|
An Interview with Doron Navot about his New Book "Political Corruption: A History of a Controversial Concept"
|
|
|
Date Published:
5/28/2008
|
Last Updated:
10/26/2008
|
|
Category:
Research and Programs
|
In honor of his new book Political Corruption: A History of a Contraversial Concept, we met with Mr. Doron Navot and discussed corruption in general and political corruption in Israel in particular. Read the full interview below:
Introduction
Political Corruption is a series of three books, which examine different aspects of the phenomenon: accepted definitions for political corruption, the development of corruption in Israeli politics, and recommendations for minimizing or preventing political corruption in Israel.
The first volume – Political Corruption: A History of a Controversial Concept – deals with the theoretical aspect of the phenomenon. The first chapter looks into the development of the term, from the 5th century B.C.E. through the beginning of the 20th century A.D.; the second chapter deals with a variety of definitions for "political corruption"; the third chapter surveys a range of analytical perspectives and theoretical explanations for the existence of political corruption.
In the future, two additional volumes will be published, completing a series of three. The second volume will describe and analyze the development of political corruption in Israeli society, and the third volume will present recommendations for minimizing and preventing political corruption.
Q: What is corruption and what is political corruption?
A: To corrupt is to distort, deform and destroy someone or something – a person, an object, or an idea – regardless of the original state of the object of corruption. (On the one hand, one could consider an object which was originally in good condition and then corrupted – such as someone's physical features before an accident or a website before it is hacked into. On the other hand, there are objects which don't have a pre-corrupt state). Sometimes, we use the term "corrupt" to describe dishonesty. Political corruption also has several meanings. The classic definition, which was accepted until the beginning of the 20th century, explains political corruption as the destruction of society and politics, a situation in which civilians and politicians care only about themselves as individuals, and not about the good of the public as a whole. Today, when we speak about political corruption, we tend to focus on public figures' behavior, and to refer to bribery, embezzlement, and other ways in which public figures may take advantage of their office for the advancement of their own personal interests. The most widely accepted definition of the term today in academia and amongst international organizations that struggle to minimize public corruption is "to misuse one's public position in order to promote the personal interests of the public official."
Q: Is corruption always bad? Is it always harmful?
A: The term "corruption" has a negative connotation, and therefore it's best to use it only to describe behavior which is obviously inappropriate. Indeed, most corruption is harmful and uncalled-for, and there is no doubt at all regarding the morality or value of corrupt actions. Even so, ever since Nicolo Machiavelli, there have been prominent thinkers who have seen actions which we would probably classify as corrupt in a positive light. The Scottish philosopher David Hume claimed that the use of corruption is constructive, so long as it has a positive effect on the stability of the government. It is difficult to answer the question, therefore, when a public figure's corrupt behavior actually has positive effects. This can be the case when a public figure is unwilling to advance public interests, unless he himself (or she herself) is offered some kind of illegal benefit (a good example of this is a Nazi, who is willing to save Jews only on the condition of receiving a bribe, despite the fact that it would obviously be better to save Jews without it). The bottom line is that there is absolutely no reason or justification for corrupt behavior, and anything that can be achieved by way of corruption, can also be achieved without it. The main problem is the gap between our expectations of people, and reality. In Israel, for example, many reporters believe (or believed in the past) that if corruption is what paves the way to a peace process – it can be judged as a justifiable means for achieving a desirable end.
Q: Is it always worthwhile to fight corruption? What happens when the cost of battling corruption is too high – for example, when it brings a peace process to a halt, or renders the government ineffective?
A: Any righteous society, especially a democratic one, should fight to minimize the number of public figures who exploit their position. Equally important, democratic societies should aim to build institutions that discourage corrupt behavior. Therefore, the questions regarding the fight against corruption should focus on the best ways to do so, and on the amount of resources that should be allocated to this cause, and not on whether or not it is always necessary. Our research shall deal with these questions at great length in the third volume of this series, which will be published at a later time. In any event, the price we pay for fighting corruption would never be too high if we implement a wise and multi-dimensional policy that touches on several levels of the struggle – enforcement, socio-economic structures and institutions (campaign fund-raising, for example), and education towards awareness of corruption. Personally, I feel that we haven't been paying a high enough price in our battle with corruption, and recent activity in this area is definitely justified. Some disagree, but the claim that enforcement agencies upset the government's ability to do its job is inaccurate and misleading. One must keep in mind that the battle against corruption is a daily ongoing process, and if we hope to live in a better society, with a better government, we have to be prepared to invest a great effort into it. The battle against corruption is no different than many other ongoing and complex tasks – devoting ourselves to a relationship or raising children are just two examples. In any event, it's clear that the battle against corruption is no excuse for wrongly accusing innocent public figures.
Q: Are democracies more corrupt than other governments?
A: Up until the eighteenth century, most thinkers viewed democracy as the prototype for a corrupt government; the alternative they had in mind was a regime in which the leaders care for everyone, and the democracy they were familiar with was very different from contemporary democracies; in fact, what they had mind when they spoke about democracy, wouldn't even be considered democratic in this day and age.
Democratic governments today are definitely no more corrupt than other regimes, on the contrary – as a rule, democracies are usually less corrupt.
Even so, we must differentiate between a democracy and an elected government. Some regimes that are not democratic have pseudo-democratic election procedures, and these regimes are usually quite corrupt. In societies which are not democratic, not only is there corruption that is hidden from the public due to a lack of control mechanisms and free press, but these societies are often corrupt in the classic sense of the word – the leader is not interested in the good of the people, but rather in his or her own personal interests. The Soviet Union was extremely corrupt at one point, and although many people are unaware of this, even in Nazi Germany Hitler used to bribe senior officers in order to persuade them to cooperate with his awful plot.
Q: Does the democratic system encourage corruption in any way?
A: Yes – the party system and electoral process do encourage corruption. In most non-democratic societies there are no elections in which the people decide who will rule, and there is no need to campaign or to maintain the parties and their supporters. Modern democracies, on the other hand, are based on a system of parties and elections. What's more, democracies have several control mechanisms – one of which is the free press – and as a result the topic of political corruption comes up very often. Therefore, some people get the wrong impression and assume that democracies are more corrupt, although the fact that the issue is known to the public is actually a sign of the opposite.
Q: Many people get the feeling the Israel is more corrupt today then it was in the past. Is this feeling based on reality?
A: This question will be a main issue in the second and third volume of this series, but I touch on it in the first volume too. We must keep in mind that the entire world has been plagued by an outbreak of corruption since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and many changes have occurred in our social values, trust in the political system has declined, and growing discussion of what is perceived, not always correctly, as public corruption.
Q: Is the Political Party Financing Law, which limits fund-raising for political parties, a draconian law that actually creates corruption?
A: The Political Party Financing Law is one of the focal points of the second volume of the series, and is also mentioned in the first one quite often. In order to hear the full answer you'll have to wait for the second volume, but I will say I don't think the law is draconian. Although some think it isn't realistic, or to be more exact, that it has some unrealistic clauses which are very difficult on elected figures, I believe that if all of the parties and candidates respect the law, it will in fact be realistic and that there is no such thing as "realistic expenses". The amount one candidate needs relies heavily on the amount the other candidate spent, and not on some objective, "realistic", standard. What's more, we must consider that politicians have to adapt to the law and that they are highly capable of doing so. In short, if we enforce the restrictions in a reasonable and efficient manner, the law will be fair and realistic.
Q: Tell us something about the second volume of the series – how does it differ from the first volume?
A: The first volume deals with the general aspects of public corruption – how to define it, what comprises it, what renowned philosophers think of corrupt behavior, different explanations for the phenomena itself, etc.
The second volume deals entirely with corruption in the State of Israel. It describes the evolvement of corruption and focuses on principal decision makers from the founding of the State to the present. The volume has just been updated in light of the recent cases of corruption over the past year. This will be the first time the Israeli public is presented with a comprehensive research on the topic of political corruption, which takes into account political theory based on current research in the field, empirical data collected by IDI, and findings that have not yet been revealed to the public.
Click here to read more about IDI's research project "Public Corruption - Corruption, Breaches of Trust, and Israeli Democracy"
|