Another View of Corruption

Corruption will always be defined in the end not by legal imperatives, but by public acceptance. Australia’s Inquiry into the UN’s Oil for Food scandal has unearthed some dramatic stuff.
The harsh light of the inquiry has already forced the resignation of monopoly wheat exporter AWB’s managing director, Andrew Lindberg. It is threatening to entwine the government and crippling the country’s wheat export trade.
Heady stuff, but for some it is just another crock.
I had the opportunity to quiz a fairly typical Australian guy the other day. Russell’s response, when asked about the scandal, went something like this:

“I don’t see the problem with AWB when I weigh it up against Germany, France and America giving Saddam weapons.
It’s all out of perspective.
I see people do what it takes to get somewhere and when they do they give back.
We live in a world of corruption and still thing get done we move through the shit to the shore and always land safe.”

That was not, I might add, one articulate string. I have re-layed the comments into that order.
Russell gave an inkling of why people readily accept corruption as part of life.

“…if you accept a cop letting you go and not fining you for, say speeding, because you spin him a good story he is corrupt and you are so that’s where it starts and we all think nothing of being lucky not to get a fined. We are all alike.”

What was interesting is that, in the middle of the scandal comments Russell said;

“I worry more about the Muslims trying to tell us what we can say. If we give in to them we are in trouble.
They should get a life. I think they are getting to a point, they think they can tell us what to do in our own house.”

Russell’s is not a minority view, and perhaps reflects quite a different perspective on what acceptable ethical practices really are. If for example, you accept that shady business practices are an essential part of the game, then duding the UN, or the Australian taxpayer for a few hundred million is not really a big issue.
After all, under this premise, the law is an unfair burden and everyone has the right to avoid the obligations imposed.
This understanding is no doubt behind the Howard government’s approach to this scandal. They are taking a transparently cynical approach because they can!
The opposition attempts to expose government wrongdoing is seen as an even more cynical exercise; to gain power.
Meanwhile the Muslim bogey is trotted out, just to keep everyone on their toes. It is clearly a totally irrelevant bogey, but it seems to work well for most parties.
I didn’t debate Russell on any of this. I simply wanted to gather his views. I don’t berate the millions of Russell’s out there, but try and remember the words of corruption fighter, Lord Acton:

“There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion.”