Opponents of his regime claim that he has usedmoney amassed through weapons sales, narcotics, international loans, and confiscation of private property toenrich himself and his political cronies who hold his dictatorship together, and that the $900 million published byForbes is merely a portion of his assets, although that needs to be proven.[24][edit] Judiciary corruptionThere are two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state (through budget planning and various privileges),and the private. Budget of the judiciary in many transitional and developing countries is almost completelycontrolled by the executive. The latter undermines the separation of powers, as it creates a critical financialdependence of the judiciary. The proper national wealth distribution including the government spending on thejudiciary is subject of the constitutional economics.[25][edit] Fighting corruptionMobile telecommunications and radio broadcasting help to fight corruption, especially in developing regions likeAfrica,[26] where other forms of communications are limited. In India the anti corruption bureau fights againstcorruption and a new ombudsman bill called jan lokpal bill is being prepared.In the 1990s, initiatives were taken at an international level (in particular by the European Community, the Councilof Europe, the OECD) to put a ban on corruption: in 1996, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe,[27]for instance, adopted a comprehensive Programme of Action against Corruption and, subsequently, issued a seriesof anti-corruption standard-setting instruments: • the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173);[28] • the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174);[29] • the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 191);[30] • the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption (Resolution (97) 24);[31] • the Recommendation on Codes of Conduct for Public Officials (Recommendation No. R (2000) 10);[32] • the Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4)[33]The purpose of these instruments was to address the various forms of corruption (involving the public sector, theprivate sector, the financing of political activities, etc.) whether they had a strictly domestic or also a transnationaldimension. To monitor the implementation at national level of the requirements and principles provided in thosetexts, a monitoring mechanism – the Group of States Against Corruption (also known as GRECO) (French: GroupedEtats contre la corruption) was created.Further conventions were adopted at the regional level under the aegis of the Organization of American States(OAS or OEA), the African Union, and in 2003, at the universal level under that of the United Nations.[edit] WhistleblowersMain article: Whistleblower[edit] Campaign contributions
  • 22. In the political arena, corruption is mainly proven by following the money trail. However, the connection betweenthe contribution and anything in return is difficult to prove. For this reason, there are often unproven rumors, thatare termed, smear campaign, about many politicians.Politicians are placed in apparently compromising positions because of their need to solicit financial contributionsfor their campaign finance. If they then appear to be acting in the interests of those parties that funded them, itcould be considered corruption. Though donations may be coincidental, the question asked is, why are theyfunding politicians at all, if they get nothing for their money.In the United States, before the Citizens United decision, the laws regulating campaign finance in the UnitedStates required that all contributions, and their, use should be publicly disclosed. However, some managed toevade disclosure till at after votes were made or years later. Many companies, especially larger ones, funded, andcontinue to fund, both the Democratic and Republican parties. Since the Citizens United decision, the pattern ofcorporate funding has increased, as the disclosure requirements have effectively been circumvented.Certain countries, such as France, ban altogether the corporate funding of political parties. Because of the possiblecircumvention of this ban with respect to the funding of political campaigns, France also imposes maximumspending caps on campaigning; candidates that have exceeded those limits, or that have handed in misleadingaccounting reports, risk having their candidacy ruled invalid. They also may be prevented from running in futureelections. In addition, the government funds political parties according to their successes in elections.In some countries, political parties are run solely off subscriptions (membership fees).Even legal measures such as these have been argued to be legalized corruption, in that they often favor the politicalstatus quo. Minor parties and independents often argue that efforts to rein in the influence of contributions do littlemore than protect the major parties with guaranteed public funding while constraining the possibility of privatefunding by outsiders. In these instances, officials are legally taking money from the public coffers for their electioncampaigns to guarantee that they will continue to hold their influential and often well-paid positions.As indicated above, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recognized in 1996 the importance oflinks between corruption and political financing. It adopted in 1837 the Recommendation on Common Rulesagainst Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4). This text is quiteunique at international levels as it aims i.a. at increasing transparency in the funding of political parties andelection campaigns (these two areas are difficult to dissociate since parties are also involved in campaigning and inmany countries, parties do not have the monopoly over the presentation of candidates for elections), ensuring acertain level of control over the funding and spending connected with political activities, and making sureinfringements are subject to effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions. In the context of its monitoringactivities, the Group of States Against Corruption has identified a great variety of possible improvements in thoseareas (see the country reports adopted under the Third Evaluation Round).The legalization of enormous undisclosed campaign contributions allows undisclosed donors of sufficient wealthto effectively purchase election outcomes. Such donors are able to influence the politicians dependent on theircontributions to give them governmental largess such as payments or tax reductions at the expense of othertaxpayers, government-created monopolies at the expense of competitors and consumers, and license to adverselyimpact the the well-being of common citizens by the release of unsafe products or of industrial pollution. Theability to command such influence, coupled with the granting of such favored treatment, gives rise to a perceivedrisk to clean elections and honest governance. In response, a number of potential legislative remedies have beenproposed, among them the DISCLOSE Act.[edit] Measuring corruption
  • 23. Measuring corruption statistically is difficult if not impossible due to the illicit nature of the transaction andimprecise definitions of corruption.[34] While "corruption" indices first appeared in 1995 with the CorruptionPerceptions Index CPI, all of these metrics address different proxies for corruption, such as public perceptions ofthe extent of the problem.[35]Transparency International, an anti-corruption NGO, pioneered this field with the CPI, first released in 1995. Thiswork is often credited with breaking a taboo and forcing the issue of corruption into high level development policydiscourse. Transparency International currently publishes three measures, updated annually: a CPI (based onaggregating third-party polling of public perceptions of how corrupt different countries are); a Global CorruptionBarometer (based on a survey of general public attitudes toward and experience of corruption); and a Bribe PayersIndex, looking at the willingness of foreign firms to pay bribes. The Corruption Perceptions Index is the bestknown of these metrics, though it has drawn much criticism[35][36][37] and may be declining in influence.[38]The World Bank collects a range of data on corruption, including survey responses from over 100,000 firmsworldwide and a set of indicators of governance and institutional quality. Moreover, one of the six dimensions ofgovernance measured by the Worldwide Governance Indicators is Control of Corruption, which is defined as "theextent to which power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well ascapture of the state by elites and private interests."[39] While the definition itself is fairly precise, the dataaggregated into the Worldwide Governance Indicators is based on any available polling: questions range from "iscorruption a serious problem?" to measures of public access to information, and not consistent across countries.Despite these weaknesses, the global coverage of these datasets has led to their widespread adoption, most notablyby the Millennium Challenge Corporation.[34]In part in response to these criticisms, a second wave of corruption metrics has been created by Global Integrity,the International Budget Partnership, and many lesser known local groups, starting with the Global Integrity Index,[40] first published in 2004. These second wave projects aim not to create awareness, but to create policy change viatargeting resources more effectively and creating checklists toward incremental reform. Global Integrity and theInternational Budget Partnership[41] each dispense with public surveys and instead uses in-country experts toevaluate "the opposite of corruption" – which Global Integrity defines as the public policies that prevent,discourage, or expose corruption.[42] These approaches compliment the first wave, awareness-raising tools bygiving governments facing public outcry a checklist which measures concrete steps toward improved governance.[34]Typical second wave corruption metrics do not offer the worldwide coverage found in first wave projects, andinstead focus on localizing information gathered to specific problems and creating deep, "unpackable" content thatmatches quantitative and qualitative data. Meanwhile, alternative approaches such as the British aid agencysDrivers of Change research skips numbers entirely and favors understanding corruption via political economyanalysis of who controls power in a given society.[34][edit] Institutions dealing with political corruption • Global Witness, an international NGO established in 1993 that works to break the links between natural resource exploitation, conflict, poverty, corruption, and human rights abuses worldwide • Group of States Against Corruption, a body established under the Council of Europe to monitor the implementation of instruments adopted by member states to combat political corruption • Independent Commission Against Corruption (disambiguation) • Transparency International, a non-governmental organization that monitors and publicizes corporate and political corruption in international development o Corruption Perceptions Index, published yearly by Transparency International • TrustLaw, a service of the Thomson Reuters Foundation is a global hub for free legal assistance and news and information on anti-corruption
  • 24. [edit] In fiction • The Financier (1912), The Titan (1914), and The Stoic (1947), Theodore Dreisers Trilogy of Desire, based on the life of the notorious transit mogul Charles Tyson Yerkes • Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Hollywood film 1939) • Atlas Shrugged (1957 novel) • Henry Adams novel Democracy (1880) • Carl Hiaasens novel Sick Puppy (1999) • Much of the Batman comic book series • V for Vendetta comic book series • The Ghost in the Shell Anime films and series • Animal Farm a novel by George Orwell • Training Day (2001 film) • Exit Wounds (2001 film) • American Gangster (2007 film) • Robert Penn Warrens novel All the Kings Men (1946) • Guru (2007 film) (Indian film)[edit] See also • Baksheesh • Comitology • Due diligence • List of politicians in India charged with corruption • Malfeasance in office • Political class • Political machine • Conflict of interest • Principal–agent problemAnti-corruption authorities and measuresIndia Against corruption logo • FBI[43] • Governance and Economic Management Assistance Program (GEMAP) • India Against Corruption[44] • Inter-American Convention Against Corruption • Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) • Independent Commission Against Corruption (Hong Kong)
  • 25. [edit] References 1. ^ African corruption on the wane, 10 July 2007, BBC News 2. ^ Luis Flores Ballesteros, "Corruption and development. Does the “rule of law” factor weigh more than we think?" 54 Pesos (November 15, 2008). Retrieved April 12, 2011 3. ^ "Corruption and growth in African countries: Exploring the investment channel, lead author Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, Department of Economics" (PDF). University of North Florida. p. 1,2. Retrieved 2012-06-07. 4. ^ "Nigerias corruption busters". busters.html. Retrieved 2009-12-05. 5. ^ "When the money goes west". New Statesman. 2005-03-14. Retrieved 2009-11-05.[dead link] 6. ^ "Will Growth Slow Corruption In India?". Forbes. 2007-08-15. 7. ^ Sheeter, Laura (2007-11-24). "Ukraine remembers famine horror". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-12-05. 8. ^ a b c d e f Sarah Bailey (2008) Need and greed: corruption risks, perceptions and prevention in humanitarian assistance Overseas Development Institute 9. ^ Fidelman, Charlie (November 27, 2010). "Cash bribes put patients atop surgery waiting lists". The Vancouver Sun. ml. Retrieved 2011-01-21.[dead link] 10. ^ "How common is bribe-paying?". "...a relatively high proportion of families in a group of Central Eastern European, African, and Latin American countries paid a bribe in the previous twelve months."[dead link] 11. ^ By Patricia OToole Sunday, Jun. 25, 2006 (2006-06-25). "OToole, Patricia, "The War of 1912," TIME in Partnership with CNN, Jun. 25, 2006".,9171,1207791-2,00.html. Retrieved 2009-12-05. 12. ^ "Roosevelt, Theodore. An Autobiography: XV. The Peace of Righteousness, Appendix B, New York: Macmillan, 1913". Retrieved 2009-12-05. 13. ^ "AsiaMedia :: Right to Information Act Indias magic wand against corruption". 2006-08-31. Retrieved 2009-11-05. 14. ^ Mathiason, Nick (2007-01-21). "Western bankers and lawyers rob Africa of $150bn every year". London:,,1994976,00.html. Retrieved 2009-12-05. 15. ^ "Why benchmarking works – PSD Blog – World Bank Group". 2006-08-17. Retrieved 2009-11-05. 16. ^ Damania, Richard; Bulte, Erwin (July 2003). "Resources for Sale: Corruption, Democracy and the Natural Resource Curse" (PDF). Centre for International Economic Studies, University of Adelaide. http:// Retrieved 2010-12-11. 17. ^ Soutik Biswas (1-18-2011). "Is India sliding into a hereditary monarchy?". BBC. BBC News. Retrieved 3 September 2011. 18. ^ Deo, Manjeet; Kripalani (8-5-2011). "The Gandhi dynasty: Politics as usual". Rediff. Rediff News. http:// Retrieved 3 September 2011.
  • 26. 19. ^ "Lessons From the North". Project Syndicate. Retrieved 2009-11-05.20. ^ Privatization in Competitive Sectors: The Record to Date. Sunita Kikeri and John Nellis. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2860, June 2002.[dead link] Privatization and Corruption. David Martimort and Stéphane Straub. IDEI.fr21. ^ Who wants to be a millionaire? – An online collection of Nigerian scam mails22. ^ "Nigerias corruption totals $400 billion". Malaysia Today. June 27, 2005. Archived from the original on 2007-12-11. ^ "Fidel Castro net worth rises, according to Forbes". Usatoday.Com. 2006-05-04. Retrieved 2009-11-05.24. ^ Shapiro, Ben (2006-08-05). "Ben Shapiro :: :: The death of Fidel Castro". Retrieved 2009-11-05.25. ^ Barenboim, Peter (October 2009). Defining the rules. Issue 90. The European Lawyer.26. ^ "Mobile Phones and Radios Combat Corruption in Burundi – Voices from Emerging Markets". 2009-03-12. Retrieved 2009-11-05.27. ^ "Committee of Ministers - Home". Retrieved 2012-06-07.28. ^ ^ NT=174&CM=1&DF=7/18/2008&CL=ENG30. ^ NT=191&CM=1&DF=7/18/2008&CL=ENG31. ^ ^ ^ ^ a b c d "A Users Guide to Measuring Corruption". Global Integrity. September 5, 2008. Retrieved 2010-12-11.35. ^ a b Galtung, Fredrik (2006). "Measuring the Immeasurable: Boundaries and Functions of (Macro) Corruption Indices," in Measuring Corruption, Charles Sampford, Arthur Shacklock, Carmel Connors, and Fredrik Galtung, Eds. (Ashgate): 101–130.36. ^ Sik, Endre (2002). "The Bad, the Worse and the Worst: Guesstimating the Level of Corruption," in Political Corruption in Transition: A Skeptics Handbook, Stephen Kotkin and Andras Sajo, Eds. (Budapest: Central European University Press): 91–113.37. ^ Arndt, Christiane and Charles Oman (2006). Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators (Paris: OECD Development Centre).38. ^ "Media citing Transparency International". q=Transparency+International&ctab=-1&geo=all&date=all. Retrieved 2009-12-05.39. ^ "A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance". The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank. 2007. p. 3. Archived from the original on 2008-05-27. ^ "The Global Integrity Report | Global Integrity". Retrieved 2012-06-07.41. ^ "International Budget Partnership". 2012-05-28. Retrieved 2012-06-07.42. ^ "The Global Integrity Report: 2009 Methodology White Paper". Global Integrity. 2009. Retrieved 2010-12-11.
  • 27. 43. ^ "FBI — Public Corruption". Retrieved 2012-06-07. 44. ^[edit] Further reading • Michael W. Collier. (2009) Political Corruption in the Caribbean Basin: Constructing a Theory to Combat Corruption excerpt and text search • Charles Copeman and Amy McGrath (eds.)(1997), Corrupt Elections. Ballot Rigging in Australia, Towerhouse Publications, Kensington, NSW • Donatella della Porta, and Alberto Vannucci, (1999). Corrupt Exchanges: Actors, Resources, and Mechanisms of Political Corruption. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. • Axel Dreher, Christos Kotsogiannis, Steve McCorriston (2004), Corruption Around the World: Evidence from a Structural Model. • Kimberly Ann Elliott, (ed.) (1997) Corruption and the Global Economy • Robert M. Entman (2012) Scandal and Silence: Media Responses to Presidential Misconduct (Polity Press) 269 pages; case studies from USA 1998 to 2008 indicate the news media neglects many more incidents of corruption than it covers. • Edward L. Glaeser and Claudia Goldin, (eds.) (2006), Corruption and Reform: Lessons from Americas Economic History U. of Chicago Press, 386 pp. ISBN 0-226-29957-0. • Mark Grossman. Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed (2 vol. 2008) • Arnold J. Heidenheimer, Michael Johnston and Victor T. LeVine (eds.) (1989), Political Corruption: A Handbook 1017 pages. • Richard Jensen. (2001) "Democracy, Republicanism and Efficiency: The Values of American Politics, 1885–1930," in Byron Shafer and Anthony Badger, eds, Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775–2000 pp 149–180; online edition • Michael Johnston, Victor T. LeVine, and Arnold Heidenheimer, eds. (1970) Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis • Michael Johnston (2005), Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy • Junichi Kawata. (2006) Comparing Political Corruption And Clientelism excerpt and text search • George C. Kohn (2001). The New Encyclopedia of American Scandal • Johann Graf Lambsdorff (2007), The Institutional Economics of Corruption and Reform: Theory, Evidence and Policy Cambridge University Press • Amy McGrath, (1994), The Forging of Votes, Tower House Publications, Kensington, NSW • Amy McGrath, (2003), Frauding of Elections, Tower House Publications and H.S. Chapman Society, Brighton-le Sands, NSW • Amy McGrath, (1994), The Frauding of Votes, Tower House Publications, Kensington, NSW • Amy McGrath, (2005), The Stolen Election, Australia 1987 According to Frank Hardy, Author of Power Without Glory, Towerhouse Publications and H.S. Chapman Society, Brighton-le Sands, NSW • John Mukum Mbaku. (1999) Bureaucratic and Political Corruption in Africa: The Public Choice Perspective • Stephen D. Morris. (2009) Political Corruption in Mexico: The Impact of Democratization • Aaron G. Murphy. (2010) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Practical Resource for Managers and Executives • Peter John Perry. (2002) Political Corruption in Australia: A Very Wicked Place? • John F. Reynolds. (1988). Testing Democracy: Electoral Behavior and Progressive Reform in New Jersey, 1880–1920 on corrupt voting methods • Robert North Roberts. (2001) Ethics in U.S. Government: An Encyclopedia of Investigations, Scandals, Reforms, and Legislation • James C. Scott. (1972) Comparative Political Corruption • Pietro Semeraro,(2008) Trading in influence and Lobbying in the Spanish Criminal Code
  • 28. • Mark Wahlgren Summers. (1993) The Era of Good Stealings, corruption in American politics 1868–1877 • Darrell M. West (2000), Checkbook Democracy. How Money Corrupts Political Campaigns, Northeastern University Press, Boston (Mass.) ISBN 1-55553-440-6 • Alexandra Wrage (2007) Bribery and Extortion: Undermining Business, Governments and Security • Woodward, C. Vann, ed. Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct (1975), American presidents from Washington to Lyndon Johnson[edit] External links • On Tackling Corruption: A Non-Economists View by Alum Bati • UNODC – United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime – on corruption • UNODC corruption campaign – Your NO counts! • World Bank anti-corruption page • The World Banks Private Sector Development Blog on Corruption • Corruption Literature Review World Bank Literature Review. • Global Integrity Report – local reporting and scorecards on anti-corruption performance in 90+ countries • United Nations Convention against Corruption at – fully indexed and crosslinked with other documents • PolicyPitch seeks to hold politicians accountable for their actions by providing more transparency. It allows people to track and comment on local legislation, contact politicians, and propose your own policies. • Money and Politics – Political Finance & Public Ethics – links to news articles, resources and handbooks on political corruption, political finance and campaign finance issues around the world • World Banks Worldwide Governance Indicators Worldwide ratings of country performances on six governance dimensions from 1996 to present. • UNICORN: A Global Trade Union Anti-corruption Network, based at Cardiff University •, McGrath, Amy. Chapter Seven “One Vote, One Value: Electoral Fraud in Australia”. Proceedings of the Eighth Conference of The Samuel Griffith Society. • National Seminar on political corruption in India. 20–21 January 2011. • Reducing corruption in public governance : Rhetoric to reality • Prevention: An Effective Tool to Reduce Corruption • Reducing corruption at the local level • Corrupt Cities : A Practical Guide to Cure and Prevention (162 pages • Understanding and preventing police corruption : Lessons from the literature • Index of Economic Freedom