Home
About IDI
Publications Catalog
Educational Program
Guttman Center
Events
Research And Programs

An Interview with Doron Navot about his New Book "Political Corruption: A History of a Controversial Concept"

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