(Assignment 2) Sreedhar Vinayak

1.     ANAND’S  BLOG POST: AN ANALYSIS OF DENMARK

The author takes the example of Denmark to show how corruption operates in countries that have consistently been at the helm of the corruption perception index. He associates the case of Denmark with the syndrome of ‘Influence Markets’ where private interests influence the political parties through wealth. Funding for political parties and foreign bribery are the major corruption issues encountered by Denmark. The fact that the perception of corruption is favourable only towards public sector and the inherent loopholes in Danish law results in having a concrete legal definition of corruption problematic. Here, many of the illegitimate acts that one commonly perceive to be corrupt, becomes legal. So, there is a necessity for a radical redefinition of corruption. Anand borrows the Aristotelian notion of subjectivity here.  He argues for the ‘malleability’ of the very notion of corruption in this changing socio-political scenario.

This article tries to address the very question of corruption from a philosophical perspective and succeed in bringing a coherent argument for a redefinition of corruption.

2.     KEERTHI’S BLOG POST: ON CAMPAIGN SPENDING AND CORRUPTION IN US

The author focuses on campaign spending in US elections in this post.  She first points out the case Aaron Schock which fits the standard definition of corruption- the misuse of public office for private gain. Unlike that, the second case falls outside the popular perception of corruption. This was an issue of shadow campaigning, which is not outright bribery. Here comes the question of trust. The event had undermined the foundational trust citizens had on the competitive nature of electoral politics. From these cases, it is clear that ‘lying about the source of campaign funds’ is a major issue as far as corruption in US is concerned.

Similar to Anand’s argument, Keerthi also emphasize on the transparency and scope of laws related to corruption. She concludes by quoting Justice Stevens, “Corruption needs to be viewed beyond strict quid-pro-quo exchanges”.  

3.     MRINALINI’S BLOG POST: CASES FROM GERMANY

The author has taken the example of Germany where the corruption scandals usually involve the cases of bribery – one of the most visible forms of corruption. The legality of corruption is not the question here; but the lack of confidence corruption creates in the public and the resulting undermining of the spirit of democracy. The definition of corruption – for the author – depends on the space allocated to private interests in the execution of public duties. She has used the ideas of Chanakya and Aristotle on “the larger public good” affected by bribery to support her argument. 

All the three authors affirm the ability of the political systems in their respective countries to withstand the corruption scandals and continue. This is partly because of the prevalence of full-scale investigation and apparent punitive measures against the corrupt politicians.