Excellent insights again by Prof. Randy David. Among others, on the rationalizations (neutralization, a nice term to refer how people live with their guilt)) people use to justify their corrupt acts - (1) denial of responsibility, (2) denial of injury, (3) denial of victim, (4) condemnation of the condemners, and (5) appeal to higher loyalties. I have seen all of the above in the 30 years I have been in the governance and politics business. And I have also seen the three factors Prof. David cites as what we need to consider in understanding corruption. The first and the most difficult to analyze is motive. I have argued, in this regard, that the astonishing amount of money needed to win in our elections constitutes the single most compelling motive for corruption. It also explains the bloated sense of entitlement politicians feel once they take office. The second is opportunity. A weak control system and a highly politicized bureaucracy together create a fertile ground for the flourishing of corruption. This is the soil that has nurtured the likes of Janet Lim Napoles, a resourceful fixer who masterfully handled the dirty and dangerous side of corrupt operations. And the third is the deviant subculture that teaches the methods of corruption, provides the contacts, and offers the rationalizations by which the negative character of the corrupt act is diminished, if not entirely extinguished, in the minds of the perpetrators. It is out of this subculture that techniques of neutralization grow. Read more: opinion.inquirer.net/74408/the-normalization-of-corruption#ixzz31NdIUVDu Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Posted on: Sun, 11 May 2014 05:10:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015