Governmental control

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,374
T'Republic of Yorkshire
The terminology is confusing. In parliamentary systems the government is the cabinet. Generally corruption and scandal in the government leads to public anger and a new government.

In presidential systems the government includes the executive, legislative and the judicial functions. Corruption in one branch can be dealt with by the other branches. The role of a free press in all democracies is to identify to inform the people of corrupt government activities. If the people care enough, corruption can be controlled if not eliminated. However if only 10-15 percent of the eligible voters vote, (common in US local elections) you can expect corruption.
I'm talking about corruption in different levels of government, and governmental agencies.

Say, there's a corrupt police officer. That should be dealt with by a higher level agency. In Britain, that is not the case - it's normally investigated by the IPCC, the Independent Police Complaints Commission - which is staffed by ex-policemen. So it doesn't work. Or the Crown Prosecution Service can bring a criminal case. No additional powers are needed.

When the corruption happens in Parliament (e.g. George Galloway), it's more problematic, although the police can get involved.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
The terminology is confusing. In parliamentary systems the government is the cabinet. Generally corruption and scandal in the government leads to public anger and a new government.

In presidential systems the government includes the executive, legislative and the judicial functions. Corruption in one branch can be dealt with by the other branches. The role of a free press in all democracies is to identify to inform the people of corrupt government activities. If the people care enough, corruption can be controlled if not eliminated. However if only 10-15 percent of the eligible voters vote, (common in US local elections) you can expect corruption.
All those individuals who work for the state, they are the govt.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,374
T'Republic of Yorkshire
The terminology is confusing. In parliamentary systems the government is the cabinet. Generally corruption and scandal in the government leads to public anger and a new government.
The government extends beyond the cabinet - not every minister in the British government is a member of the cabinet.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
I'm talking about corruption in different levels of government, and governmental agencies.

Say, there's a corrupt police officer. That should be dealt with by a higher level agency. In Britain, that is not the case - it's normally investigated by the IPCC, the Independent Police Complaints Commission - which is staffed by ex-policemen. So it doesn't work. Or the Crown Prosecution Service can bring a criminal case. No additional powers are needed.

When the corruption happens in Parliament (e.g. George Galloway), it's more problematic, although the police can get involved.
Good thing the govt solved police corruption! Oh wait:

The shocking truth about police corruption in Britain

Metropolitan police’s anti-corruption unit faces investigation

I wrote a TV show about police corruption and was nearly prosecuted for sedition

POLICE CORRUPTION – A VERY BRITISH PROBLEM?

I guess they need better funding to finally tackle this problem properly!
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,374
T'Republic of Yorkshire
This is not a fallacy. This entire discussion came about on that other thread because someone mentioned that lower level being corrupt. Actually, it was you:

"Oh please, like local officials of any kind don't act on their own and carry out corrupt acts in the US.
"Not more government. The existing government doing what they're supposed to do."

We have clear examples of lower govt being corrupt. Your reply is to use more govt to solve that. And what does that more govt do? How do they act? More corrupt, more incompetent, more inefficient. So I guess more govt to the rescue?
Actually, I did NOT say "more" government. YOU are continually implying that governments need more power to solve corruption at lower levels. Of course they don't. I will repeat again, for the sake of absolute clarity. They ALREADY have the powers they need to do so.

No, before that individuals holding absolute power were corrupt and overthrow by pissed off people who had enough, who then created a govt with firm checks and balances to try to prevent any one individual from every gaining such power again (and when that happened in the Late Republic, the civil wars started).
I'm not talking about before the Republic. I'm talking about before the civil war.

He took over because he won a vicious civil war, not because he had the mandate of the people. Their victory in 1949 had far more to do with USSR support for the CCP and the US's poor support for the Nationalists than anything else involving ideology. After his victory he consolidated power through mass murder, not ideology. His predecessors have maintained control purely through force alone.
And did he win that civil war on his own? Of course he didn't. He still had to convince enough of the factions within the Communist movement to support him.

In the no sense. You said this: "No democracy has ever yet successfully emerged in China and governed it." Last I checked Taiwan is Chinese, the Republic of China is Chinese. You're wrong. You're focused on the PRC not being democratic and the past govt not being democratic. So? Does that mean it wont happen or can't? Nope, it just meant on the mainland it hasn't happened yet, largely because who prevents it? The people of the PRC? Or its govt who will wipe out hundreds of thousands to suppress it?
So what if Taiwan is Chinese? It's not the PRC. Does it mean a democratic system won't emerge? Maybe, maybe not but NO attempt at doing so has succeeded yet. Why would anyone assume that it will, one day? Democracy is not inevitable.

Tyranny is always just around the corner. Pieces of paper don't stop tyranny, people do. Magna Carta mattered not because they got a piece of paper, but because those barons were willing to fight and die to ensure it was followed. That ultimately led to the creation of Parliament, and eventually a full constitutional monarchy, where that individual whose chief qualification for leadership is winning the Sperm race, is thankfully now only a figurehead. And how do they enforce that? What happens if Elizabeth decides to rule as an absolute monarchy? Something happens that prevents it and it involves way more than waving a document in her face.
Precisely. And what enforces those rights today? NOT force of arms in most of the western world.

The Weimar Republic collapsed because a murderous jackass conned the people to go along with it, because at the time there was a legit fear of something even worse (another communist revolution). They surrendered liberty because of fear, and they got exactly what they had coming. They got the govt they thought they wanted and all that happened to them is the result. Was that a good choice? Or was that a perfect example of why giving more power to more govt is a bad idea?

Give an inch, they'll take a mile. Don't give them an inch!

It's an excellent example of a flawed system without checks and balances.

You mention the fix of the root cause. Describe exactly how that happens.

Here is the recipe: Identify the problem. And then what? After the blue ribbon panel that rants about it, what is the only actual fix that will be allowed? Create more govt, something that swears it will fix it. But you just need to empower it, that means nothing. You need to fund it. And then they got their jobs, nay, their careers. They're never going away now, they got their foot in the door. And from that point on they grow and grow. And what do they do? What is their contribution? They make money for themselves, and they earn themselves more power.
You are making a lot of assumptions to fit your argument. Why is more government necessary to fix it? That is not a given in the slightest. Look at Douth Korea. They didn't move from a dictatorship to a free democracy by simply creating more layers of government. In fact, I don't know if they have "more" government today than before 1980 or not. Maybe they do. But the point is, they changed the SYSTEM of government.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,374
T'Republic of Yorkshire
No. They simply need to abolish the IPCC, and stop allowing the police to investigate themselves.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
No. They simply need to abolish the IPCC, and stop allowing the police to investigate themselves.
So who polices the police then?

I'm liking where this is going. We're stuck needing police, and they are always going to be corrupt because its just a job that really allows for it. If the old way of doing it doesn't work, don't add, subtract. Burn it all down and start over.
 
Nov 2016
1,151
Germany
I think that a large part of the discussion is too restricted to the topic ´(national) government´, which narrows the view on the real conditions. Today, the separation of powers mentioned by Luke consists not only of the legislative, executive and juridical institutions conceived by Montesquieu, but also of the press (media) and, for some time now, of a fifth ´institution´, the Internet. The importance of the Internet cannot be overestimated, especially since the fourth institution, the press, has increasingly begun to lose its independence from political interest groups and has become the mouthpiece of a kind of overall opinion dictatorship, what led to the strengthening of protesting right-wing parties. In order to recognize this, you really do not have to be a right-wing yourself.

It looks as if modern awareness of Western values has been lost in the established parties, giving way to the postmodern view that there is no hierarchy of values and no objective truth.

I think that a debate about this problem is more essential than simply focusing on forms of government, especially since governments are anyway influenced, perhaps even controlled, by factors that, as Marx has shown, must be attributed to the economic sphere.

The current scientific debate is led at this level: Which powers determine the global political and economic situation? Restricting the subject to national governments is a bottleneck. Politics today is controlled by economy, which is globally networked. The basic factors of production and circulation today exceed all national borders, so the nation states are hardly able to direct these flows and assert themselves against economic dominance. The question therefore arises as to which factors constitute the new transnational system.

It is clear that this system is decentralised and not limited to any territory. It functions as a network without a centre. It is neither democratic nor dictatorial and it permeates all spheres of life. It does not control people completely, because that is not possible and not necessary, since its goal, the generation of capital, is achieved anyway.
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,222
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Well, if we want to discuss about corruption ... I'm Italian ... I live in the Western country with the highest level of endemic corruption ...

We've got an efficient national authority to deal with corruption, but ... when it's a social phenomenon to find "shortcuts" you can have all the authorities you want, but you won't solve the problem at local level [since the large part of the population doesn't consider it a problem!]. May be you can do something at national and regional level [and actually at high level things are getting better].

But I repeat, corruption is first of all a cultural / social matter, in Italy derived from a historical past when the authority used the laws [they didn't respect them]. This is the point: when Italy had dominated by foreign powers and divided in "Lordships" the principle of law wasn't. There is a great historical novel that all Italian students read: the Promessi Sposi. In it [it's a novel written in XIX century, but telling a story from XVII century, during the Spanish domination] you can see a common person going to a lawyer for a problem with a marriage. The Lawyer doesn't think to the legal matter, but he tries and guess if that person is a lackey of the local Spanish Lord. When the lawyer understands that he is a common guy ... he expels him from his office, refusing to consider his case [even if the guy was in condition to afford the services of the lawyer].

So corruption is a political matter generated by a sociological aspect of power, so it's first of all a social and cultural matter.

The principle is really simple: where there is power there can be abuse. Where there can be abuse there can be corruption.

In fact, corruption causes an abuse. Why an old woman has to wait 6 months for an examination in a public hospital while a guy [giving a "gift" to an administrator of that hospital] can undergo his examination after 6 days? Why?

The mechanism is based on the possibility that an authority, exercising a degree of freedom in taking decisions, gives an advantage to an individual beyond the rules obtaining a reward [money, a car, a house ... it depends on the value of the "favor" ...].
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,374
T'Republic of Yorkshire
So who polices the police then?

I'm liking where this is going. We're stuck needing police, and they are always going to be corrupt because its just a job that really allows for it. If the old way of doing it doesn't work, don't add, subtract. Burn it all down and start over.
CPS. MI5. Or if you trust them, one of the Specialist Operations Commands. Or hell, get Police Scotland to investigate English police forces. There are plenty og options.