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 ANDPASTED FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
In accordance with Federal Laws, this information is provided for Educational and Information Purposes – i.e.
of PUBLIC Interest
Right of revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2. The storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789 has come to symbolize the French Revolution, when a people rose up
to exercise their right of revolution.
Part of a series on
Revolution
In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty, variously stated
throughout 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 various
rebellions, 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

3. o 6.1 Examples of the right of revolution as positive law
o 6.2 An end to the right of revolution in positive law
 7 See also
 8 References
 9 External links
[edit] Origins
[edit] China
The 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 kings
promulgated 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 then
transfer to those who would rule best. Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that the
Mandate of Heaven had passed on. Throughout Chinese history, rebels who opposed the ruling dynasty made the
claim that the Mandate of Heaven had passed, giving them the right to revolt. Ruling dynasties were often
uncomfortable with this, and the writings of the Confucian philosopher Mencius (372 – 289 BC) were often
suppressed 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 tradition
According to scholar Bernard Lewis, the Qur'an and Sunnah have several points to make on governance regarding
the 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 strict
limits on the duty of obedience. Two dicta attributed to the Prophet and universally accepted as authentic are
indicative. One says, "there is no obedience in sin"; in other words, if the ruler orders something contrary to the
divine 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 ruler
that may be.[2]
[edit] Medieval Europe
The Magna Carta marks one of the earliest attempts to limit a sovereign's authority and it is seen as a symbol of the
rule of law.[3]

4. In Europe, the right of revolution may be traced back to Magna Carta, an English charter issued in 1215, that
required 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 if
needed. Magna Carta directly influenced the development of parliamentary democracy and many constitutional
documents, 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 established
the rights of Hungary's noblemen, including the right to disobey the King when he acted contrary to law (jus
resistendi). The Golden Bull is often compared to the Magna Carta; the Bull was the first constitutional document
of 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 Salisbury
advocated direct revolutionary assassination of unethical tyrannical rulers in his Policraticus.
[edit] Early Modern Europe
Main article: Resistance theory in the Early Modern period
In the Early Modern period, the Jesuits, especially Robert Bellarmine and Juan de Mariana, were widely known
and often feared for advocating resistance to tyranny and often tyrannicide—one of the implications of the natural
law focus of the School of Salamanca.
John Calvin believed something similar. In a commentary on the Book of Daniel, he observed that contemporary
monarchs pretend to reign “by the grace of God,” but the pretense was “a mere cheat” so that they could “reign
without control.” He believed that “Earthly princes depose themselves while they rise up against God,” so “it
behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them.” When ordinary citizens are confronted with tyranny, he
wrote, ordinary citizens have to suffer it. But magistrates have the duty to “curb the tyranny of kings,” as had the
Tribunes in ancient Rome, the Ephori in Sparta, and the Demarchs in ancient Athens. That Calvin could support a
right of resistance in theory did not mean that he thought such resistance prudent in all circumstances. At least
publicly, he disagreed with the Scottish Calvinist John Knox’s call for revolution against the Catholic Queen Mary
Tudor of England.[4]
The Catholic Church shared Calvin's prudential concerns—together with a concern for saving the souls even of
tyrants, a concern that was irrelevant in double-predestinarian Calvinism. Thus, the Pope condemned Guy Fawkes'
Gunpowder Plot, and Regnans in Excelsis was widely considered to be a mistake. St. Thomas Aquinas had argued
that fear of tyrannicide drove tyrants to worse conduct, and that tyrannicide and rebellion tended to end in the
placement of an even worse tyrant on the throne—so that the safest course of action for the people was to endure
tyranny 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 officially
held by the Catholic Church as of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.
[edit] Use in history
Among 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 right
Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual
right, it was clearly understood to be collective right under English constitutional and political theory.[5] As Pauline
Maier has noted in her study From Resistance to Revolution, “[p]rivate individuals were forbidden to take force
against 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 writers
speaking 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 of
his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and
estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted
against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some
cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against
tyranny.
[edit] Duty versus right
Some philosophers argue that it is not only the right of a people to overthrow an oppressive government but also
their duty to do so. Howard Evans Kiefer opines, "It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more
understandable than that right to rebel, because the right to rebellion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty to
rebel goes beyond and breaks it."[8]
Morton White writes of the American revolutionaries, "The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremely
important to stress, for it shows that they thought they were complying with the commands of natural law and of
nature's God when they threw off absolute despotism."[9] The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that "when a
long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government" (emphasis added). Martin
Luther 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 Trumbull's Declaration of Independence
depicts 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 to
the most dire circumstances. In the American Revolutionary context, one finds expressions of the right of
revolution 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 the
right 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] For
Thomas Jefferson the Declaration was the last-ditch effort of an oppressed people—the position many Americans
saw themselves in 1776. Jefferson’s litany of colonial grievances was an effort to establish that Americans met
their 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 not
renounce the right of revolution. In fact they codified it in their new constitutions.[11] For instance, constitutions
considered to be "conservative," such as those of post-revolutionary Massachusetts in 1780, preserved the people's
right "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.
Connecticut's 1818 constitution articulated the people's right "at all times" to alter government "in such a manner
as they may think expedient."[13]
Legal historian Christian Fritz in American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before
the Civil War, describes a duality in American views on preconditions to the right of revolution: "Some of the first
state constitutions included 'alter or abolish' provisions that mirrored the traditional right of revolution" in that they
required dire preconditions to its exercise.[14] Maryland's 1776 constitution and New Hampshire's 1784
constitutions required the perversion of the ends of government and the endangering of public liberty and that all
other means of redress were to no avail.[15] But in contrast, other states dispensed with the onerous preconditions
on the exercise of the right. In the 1776 Virginia constitution the right would arise simply if government was
"inadequate" and Pennsylvania's 1776 constitution required only that the people considered a change to be "most
conducive" to the public welfare.[16]
[edit] Natural law or positive law
Descriptions of the Right of Revolution also differ in whether that right is considered to be a natural law (a law
whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere) or positive law (law enacted or adopted
by 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 the
American 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 constitutional
doctrine also supported the colonists’ actions, at least up to a point. By the 1760s, English law recognized what
William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England called “the law of redress against public
oppression.”[17] Like the natural law’s right of revolution, this constitutional law of redress justified the people
resisting the sovereign. This law of redress arose from a contract between the people and the king to preserve the
public welfare. This original contract was “a central dogma in English and British constitutional law” since “time
immemorial.”[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. Liberty
depended upon the people’s “ultimate” right to resist. Unconstitutional commands breaching the “voluntary
compact between the rulers and the ruled” could be “ignored” and arbitrary commands opposed with force.[20] This
right 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 powers
and 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 of
revolution, was not an individual right. It belonged to the community as a whole, as one of the parties to the
original constitutional contract.[22] It was not a means of first resort, or response to trivial or casual errors of
government.[23] Blackstone’s Commentaries suggested that using the law of redress would be “extraordinary,” for
example applying if the king broke the original contract, violated “the fundamental laws,” or abandoned the
kingdom.[24] During the Stamp Act crisis of the 1760s the Massachusetts Provincial Congress considered resistance
to the king justified if freedom came under attack from “the hand of oppression” and “the merciless feet of
tyranny.”[25] A decade later the “indictment” of George III in the Declaration of Independence sought to end his
sovereign 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 American
Revolution, American independence was justified by conventional theories under Anglo-American constitutional
thought at the time about the people’s collective right to cast off an arbitrary king. “Both natural law and English
constitutional doctrine gave the colonists a right to revolt against the sovereign’s oppression.”[27] But these
understandings about the right of revolution on the eve of the American Revolution rested on a traditional model of
government. That model posited the existence of a hypothetical bargain struck in the mists of antiquity between a
king and a people. “In this bargain, the people were protected by the monarch in exchange for the people giving
the king allegiance. This was a contractual relationship. American revolutionaries accused George III of breaching
his implied duty of protection under that contract, thereby releasing the people in the colonies from their
allegiance. 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 law
Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer
constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a
guarantee would likely produce. Among the examples of an articulation of a right of revolution as positive law
include:
 The szlachta, nobles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, also maintained a right of rebellion, known
as rokosz.
 New Hampshire's constitution[29] guarantees its citizens the right to reform government, in Article 10 of the
New Hampshire constitution's 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 Pennsylvania's 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 Carolina's 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 law
In modern times, among other arguments, it can be argued that as democratic governments can be overthrown by
popular 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 rewriting
its constitution. The ease of peoples to democratically implement such fundamental changes varies widely across
nations 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 also
served 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 right
of revolution in America. This did not develop instantly or uniformly after the establishment of American
governments. Some of the first state constitutions included ‘alter or abolish’ provisions that mirrored the traditional
right 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 people
to 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 principle
permitting the people as the sovereign to control government and revise their constitutions without limit. In this
way, the right broke loose from its traditional moorings of resistance to oppression. The alter or abolish provisions
could now be interpreted consistent with the constitutional principle that in America, the sovereign was the
people.”[34]
The third paragraph of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that so that people are not
compelled 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. ^
http://books.google.com/books?id=1R8bi1m9NvIC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=%22duty+to+rebel%22
&source=web&ots=xdUGaHk_fz&sig=KbTANyl6oRDdLrb736Hq1iK017s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_resul
t&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA327,M1
9. ^
http://books.google.com/books?id=z0thewbdTMsC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22duty+to+rebel%22&s
ource=web&ots=AmncN84fAl&sig=f9RHPgKdL2XXRekmS6OXc2-
gcgg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
10. ^ Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, [Feb. 23], 1775, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton,
I:136
11. ^ See Christian G. Fritz, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ZpKCvUacmSwC&pg=RA1-
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 America's 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:112
26. ^ Reid, “Irrelevance of the Declaration,” 84.
27. ^ Fritz, American Sovereigns, 14.

11. 28. ^ Fritz, American Sovereigns, 13.
29. ^ Constitution of the State of New Hampshire
30. ^ Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky
31. ^ Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
32. ^ Constitution of the State of Tennessee
33. ^ The Texas Constitution
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 ANDPASTED FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption
In accordance with Federal Laws, this information is provided for Educational and Information Purposes – i.e.
of PUBLIC Interest
Political corruption
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
World map of the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, which measures "the degree
to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians". High numbers (blue) indicate less
perception 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 of
government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not
considered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involved
with the government. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly
related 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, some
political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, government officials
have 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 unrestrained
political 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 institutions
Detail 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 good
governance 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 the
rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the inefficient provision of services. It violates a
basic principle of republicanism regarding the centrality of civic virtue. More generally, corruption erodes the
institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public offices
are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic
values as trust and tolerance.
[edit] Economic effects
See also: Corporate crime
In the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves, the
management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some
claim corruption reduces costs by cutting bureaucracy, the availability of bribes can also induce officials to
contrive new rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy regulations are better than covertly allowing
them to be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playing
field, 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 capital
projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of public
sector projects to conceal or pave the way for such dealings, thus further distorting investment.[3] Corruption also
lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations, reduces the quality of government
services 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 in
Africa, corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the resulting financial capital moved
overseas rather than invested at home (hence the stereotypical, but often accurate, image of African dictators
having Swiss bank accounts). In Nigeria, for example, more than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by
Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.[4] University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst researchers estimated
that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 sub-Saharan countries totaled $187bn, exceeding those nations'
external debts.[5] (The results, expressed in retarded or suppressed development, have been modeled in theory by
economist Mancur Olson.) In the case of Africa, one of the factors for this behavior was political instability, and
the fact that new governments often confiscated previous government's corruptly-obtained assets. This encouraged
officials to stash their wealth abroad, out of reach of any future expropriation. In contrast, Asian administrations
such as Suharto's 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 effects
Corruption facilitates environmental destruction. Corrupt countries may formally have legislation to protect the
environment, it cannot be enforced if officials can easily be bribed. The same applies to social rights worker
protection, unionization prevention, and child labor. Violation of these laws rights enables corrupt countries to gain
illegitimate economic advantage in the international market.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has observed that "there is no such thing as an apolitical food
problem." While drought and other naturally occurring events may trigger famine conditions, it is government
action or inaction that determines its severity, and often even whether or not a famine will occur. Governments
with strong tendencies towards kleptocracy can undermine food security even when harvests are good. Officials
often steal state property. In Bihar, India, more than 80% of the subsidized food aid to poor is stolen by corrupt
officials.[6] Similarly, food aid is often robbed at gunpoint by governments, criminals, and warlords alike, and sold
for a profit. The 20th century is full of many examples of governments undermining the food security of their own
nations – sometimes intentionally.[7]

15. [edit] Effects on Humanitarian Aid
The scale of humanitarian aid to the poor and unstable regions of the world grows, but it is highly vulnerable to
corruption, with food aid, construction and other highly valued assistance as the most at risk.[8] Food aid can be
directly and physically diverted from its intended destination, or indirectly through the manipulation of
assessments, targeting, registration and distributions to favour certain groups or individuals.[8] Elsewhere, in
construction and shelter, there are numerous opportunities for diversion and profit through substandard
workmanship, kickbacks for contracts and favouritism in the provision of valuable shelter material.[8] Thus while
humanitarian aid agencies are usually most concerned about aid being diverted by including too many, recipients
themselves are most concerned about exclusion.[8] Access to aid may be limited to those with connections, to those
who pay bribes or are forced to give sexual favours.[8] Equally, those able to do so may manipulate statistics to
inflate the number beneficiaries and syphon of the additional assistance.[8]
[edit] Other areas: health, public safety, education, trade unions, etc.
See also: Police corruption
Corruption is not specific to poor, developing, or transition countries. In western countries, cases of bribery and
other forms of corruption in all possible fields exist: under-the-table payments made to reputed surgeons by
patients attempting to be on top of the list of forthcoming surgeries,[9] bribes paid by suppliers to the automotive
industry in order to sell low-quality connectors used for instance in safety equipment such as airbags, bribes paid
by suppliers to manufacturers of defibrillators (to sell low-quality capacitors), contributions paid by wealthy
parents to the "social and culture fund" of a prestigious university in exchange for it to accept their children, bribes
paid to obtain diplomas, financial and other advantages granted to unionists by members of the executive board of
a car manufacturer in exchange for employer-friendly positions and votes, etc. Examples are endless. These
various manifestations of corruption can ultimately present a danger for the public health; they can discredit
specific, essential institutions or social relationships.
Corruption can also affect the various components of sports activities (referees, players, medical and laboratory
staff involved in anti-doping controls, members of national sport federation and international committees deciding
about the allocation of contracts and competition places).
Cases exist against (members of) various types of non-profit and non-government organisations, as well as
religious organisations.
Ultimately, the distinction between public and private sector corruption sometimes appears rather artificial and
national anti-corruption initiatives may need to avoid legal and other loopholes in the coverage of the instruments.
[edit] Types
[edit] Bribery
Main article: Bribery
A 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 smuggler
might offer bribes to gain passage. In some countries the culture of corruption extends to every aspect of public
life, making it extremely difficult for individuals to stay in business without resorting to bribes. Bribes may be
demanded in order for an official to do something he is already paid to do. They may also be demanded in order
to 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 and
incriminate as separate offences, active and passive bribery. Active bribery can be defined for instance as the
promising, offering or giving by any person, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage [to any public
official], for himself or herself or for anyone else, for him or her to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of
his or her functions. (article 2 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council of
Europe). Passive bribery can be defined as the request or receipt [by any public official], directly or indirectly, of
any undue advantage, for himself or herself or for anyone else, or the acceptance of an offer or a promise of such
an advantage, to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions (article 3 of the Criminal Law
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 a
criminal policy point of view) that bribery is not acceptable. Furthermore, such a dissociation makes the
prosecution of bribery offences easier since it can be very difficult to prove that two parties (the bribe-giver and the
bribe-taker) have formally agreed upon a corrupt deal. In addition, there is often no such formal deal but only a
mutual understanding, for instance when it is common knowledge in a municipality that to obtain a building permit
one has to pay a "fee" to the decision maker to obtain a favourable decision. A working definition of corruption is
also provided as follows in article 3 of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174): For the purpose of this
Convention, "corruption" means requesting, offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any
other undue advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behavior
required of the recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof.
[edit] Trading in influence
Trading in influence, or influence peddling in some countries, refers to the situation where a person is selling
his/her influence over the decision process involving a third party (person or institution). The difference with
bribery is that this is a tri-lateral relation. From a legal point of view, the role of the third party (who is the target of
the influence) does not really matter although he/she can be an accessory in some instances. It can be difficult to
make a distinction between this form of corruption and some forms of extreme and loosely regulated lobbying
where for instance law- or decision-makers can freely "sell" their vote, decision power or influence to those
lobbyists who offer the highest compensation, including where for instance the latter act on behalf of powerful
clients such as industrial groups who want to avoid the passing of specific environmental, social, or other
regulations perceived as too stringent, etc. Where lobbying is (sufficiently) regulated, it becomes possible to
provide 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] Patronage
Main article: Patronage
Patronage refers to favoring supporters, for example with government employment. This may be legitimate, as
when a newly elected government changes the top officials in the administration in order to effectively implement
its policy. It can be seen as corruption if this means that incompetent persons, as a payment for supporting the
regime, are selected before more able ones. In nondemocracies many government officials are often selected for
loyalty rather than ability. They may be almost exclusively selected from a particular group (for example, Sunni
Arabs in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union, or the Junkers in Imperial Germany) that
support the regime in return for such favors. A similar problem can also be seen in Eastern Europe, for example in
Romania, where the government is often accused of patronage (when a new government comes to power it rapidly
changes most of the officials in the public sector).
[edit] Nepotism and cronyism

17. Main articles: Nepotism and Cronyism
Favoring 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 official
controlling regulations affecting the business. The most extreme example is when the entire state is inherited, as in
North Korea or Syria. A milder form of cronyism is a "Good ol' boy network", in which appointees to official
positions are selected only from a closed and exclusive social network – such as the alumni of particular
universities – 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 politically
sensitive issues, such as a politician's acceptance of bribes.
[edit] Electoral fraud
Main article: Electoral fraud
Electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring
about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of
the rival candidates, or both. Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms involved include illegal voter registration,
intimidation at polls, and improper vote counting.
[edit] Embezzlement
Main article: Embezzlement
Embezzlement is outright theft of entrusted funds. It is political when it involves public money taken by a
responsible public official. A common type of embezzlement is that of personal use of entrusted government
resources; for example, when an official assigns public employees to renovate his own house.
[edit] Kickbacks
See also: Anti-competitive practices and Bid rigging
A kickback is an official's share of misappropriated funds allocated from his or her organization to an organization
involved in corrupt bidding. For example, suppose that a politician is in charge of choosing how to spend some
public funds. He can give a contract to a company that is not the best bidder, or allocate more than they deserve. In
this 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 difference
between the actual (inflated) payment to the company and the (lower) market-based price that would have been
paid 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 in
exchange for his judicial decisions.
Kickbacks are not limited to government officials; any situation in which people are entrusted to spend funds that
do 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 financial
resources, an unholy alliance can be much more dangerous to the public interest. An early, well-known use of the
term 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 crime
An 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 gang's
gambling dens, prostitution, and protection rackets undisturbed.
The United States accused Manuel Noriega's government in Panama of being a "narcokleptocracy", a corrupt
government profiting on illegal drug trade. Later the U.S. invaded Panama and captured Noriega.
[edit] Conditions favorable for corruption
It 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.
o Lacking protection of whistleblowers.

19.  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 closedcliques 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 groups
In the Indian political system, for example, it has become usual that the leadership of national and regional parties
are passed from generation to generation[17][18] creating a system in which a family holds the center of power. Some
examples are most of the Dravidian parties of south India and also the Congress party, which is one of the two
major 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 argument
for privatization and deregulation. Opponents of privatization see the argument as ideological. The argument that
corruption 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 on
the Ease of Doing Business Index, due to good and often simple regulations, and have rule of law firmly
established. Therefore, due to their lack of corruption in the first place, they can run large public sectors without
inducing 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 were
accompanied by large scale corruption during the sale of the state owned companies. Those with political
connections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited privatization in these regions. While media have
reported widely the grand corruption that accompanied the sales, studies have argued that in addition to increased
operating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger without privatization, and that corruption is more
prevalent in non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that extralegal and unofficial
activities 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, with
collusive price-fixing, pressuring dependent businesses, etc., and only by having a portion of the market owned by
someone other than that oligarchy, i.e. public sector, can keep them in line. If the public sector company is making
money and selling their product for half of the price of the private sector companies, the private sector companies
won't 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 government
corruption, in the long-term.[citation needed]
In the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity is applied: a government service should be provided by the
lowest, most local authority that can competently provide it. An effect is that distribution of funds into multiple
instances discourages embezzlement, because even small sums missing will be noticed. In contrast, in a centralized
authority, even minute proportions of public funds can be large sums of money.
[edit] Governmental corruption
If the highest echelons of the governments also take advantage from corruption or embezzlement from the
state's treasury, it is sometimes referred with the neologism kleptocracy. Members of the government can take
advantage of the natural resources (e.g., diamonds and oil in a few prominent cases) or state-owned productive
industries. A number of corrupt governments have enriched themselves via foreign aid, which is often spent on
showy buildings and armaments.
A corrupt dictatorship typically results in many years of general hardship and suffering for the vast majority
of citizens as civil society and the rule of law disintegrate. In addition, corrupt dictators routinely ignore
economic and social problems in their quest to amass evermore wealth and power.
The classic case of a corrupt, exploitive dictator often given is the regime of Marshal Mobutu Sese Seko, who
ruled the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which he renamed Zaire) from 1965 to 1997. It is said that usage of
the term kleptocracy gained popularity largely in response to a need to accurately describe Mobutu's regime.
Another classic case is Nigeria, especially under the rule of General Sani Abacha who was de facto president of
Nigeria from 1993 until his death in 1998. He is reputed to have stolen some US$3–4 billion. He and his relatives
are 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 by
Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.[22]

21. More recently, articles in various financial periodicals, most notably Forbes magazine, have pointed to Fidel
Castro, General Secretary of the Republic of Cuba since 1959, of likely being the beneficiary of up to $900
million, based on "his control" of state-owned companies.[23] Opponents of his regime claim that he has used
money amassed through weapons sales, narcotics, international loans, and confiscation of private property to
enrich himself and his political cronies who hold his dictatorship together, and that the $900 million published by
Forbes is merely a portion of his assets, although that needs to be proven.[24]
[edit] Judiciary corruption
There 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 completely
controlled by the executive. The latter undermines the separation of powers, as it creates a critical financial
dependence of the judiciary. The proper national wealth distribution including the government spending on the
judiciary is subject of the constitutional economics.[25]
[edit] Fighting corruption
Mobile telecommunications and radio broadcasting help to fight corruption, especially in developing regions like
Africa,[26] where other forms of communications are limited. In India the anti corruption bureau fights against
corruption 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 Council
of 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 series of 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, the
private sector, the financing of political activities, etc.) whether they had a strictly domestic or also a transnational
dimension. To monitor the implementation at national level of the requirements and principles provided in those
texts, a monitoring mechanism – the Group of States Against Corruption (also known as GRECO) (French: Groupe
d'Etats 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] Whistleblowers
Main article: Whistleblower
[edit] Campaign contributions

22. In the political arena, corruption is mainly proven by following the money trail. However, the connection between
the contribution and anything in return is difficult to prove. For this reason, there are often unproven rumors, that
are termed, smear campaign, about many politicians.
Politicians are placed in apparently compromising positions because of their need to solicit financial contributions
for their campaign finance. If they then appear to be acting in the interests of those parties that funded them, it
could be considered corruption. Though donations may be coincidental, the question asked is, why are they
funding 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 United
States required that all contributions, and their, use should be publicly disclosed. However, some managed to
evade disclosure till at after votes were made or years later. Many companies, especially larger ones, funded, and
continue to fund, both the Democratic and Republican parties. Since the Citizens United decision, the pattern of
corporate 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 possible
circumvention of this ban with respect to the funding of political campaigns, France also imposes maximum
spending caps on campaigning; candidates that have exceeded those limits, or that have handed in misleading
accounting reports, risk having their candidacy ruled invalid. They also may be prevented from running in future
elections. 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 political
status quo. Minor parties and independents often argue that efforts to rein in the influence of contributions do little
more than protect the major parties with guaranteed public funding while constraining the possibility of private
funding by outsiders. In these instances, officials are legally taking money from the public coffers for their election
campaigns 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 of
links between corruption and political financing. It adopted in 1837 the Recommendation on Common Rules
against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4). This text is quite
unique at international levels as it aims i.a. at increasing transparency in the funding of political parties and
election campaigns (these two areas are difficult to dissociate since parties are also involved in campaigning and in
many countries, parties do not have the monopoly over the presentation of candidates for elections), ensuring a
certain level of control over the funding and spending connected with political activities, and making sure
infringements are subject to effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions. In the context of its monitoring
activities, the Group of States Against Corruption has identified a great variety of possible improvements in those
areas (see the country reports adopted under the Third Evaluation Round).
The legalization of enormous undisclosed campaign contributions allows undisclosed donors of sufficient wealth
to effectively purchase election outcomes. Such donors are able to influence the politicians dependent on their
contributions to give them governmental largess such as payments or tax reductions at the expense of other
taxpayers, government-created monopolies at the expense of competitors and consumers, and license to adversely
impact the the well-being of common citizens by the release of unsafe products or of industrial pollution. The
ability to command such influence, coupled with the granting of such favored treatment, gives rise to a perceived
risk to clean elections and honest governance. In response, a number of potential legislative remedies have been
proposed, 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 and
imprecise definitions of corruption.[34] While "corruption" indices first appeared in 1995 with the Corruption
Perceptions Index CPI, all of these metrics address different proxies for corruption, such as public perceptions of
the extent of the problem.[35]
Transparency International, an anti-corruption NGO, pioneered this field with the CPI, first released in 1995. This
work is often credited with breaking a taboo and forcing the issue of corruption into high level development policy
discourse. Transparency International currently publishes three measures, updated annually: a CPI (based on
aggregating third-party polling of public perceptions of how corrupt different countries are); a Global Corruption
Barometer (based on a survey of general public attitudes toward and experience of corruption); and a Bribe Payers
Index, looking at the willingness of foreign firms to pay bribes. The Corruption Perceptions Index is the best
known 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 firms
worldwide and a set of indicators of governance and institutional quality. Moreover, one of the six dimensions of
governance measured by the Worldwide Governance Indicators is Control of Corruption, which is defined as "the
extent to which power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as
'capture' of the state by elites and private interests."[39] While the definition itself is fairly precise, the data
aggregated into the Worldwide Governance Indicators is based on any available polling: questions range from "is
corruption 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 notably
by 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 via targeting resources more effectively and creating checklists toward incremental reform. Global
Integrity and the International Budget Partnership[41] each dispense with public surveys and instead uses in-country
experts to evaluate "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 by
giving 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, and
instead focus on localizing information gathered to specific problems and creating deep, "unpackable" content that
matches quantitative and qualitative data. Meanwhile, alternative approaches such as the British aid agency's
Drivers of Change research skips numbers entirely and favors understanding corruption via political economy
analysis 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 Dreiser's 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 Hiaasen's 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 Warren's novel All the King's 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 problem
Anti-corruption authorities and measures
India 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.
http://www.uneca.org/aec/documents/Mina%20Baliamoune-Lutz_%20Leonce%20Ndikumana.pdf.
Retrieved 2012-06-07.
4. ^ "Nigeria's corruption busters". Unodc.org. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/nigerias-
corruption-busters.html. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
5. ^ "When the money goes west". New Statesman. 2005-03-14.
http://www.newstatesman.com/Economy/200503140015. Retrieved 2009-11-05.[dead link]
6. ^ "Will Growth Slow Corruption In India?". Forbes. 2007-08-15.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/15/wipro-tata-corruption-ent-law-cx_kw_0814whartonindia.html.
7. ^ Sheeter, Laura (2007-11-24). "Ukraine remembers famine horror". BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7111296.stm. 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.
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Cash+bribes+patients+atop+surgery+waiting+lists/3893239/story.ht
ml. Retrieved 2011-01-21.[deadlink]
10. ^ "How common is bribe-paying?".
http://www.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases/2005/09_12_2005_barometer_2005.
"...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). "O'Toole, Patricia, "The War of 1912,"
TIME in Partnership with CNN, Jun. 25, 2006". Time.com.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207791-2,00.html. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
12. ^ "Roosevelt, Theodore. ''An Autobiography:'' XV. The Peace of Righteousness, Appendix B, New
York: Macmillan, 1913". Bartleby.com. http://www.bartleby.com/55/15b.html. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
13. ^ "AsiaMedia :: Right to Information Act India's magic wand against corruption".
Asiamedia.ucla.edu. 2006-08-31. http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=52046. Retrieved
2009-11-05.
14. ^ Mathiason, Nick (2007-01-21). "Western bankers and lawyers 'rob Africa of $150bn every year".
London: Observer.guardian.co.uk. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1994976,00.html.
Retrieved 2009-12-05.
15. ^ "Why benchmarking works – PSD Blog – World Bank Group". Psdblog.worldbank.org. 2006-08-
17. http://psdblog.worldbank.org/psdblog/2006/08/why_benchmarkin.html#more. 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://www.adelaide.edu.au/cies/papers/0320.pdf. Retrieved 2010-12-11.
17. ^ Soutik Biswas (1-18-2011). "Is India sliding into a hereditary monarchy?". BBC. BBC News.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2011/01/is_india_sliding_into_a.html. Retrieved 3
September 2011.
18. ^ Deo, Manjeet; Kripalani (8-5-2011). "The Gandhi dynasty: Politics as usual". Rediff. Rediff
News. http://www.rediff.com/news/column/the-gandhi-dynasty-politics-as-usual/20110805.htm. Retrieved
3 September 2011.

26. 19. ^ "Lessons From the North". Project Syndicate. http://www.project-
syndicate.org/commentary/sachs110. 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. Econ.Chula.ac.th[dead link] Privatization and
Corruption. David Martimort and Stéphane Straub. IDEI.fr
21. ^ Who wants to be a millionaire? – An online collection of Nigerian scam mails
22. ^ "Nigeria's corruption totals $400 billion". Malaysia Today. June 27, 2005. Archived from the
original on 2007-12-11.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071211033642/http://web.archive.org/web/20071211033642/http://www.mal
aysia-today.net/Blog-e/2005/06/nigerias-corruption-totals-400-billion.htm.
23. ^ "Fidel Castro net worth rises, according to 'Forbes'". Usatoday.Com. 2006-05-04.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htm. Retrieved 2009-11-05.
24. ^ Shapiro, Ben (2006-08-05). "Ben Shapiro :: Townhall.com :: The death of Fidel Castro".
Townhall.com. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2006/08/02/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".
Voicesfromemergingmarkets.com. 2009-03-12. http://voicesfromemergingmarkets.com/?p=19. Retrieved
2009-11-05.
27. ^ "Committee of Ministers - Home". Coe.int. http://www.coe.int/t/cm/Home_en.asp. Retrieved
2012-06-07.
28. ^ http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=173&CL=ENG
29. ^
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=174&CM=1&DF=7/18/2008&CL=E
NG
30. ^
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=191&CM=1&DF=7/18/2008&CL=E
NG
31. ^ http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/documents/Resolution(97)24_EN.pdf
32. ^ http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/documents/Rec(2000)10_EN.pdf
33. ^ http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/general/Rec(2003)4_EN.pdf
34. ^ a b c d "A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption". Global Integrity. September 5, 2008.
http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/09/users-guide-to-measuring-corruption.html. 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 Skeptic's 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". Google.com.
http://www.google.com/trends?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.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080527211855/http://web.archive.org/web/20080527211855/http://info.worl
dbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/booklet_decade_of_measuring_governance.pdf.
40. ^ "The Global Integrity Report | Global Integrity". Report.globalintegrity.org.
http://report.globalintegrity.org/. Retrieved 2012-06-07.

27. 41. ^ "International Budget Partnership". Internationalbudget.org. 2012-05-28.
http://www.internationalbudget.org/. Retrieved 2012-06-07.
42. ^ "The Global Integrity Report: 2009 Methodology White Paper". Global Integrity. 2009.
http://report.globalintegrity.org/methodology/whitepaper.cfm. Retrieved 2010-12-11.
43. ^ "FBI — Public Corruption". Fbi.gov. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/corruption.
Retrieved 2012-06-07.
44. ^ http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/
[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 America's
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

28.  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
 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-Economist's 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 Bank's 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 Law-Ref.org – 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 Bank's 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
 SamuelGriffith.org.au, 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