According to Johnston’s classification, United States
suffers from the ‘influence markets’ syndrome of corruption. It is a large
market democracy and possesses institutional rigidity, thus satisfying the
necessary conditions for it to be labelled as an ‘influence market’. Corruption
in an influence market, according to Johnston, can take any form since it does
not lie outside the law, but in the
“details of policy”. In his example, he shows that even though funds flow
through legal channels during elections, there is a widespread perception that
power will always and necessarily collude with wealth and elite networks. It is
believed that no public policy is truly for the ‘public’, but is always the
result of distortion. Distortion is when government spending decisions are made
to maximize the personal benefit of decision-makers rather than public welfare.
Such an analysis of corruption in America is a
simplistic understanding, for it shifts the blame on to individuals rather than
recognizing its systemic roots. It assumes that corruption exists only at the
public office and at the margins where it meets the private corporations. A
causal relationship is assumed and the distrust of people in institutions is
seen as a result of this corruption.
However, other social, political, and economic changes may too have spurred
this corruption of the people. Robert Putnam, in ‘Bowling Alone: America’s
Declining Social Capital’ notes that fewer Americans are part of social
institutions and show lesser interest in civic engagement. As a simultaneous
process, the financialisation of the American economy took place, resulting in
more jobs being outsourced due to the reorganization of capital. Democracy in
America, from its Tocquevillean roots, now has become an empty shell in which a
neoliberal politics have taken shelter. Political choice is indistinguishable
from consumer choice, since the choices are given
to the people rather than coming from the people.
How does one make the people un-corrupt? One of the
ways suggested by Putnam is to improve civic engagement, by changing the model
of the organizations involved. He finds that people have more sense of
solidarity in smaller groups, and hence suggests a ‘low-entry, honeycomb
structure’ with many small groups. Increased social capital is seen to increase
generalized trust, resulting in a better quality of democracy with higher rates
of participation. The second concern would be to combat the rising wealth inequality.
We see that countries with higher levels of social trust, such as Sweden, also
have lower levels of economic inequality. Rothstein suggests universal social
programmes as a way to both improve trust in the government and reduce economic
inequality. This are some of the possible practical anti-corruption measures
that can be taken to stop institutional decay and the subsequent rotting of the
body-politic.
No comments:
Post a Comment