"Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad." - Henry Kissinger
Some things in politics never change; there will be taxes, there will always be a class of governors and a class of governed, people will never be satisfied and the cynic would say there will always be an element of corruption in politics. History certainly shows us that politicians never seem to learn.
Corruption is one of those wonderful words in politics that is much thrown around but seldom defined, like ‘socialism’, ‘fascism’, ‘sovereignty’ or ‘law’. Strictly speaking, corruption is the abuse of power for personal (primarily financial) gain. Therefore, technically speaking, allowing people to have an audience with the Prime Minister for party donations is not corruption. It is bad practise, but not corrupt or illegal, and due to the arbitrariness and subjectivity of the term not ‘immoral’ or ‘unethical’.
So corruption is a very grey area; it is a ‘bad thing’, we know that, and we want it to end, particularly corruption that involves politicians or public servants. It is fair to say that a desirable state is one with no corruption. This is where it gets bewildering; despite recent cases, the UK with a score of 7.8 ranks joint 16th in the world rankings. It appears that the parliamentary expenses scandal is not counted as ‘corruption’, even though there was an element of personal, primarily financial gain.
Any discussion on political corruption should then be broadened to be a question of ‘bad practise’, which includes corruption but also includes other things. Morality is an indefinable term; to call something ‘moral’ is like looking at a piece of art and saying ‘it’s beautiful’; it does not need reason and is wholly subjective. Therefore ‘bad’ or ‘unethical’ practise is the kind of acts politicians do that make you sigh and put your head in your hands.
Surely in a democracy it is possible to oust poor politicians; that is, after all, one of the strengths of allowing the people to vote. Well, you would have thought so, but Western Europe faces a problem with that. Here is a good time to compare Western Europe, where political parties are established, with Eastern Europe, where the political party scene is more fluid and a new party can win over 20% in its first election.
Slovakia recently had a general election rocked by a corruption scandal, the so called “Gorilla files”, which implicate high level politicians accepting bribes and dealing with incredibly wealthy individuals for personal profit. The full force of public anger was felt as the ruling SKUD party was decimated at the election, barely passing the 5% threshold. A similar situation happened in Croatia with the HDZ party and in Slovenia with the Social Democrats.
But in Western Europe, the parties are more established; when one party is caught in a corruption scandal they will still finish either first or second. Despite the Profumo affair, the Conservatives still won 43.4% in the 1964 general election, and in the Republic of Ireland candidates who were known to be corrupt still won up until 2007. It is only now that Ireland seems to be repenting its sins starting with Fianna Fail throwing Bertie Ahern out the party. France is utterly rife with political corruption; former PM Dominique de Villepin was caught in the Clearstram Affair in 2007 yet he is still in public office and the parties still stand strong.
Change in Western Europe has only been only possible when the corruption scandal reaches the levels seen in Italy in the early 1990s and has strong ties with the mafia. But such cases are so rare and hardly embroil the whole party like it did in Italy.
Democracy cannot oust poor politicians. The responsibility against corruption and ‘unethical practise’ is therefore the responsibility of the parties. It is up to the parties to take corrupt candidates off the list. But there is another catch; there is absolutely no definition of a ‘good’ or ‘ideal’ politician.
Accountants have a “Code of Ethics”; doctors have the “Hippocratic Oath”; yet politicians have nothing - there is no contract that binds them to act a certain way. Or at least nothing public and known; I have no doubt that there is ‘convention’ within the Commons, some kind of ‘gentleman’s agreement’. One way to tackle bad practise would be to have a political Hippocratic Oath that sets out the role and responsibilities of a politician to their constituents; a contract that holds a politician to account and if broken the constituents can have recourse or in serious cases the politician ‘struck off’.
One solution that was offered by the government was the power of recall; the ability of the constituents to call back their MP and have a by-election. The heart is in the right place, but this offer is flawed; it would give constituents the ability to call back MPs if a party became unpopular rather than if a politician was bent.
In an age of near total transparency and where the lives of politicians are so open to scrutiny, it baffles me that they are so willing to engage in “fraudulent politics”; how can politicians believe that they can get away with it? Haven’t they learned yet that skeletons will be discovered and they will potentially cause damage? Or are all the scandals we know about just the tip of the iceberg? In the days of Profumo it was understandable; the press respected the politicians and cover ups were possible and even permissible, but those days are long gone. What made Tony Blair get embroiled in the Hindujah and Ecclestone affairs and the Cash for Peers scandal? There will no doubt be an interesting psychological theory somewhere; but to someone with no PhD in psychology but only an interest in moral philosophy it is completely baffling.
There is, of course, one silver lining with corruption scandals; the subsequent reforms often make the system more democratic and accountable. Would there be more stringent regulation on MP’s expenses if not for the expenses scandal or would there still be a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ on the issue? The question of party donation has been thrown back into the light due to the ‘questionable practices’ of cash-for-dinner with the PM. Measures are put in place to prevent corruption once it occurs – however this comes at a cost for what is needed in a real democracy: trust.
