Corruption is essential for development

In 1971 a psychology experiment was carried out at Stanford University under the leadership of psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. This experiment has come to be called, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” [1] and it tested the hypothesis that, “the inherent personality traits of prisoners and guards were summarily key to understanding abusive prison situations [emphasis added].”

I want to focus on the two highlighted phrases from the above: inherent personality trait and abusive prison situation. But, I want to extend the scenario to see how we may be able to understand political systems, politics, and need I say it, politicians. I am neither a psychologist nor a politician. So, take whatever is written with a good dose of salt.

The British Prime Minister David Cameron said, answering questions in the Parliament, “But you don’t make decisions in hindsight; you make them in the present.” [2] This was in the context of his hiring Andy Coulson, who is out on bail in the phone tapping scandal, as communications director of 10, Downing Street without doing a due diligence even when advised to do so.

Transplant yourself to 7, Race Course Road, New Delhi. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t this the line taken by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when he interacted with some media-men (there weren’t any media-women as I recall) about some decisions taken by his government? His take was, governance involves navigating unchartered waters and one can easily get stranded, like has happened to him at the current juncture. The parallel is established.

But there are some dissimilarities too between Cameron and Manmohan Singh. The former is a near-true blue blood: some-degree-removed cousinship with the current queen, did schooling at Eton. And, Manmohan Singh seems to be much more self-made, more plebeian; must have been “privileged” but no kinship with the rulers / ruling dynasty.

Reaching back to the parallels, the Indian governance system is based the Westminster model. But, there is more. In the current instance, the opposition in the UK shot back, “It is about all the information that the Prime Minister ignored,” as a retort to the “hindsight” model. Well, in the Indian context, that translated into, in the hands of the eager opposition, the Indian Prime Minister being excessively hands-off, too remote.

The two politicians, Cameron and Singh are seen to be at least fraternal if not identical twins. The operations of politics as engendered by the Westminster model and its Indian variation are no less connected. Then, do these parallels stretch further up the ladder, to the political systems? Does a political system extend beyond politics and politicians, particularly when institutions of governance also sport striking parallels? I do not think so.

So, do we then, as we condemn the corrupt politicians of India, take the political system we have adopted to task? Perhaps yes. Yet, we must look at other political systems.

Perhaps the US model of democracy, the presidential form, is better? The country positions itself at or near the top of “clean” countries. As a layman, let me lay out a simple case against that self-congratulatory position. Take the military-industrial complex. Take the hydrocarbon companies and also the automobile behemoths. Take Halliburton, Bechtel and a host of other companies. It is in their corporate interest the US went to war with Iraq. That corruption cannot ever be monetized because it led to Americans losing their lives. American lives were offered as bribes by the government to the economic interests of a few, just to keep some people in power.

China, Russia, Japan, South Africa, Brazil, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway … name any country, any political system and I will list out in what way each is corrupt, even limiting myself to an agreed set of factors that define corruption. Even economic systems are not the differentiators between countries. Every country that is considered a tax haven is corrupt in one way or another, one can be reasonably assured.

When corruption is looked at in this perspective, we see that it is not the political system, not the processes of politics, not the politicians themselves that are at fault here. Corruption is endemic to society. When people have or create resources or facilities, the problem of distribution crops up and no matter how that matter is decided, politics is needed to enforce any agreement. Even the creation of a law, despite the process being democratic is a first instance of corruption (if there is no law, can there be corruption?). And the whole edifice cannot but be frayed at the edges. Who would deny that the Republic of Bellary is a matter of distributional distortion?

It is not my case that India, the US, the UK, and all countries listed or unlisted above can be placed at a single level on the scale of corruption. But we must acknowledge two things. One, each and every country, no exceptions, occupies a rung on this ladder of corruption. Two, there is perhaps a correlation between a country’s position on the ladders of development and corruption. This is not to be understood simplistically, to mean that a developed country has lower level of corruption as compared to a developing country. The revolving door between Wall Street and White House (Treasury department) is about as high as corruption can get. At the next level, it may be between the Pentagon and defense contractors. Cameron and Murdoch are pretty high, wouldn’t you agree? Berlusconi is the height, isn’t he?

It is more like, the more a country is developed, corruption exhibits at higher and higher levels of society. Developed countries have gone beyond pettiness, so to say!

Going back to the two phrases mentioned in the second paragraph above. Corruption is an inherent personality trait of a society, of all societies. And, abusive prison situation is the equivalent of the straitjacketing constraints of the economic system, or more expansively, the socio-economic-political system.

Before you accuse me of throwing my hands up as regards reining in corruption in society by justifying it as a natural order of things, I must assert that I do no such thing. I must direct you to Richard Dawkins’s seminal book The Selfish Gene. For calling spade a spade, Dawkins was raked over hot coal.

In the book and elsewhere the author repeatedly made the point that we have to identify, recognize and acknowledge the fundamentals and this is what he has done by calling genes as selfish. He was not justifying the genes being selfish. Indeed, he posited memes as the second replicator that could perhaps counter effects of the gene’s selfishness. Of course, he also suggested that religion could be the meme that makes things worse. 

It is in this vein, and with no hopes of success, I ventured to point out the Ur source of corruption, the competition to appropriate resources for oneself as much as possible – selfishness. This behavioral switch, selfishness, is always on. That is how human beings came on the scene, by the genes being selfish. We would turn that switch off only at the peril of our species going extinct, our society becoming stagnant. What is needed is monitoring and moderating selfishness in society, to curb corruption to a level that is justifiable from the perspective of continued existence of society.

So, do not fight for eliminating corruption. Corruption is necessary, just as friction is essential for gaining traction. Corruption drives development. Every developed nation has had a severe bout of corruption sometime in its history. It is only after getting religion through corruption you are fit to get to the pulpit to preach against corruption! Moderate the level of corruption and live with it.

Hunger strike against corruption is OK, but not fast-unto-death.

Raghuram Ekambaram

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

2. Cameron’s defence, Frontline, August 12, 2011