Corruption scandals in Germany usually
involve bribery, which is the most visible feature of what is perceived to be
corruption, or the abuse of public office for private gain. Going by the
categorization of Michael Johnston’s ‘syndromes of corruption’, Germany would
fall under ‘influence markets’, which as the name suggests, are political
systems where the influence, or access of politicians or policymakers is
marketed, or sought to be bought by entities that try to connect wealth with
power. Influence markets are usually democracies with strong institutions where
bribery is not commonplace (albeit not non-existent) and the details of
policymaking are the definitive arena of corruption[i].
Here, the important aspect is that such corruption may not necessarily be
illegal. The impact of corruption is felt in the lack of confidence scandals
create in the public. The spirit of democracy is seen to be over-ridden by acts
of corruption.
Three cases from Germany are taken
to illustrate corruption in Germany. The first one is from 1961, when the
erstwhile West German Minister of Defense, Franz Josef Strauss was accused of
taking bribes from Lockheed, the American aerospace company to buy aircraft. In
1976, it was found that documents related to the purchase of the aircraft had
been destroyed[ii]. The
second case is the Flick Affair, the discovery of which led to the uncovering
of connections between corporations and political parties. The Flick Industrial
Holdings Company was found to have enjoyed illegal tax benefits in exchange for
paying bribes to an economic minister Otto Count Lambsdorff in the 1970s. Flick
was found to have bribed all major political parties[iii].
The third case is that of the CDU donation scandal, which involved contributions
to the Christian Democratic Union in 1991. This was supposedly related to
allowing the export of tanks to Saudi Arabia. Helmut Kohl, the Chancellor at
the time, admitted to accepting donations through secret accounts, but did not
classify this action as corrupt, or as taking bribes[iv].
These three cases are connected by
the pervasive incidence of bribery at the top levels of the political system,
and are also characterized by full-scale investigations and the apparent
punitive action against politicians. Therefore, this system was able to
withstand corruption scandals and continue. If one were to look at corruption
from philosophical perspectives, one would see that the definition of
corruption is not dependent on the nature of the political system per se
(monarchy, democracy, etc), but on the space allocated to private interests in
the execution of public duties. Aristotle would argue that any political system
wherein public administration is not solely a matter of upholding the common
interest (thereby leaving no space for private interests of the individuals in
public office) would be corrupt[v].
Here, one can see that the interplay of private interests takes place in an
illegitimate manner, and the lack of legitimacy goes beyond the illegal. Chanakya
also has a conception of the larger public good, which is affected by accepting
bribes, embezzling funds and distorting justice[vi].
[i] Johnston, Michael. “Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power and
Democracy”, Cambridge University Press, 2005
[ii] Durham, Robert B. “Supplying the Enemy: The Modern Arms Industry
and the Military-Industrial Complex”, Lulu.com, 2015
[iii] Strawn, Julie and Charles G. Hogan. “Democracy on the Take: Flick
Scandal Shakes West German Politics” The Multinational Monitor, January 1985,
Volume 6, No. 1 (Retrieved from http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1984/12/strawn.html,
1st March, 2016)
[iv] “German Sleaze: The Story So Far” BBC News, 17th
February, 2000 (Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/590558.stm,
1st March, 2016)
[v] Mulgan, Richard “Aristotle on Legality and Corruption” in
“Corruption: Expanding the Focus”, ed. Manuhuia Barcham, Barry Hindess, Peter
Larmour. Published by ANU E Press, 2012. Retrieved from http://press.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Corruption%3A+Expanding+the+focus/9901/ch02.html#toc_marker-12,
1st March, 2016
[vi] Kumar, Tarun “Corruption in Administration: Evaluating the
Kautilyan Antecedents” Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis, 12th
October, 2012. Retrieved from http://idsa.in/issuebrief/CorruptioninAdministrationEvaluatingtheKautilyanAntecedents_TarunKumar_121012,
1st March, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment