‘CORRUPTION’ AND ‘POLITICAL REASONS’
CAERS SUBSTACK ARTICLE #9
How often do people lament that systems are full of ‘corruption’, or that decisions within systems are done for ‘political reasons’? We sense that without such transgressions the world would be a much better place. Well, if that is so, why do so many of us engage in behaviour that we claim to abhor?
We might start by defining exactly what we mean by these terms. Corruption often suggests that the person serving us is putting their own needs and desires ahead of ours, and often in a non-transparent or even dishonest way. For example, if a business is promoting a certain product because it is to their advantage to do so, either because of greater profit or other advantage to them (like ‘kickbacks’), does that automatically qualify as ‘corruption’? What if the product really is the best one for the customer, or they are transparent about the advantage for their business? Then maybe it is not ‘corruption’? Many would claim that in the capitalist world of free enterprise, the motto ‘caveat emptor’ (‘buyer beware’) discounts the possibility of corruption, because it is up to the consumer to do their homework. They claim that provided that the seller does not tell outright lies about their product or service then ‘all is fair in love and war’, so to speak.
Which would imply that only systems outside of the capitalist free market are subject to ‘corruption’. In other words, only when there is a professional obligation to tell the whole truth and not mislead can corruption exist, such as the case with medical professionals or politicians. In such situations, individuals financed through public coffers swear oaths to put the interests, desires and needs of those they serve ahead of their own. Is the factor that differentiates them from capitalists based on an oath or based on the fact that they are being paid through public monies or both? What about health care professional who swear oaths but function largely in the free enterprise system, like dentists, or former parliamentarians who act as corporate lobbyists once their political careers are over?
It can get rather tricky when we mix professional oaths with the reality of having to function like a businessperson in the capitalist system that we have in the West.
What about the idea of acting ‘politically’? What does it mean when we say, in a disapproving way, that actions are taken for ‘political reasons’? Is that the same as ‘corruption’?
In a perfect world, perhaps actions that are taken which benefit as many people as possible, but don’t benefit some, might be considered political. But provided that those not benefitting are not harmed and the rationale for the actions are transparent and justifiable, such actions might even be considered ethical. After all, is it reasonable to limit ourselves to only those actions which produce equal benefit for all? If that were the case, we might never act in the real world.
Which means that ‘political’ as we usually refer to it may hint of a similarity to corruption: those who are acting ‘politically’ are doing so not for the benefit of most but for the benefit of only a few, not the many. But aren’t there times when we realize that the many have an obligation to the few, for example the healthy to the sick or the rich to the poor?
Might the crux of the matter in acting for the few over the many therefore reside with the justification for doing so? In other words, if a good case can be made in a transparent way for supporting the few, then might we all agree that it is an ethical decision not a ‘political’ one? So, when would such a decision be deemed to be ‘political’ not ethical?
When no valid justification is given, or an action is done in a non-transparent way that does not allow for open and respectful dialogue, the likelihood for it being ‘political’ increases. This is especially true when those making the decisions obtain a definite, and often hidden, benefit to themselves for doing so.
In other words, the derogatory use of the term ‘political’ implies that someone who has taken an oath to serve a person or a group is acting in such a way that does not benefit, or perhaps even harms, those they are supposed to serve without sufficient justification or transparency.
In that sense, ‘corruption’ and ‘political’ are similar. Maybe we use ‘corruption’ more when the benefit is financial in nature, and ‘political’ when the benefit being sought is more about power. In either case, someone engaging in corruption or political expediency is doing so primarily for their benefit, or those close to them who also provide them with even further benefit, not primarily for the benefit of the people they are supposed to serve. And it invariably involves a relative absence of justification, fairness, transparency and opportunity for respectful dialogue.
Have we seen any evidence of corruption or political expediency during the pandemic? Or at least opportunities for them? Sometimes if we don’t keep an eye out for them, we only recognize them when it is too late.
J. Barry Engelhardt MD (retired) MHSc (bioethics)
CAERS Health Intake Facilitator
Don't even get me started. The people who benefitted from the pandemic and the political decisions made as a result are the pharmaceutical companies, and they have absolutely no concept of ethics.
Thank youvfir this mini lesson on ethics and the important questions we all need to keep asking ourselves in these troubled times.