Denmark as a
choice would seem strange if not ironic, when one considers the prevalence of
corruption. Denmark has consistently been at the helm of the corruption
perception index, published by Transparency International. Yet the stark fact
that even Denmark merits consideration when discussing corruption shows how
complicated the landscape of corruption is and reaffirms the importance of a
philosophical perspective.
The incidence of
corruption is mostly two-fold. Transparency in funding for political parties is
identified as the greatest potential problem.
The perception index masks the larger picture as the perception of
corruption is favourable only towards the public sector while political parties
were viewed in a far negative light. The Danish law also has significant
loopholes. Politicians don’t have to publish donations, if they are private.
Even if private donations above 20000 Kr are required by law to be published,
this can be evaded by spreading the donations across different local branches
of a political party. The transparency of the laws in Denmark is much weaker
when compared to its Nordic counterparts.
The second issue
is that of foreign bribery. According to a report published by the OECD Working
Group on Bribery in 2013, though the no of allegations were less (13), the
implementation rate is deplorable as the necessary actions have only been
implemented in case of one.
From a theoretical
perspective with regards to syndromes to corruption, this scenario is a clear
illustration of the principle of influence markets when private interests
influence the political parties through wealth. The key is in the details, the
minor loopholes in the law which make the difference. In summation, the system
doesn’t just withstand this, but Denmark universally enjoys universal
recognition as the least corrupt state in the world.
From a
philosophical perspective, the ideas of Aristotle are still valid surprisingly.
His emphasis on subjectivity, ie a necessary consideration of the circumstances
before arriving at a universal conception cannot be more apt while situating
Denmark. Problems with use of public office, significantly on the opposite end
of the ethical spectrum still persist in the ‘least corrupt’ nation, adapting
itself to the neo liberal scenario, assuming quite subtle forms. Questions
arise with respect to the limits of corruption, or whether such a conception is
needed at all. Courtesy foreign bribery, these limits concern the spatial
aspect as well in the backdrop of globalisation transgressing national
boundaries. The Swiss banking system is a notable example in this respect. Given the increasingly complicated scenario,
the only consensus which ought to be arrived, in my opinion, is not a case for
multiple perceptions of corruption alone but the malleability of the very
notion of corruption in the ever changing socio-political scenario as
well.
Sources
3. Johnson, Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power and Democracy, Cambridge
(2005)
No comments:
Post a Comment