(Assignment 2) Sreelakshmi R

This piece attempts to look at three cases of corruption from a set of countries located in various points of the spectrum that is public corruption. In consideration are Kenya, USA and Denmark. This is a choice that was curated keeping in mind the comparative possibilities that these countries offer in terms of syndromes of corruption, namely, Official Moguls and Influential Markets.

Rushabh Menon in his article on Kenya’s Moi regime (1978-2002) outlines three instances of the instance of Official Mogul, by which the dictator stifled political and economic dissent and allowed free access to Kenya’s natural resources and economy to his inner circle. These surreptitious activities were usually masked by cleverly executed international and private sector deals with complicated currency exchange. Kenya presents with a set of features endemic to the developing world in the face of Structural Readjustment and Neo- liberal market economies. The fact that this scandal was started to coincide with the liberalization of the market in 1991 is a relevant point here. Rushabh also, very promptly points out that the Bofors scandal in India under Rajiv Gandhi is an analogous case study here.

USA, a country seen as slightly less corrupt than at least Kenya, is a case study worthy of the exercise Vishali Sairam has attempted. She highlights the nexus between the global market, politicians and communities through Super- PACs. Influential markets are able to dictate political policy and political agenda, and even the highest offices of the government often seek advice from powerful private players. This becomes ever more of a problem when politicians trade policy favours in return for support in legislation or funding for a campaign. Vishali rightfully points at the illusion that the American public has regarding the Republican Party front runner Donald Trump that “he funds his own campaign and hence ‘cannot be bought’”. Setting aside factual inaccuracies in Trump’s claim, one really needs to see that if Trump cannot be influenced by potential donors, there is a distinct possibility that Trump can set and further his own agenda, which might not turn out to be in the best interests of the American public, or even, the world.

On the other end of the spectrum is Denmark, enjoying Transparency International’s first spot for three continuous years now. However, Anand Sreekumar rightfully questions the very criteria of this measurement and argues that mere transparency and politeness from public officials cannot be concluded as less corruption. He sees influential markets in action here, with private interests meddling with political activity, in terms of political donations, much similar to the USA. What becomes a problem here is the fact that these donations and money sources are often not made public knowledge and political parties are not held accountable for these. What he also points at is that it is such minor details that count in accounting for public office and the fact that Denmark is universally acknowledged as the least corrupt country makes it difficult to initiate changes.

These three case studies have presented to us the varying faces and forms that corruption takes- from outright violation of human rights to shady gray areas of legality, to an altogether blatant legal opaqueness, countries occupying different locations in the spectrum of corruption  have each to offer an analysis of the character of institutional corruption itself.