The Table
Cover page.
Abstract
History
Contradictions
Opinion
Policy Recommendation
References
Abstract
Corruption is a social, political, and economic vice that causes economic problems due to mismanagement of public resources (Girling, 2002, p.81). Corruption in Venezuela rates among the highest standards in the world due to its prevalence in the society. The country ranks among the top 20 most corrupt nations in the world; it is position eight in the ranking. Seventy-five percent of the Venezuelans believe that corruption is widespread in the government hence difficult to eliminate. Protests witnessed in 2014 cited corruption as the main reason for their discontentment with the government. The right question to ask in this case is: does democracy lead to corruption in Venezuela?
History
Corruption has been a part of Venezuela’s history associated with the rise of democracy in the country. Its early rulers had knowledge of the country’s struggle with corruption hence used anti-corruption slogans to gain and maintain power. A perfect example is Bolivar, who made a decree that perpetrators of fraud should receive a death penalty although his intention was to maintain his position in power. The early leaders of Venezuela set a bad example to preceding leaders since they used manipulation to secure their positions and mismanaged public funds. The culture of corruption, therefore, began as early as the 1800s and continued thriving to date (Lieuwen, 2000, p.83). The oil discovery in the region is attributable to the rampant rise in corruption as the government found the perfect avenue to enrich individuals. The wealthy, therefore, benefit from the oil at the expense of the poor leading to an imbalanced society.
Democracy involves relevant parties meant to protect the rights of citizens and oversee the exercise of the law. Political parties, parliament, judiciary, police, and public officials are part of democracy and have the mandate to uphold the rule of law (Buxton, 2001, p.64). These parties, however, tend to be the most corrupt since they have access to public resources and lack supervision from other bodies. It creates an enabling environment for the exercise of corruption, which goes against the objectives of democracy. They abuse their positions of power and act in their interest rather than of the citizens they represent.
The government of the people puts into power a large number of leaders to represent various interests. It includes the interests of different society members in decision-making and distribution of resources. Just as the saying, many cooks spoil the broth; it becomes difficult to monitor the actions of all these leaders. It creates an opportunity for them to carry out activities in their interest and initiate a blame game in case issues arise. Running away from responsibilities becomes easy due to a large number of officials. Some of the most corrupt officials get away with embezzlement and benefit from public funds while still maintaining their position of power. The pressure of re-election also motivates these officials to partake in the theft of public monies to support their campaigns and bribe voters in their favor (Morris & Blake, 2010, p.105).
A democratic government gets into power through elections since it is a government of the people for the people. It means that voters are crucial to leaders since they determine who gets the position. Elections, however, create an environment of competition and resentment among opponents, which may eventually lead to political instability (Girling, 2002, p.73). The high level of competition forces leaders to engage in corruption and obtain resources to woo supporters. It, therefore, promotes bribery in the streets as leaders seek support from ordinary citizens. It creates a culture of corruption since the voters expect continued material gratification from the leader after their election. Leaders who gain power through corrupt means will continue being corrupt even after getting into office. The people will, therefore, elect a corrupt leader who embezzles their resources for their selfish gain. Some leaders, on the other hand, due to low or no performance in the positions they were elected to hold, fear that they will not be re-elected and will, therefore, seek other unscrupulous mean to get 'enough' money to last their lifetime when in political cold. Eventually, the ordinary citizens fight a losing battle against corruption due to lack of understanding the roots of this corruption menace.
Democratic nations which have come from a dictatorial leadership such as Venezuela faces systemic corruption(Melo, 2014 p. 3). Such nations have the anti-dictatorship politicians, and dogmatic sympathizers may both be at loggerhead where the anti-dictatorship politicians feel it is their time to enjoy the new power and ponder the resources and their disposal at the expense of the citizens they are supposed to represent. Systemic corruption thrives in such nations due to lack or weak anti-corruption agencies who sometimes conduct the corrupt activities(Melo, 2014 p. 3). The underfunding in Venezuela's anti-graft agency and leaving the fight against corruption is not enough.
It is also justifiable to say that democracy in Venezuela has lead to the increase in fraud levels. The democratically elected leaders pass legislations that hinder the normal livelihood of its citizens. The leaders increase taxation to cater for the ever-rising budgetary allocations due to the increasing unrealistic and unwarranted projects which do not have any physical impact on the citizens and which are also corrupt(Isaksen, 2005 p.4). They do so without considering the repercussions of their actions. The already struggling citizens who cannot manage their human needs then turn to the next open opportunity to make money even if it includes corruption. With time, corruption becomes the norm leading to the decentralized systemic corruption. As such, we can clear say democracy has led to increased corruption level in the lower class.
Massive corruption of voter bribery is nothing compared to the backroom high-level endorsements of politicians by multinational companies. When the politician is elected, the funding organization takes control and push all their agenda which most of the times is disadvantageous to the citizens. They bulldoze their needs and pay off all regulatory agencies which are mandated to check all quality standards(Khan, 2004 p5). When the citizens standard up to speak against the organization, the elected leader is directed by the organization's leadership to control his/her people which, when effectively done, continues the menace of corruption.
For corruptly elected leaders' aide, they tend to engage in corrupt activities in the same way their bosses do it(Amundsen, 1999 p. 10). They manipulate tenders, sell classified information to the highest bidders and even manipulate tendering agencies to get themselves, their relatives or friends the tenders. They overprice the items when given the offer, and they are neither ashamed or fear due to the political insulation they get. It is, therefore, evident that democracy has led to increasing in corruption, not only in Venezuela but also other emerging democratic nations.
The menace of corruption has been spread in democratic countries due to the political appointment of judicial officers. The officers are arm twisted by the leaders who pushed for their appointment to exempt or block their prosecution or that of their associates in the case their corrupt deals are uncovered. By so doing, it opens the floodgates of corruption since one is sure that there will be little or nothing is done to stop them. It, sometimes, goes to the extent of using legal means to carry out corrupt activities such as blocking of competitors away in any competitive government bidding event making the justice system corrupt. When the only measure of justice is itself corrupt, there is little or no hope for redemption of such nation until there is such a strong uprising to fight corruption (Gloppen, 2010 p. 68)
Democracy is a symbol of fairness and a tool by which the government protects the rights and interests of its citizens. It can therefore not lead to corruption but rather offer means to deal with graft. Democracy elects leaders who represent the interests of the people hence decisions made cover every individual’s interests. People can, therefore, get the assurance of fair distribution of resources to various parts of the country and protection of their rights. In fairness, corruption has no ground since it involves the selfish accumulation of resources by certain individuals. The presence of elections means that citizens get the opportunity to choose their leadership after a given time. It keeps leaders in check and ensures that they fulfill their mandate within allocated time (Lieuwen, 2000, p.63). Failure to attain set objectives results in their loss of office hence they need to put in a lot of effort to ensure their re-election.
The rule of law is a guide of every democracy since democracy seeks to uphold the rule of law in any country. The law protects the rights of citizens and prevents exploitation of the vulnerable members of society. This law, therefore, prevents corruption through persecution of individuals involved in corruption at various levels. Equity is an element of law, therefore, does not exempt anyone from facing persecution regardless of his or her political position (Morris & Blake, 2010, p.47). It ensures that officials found guilty of corruption face necessary punishment hence introducing a culture of intolerance to corruption.
The essential role of democracy is to reduce the level of involvement of the government in economic activities(Technical Publication Series, 1999, p.7). It restricts the government to its primary economic activities such as regulations and providing the basic services. By so doing, there is increased oversight. Increased oversight will ensure that all government actions are checked ensuring that there are no corrupt activities, all thanks to democracy.
With democracy in place, anti-corruption agencies will be formed due to the need of the various parties to keep each other in check(Technical Publication Series, 1999, p.8). Such levels of distrust at the beginning will work well for the agencies since they know they will have political goodwill from the aggrieved party. As such, in countries where there was rampant corruption such as Venezuela, there will be a drastic decline. With the continuous change of leadership, a new crop of leadership will be formed where they will all form an agency that does not only suit them but handles the issues at hand with the seriousness it deserves.
Democracy also allows freedom of free speech. With such privileges, whistleblowers are given a chance to criticize any wrong doing done any person in a leadership position(Technical Publication Series, 1999, p.12). The continuous whistleblowing and much public demand for more accountability, there will be a total overhaul and institutional reforms which will favor the fight against corruption. Democracy will also give room for investigative journalism which will help uncover corrupt practices. It will also enhance public relations campaign which will help in the fight against corruption. The freedoms that come with democracy creates an enabling environment for the rise of anti-corruption organizations who help combat corruption in all level of governments. They help keep in check any form of misuse of public funds or any situation where there is manipulation of systems to favor a certain individual.
Contradictions
Controversy emerged when the democratic government meant to protect the interests of its people becomes the source of their oppression. It becomes ironical, especially where the people who were advocating for democracy become so drunk with power that they forget their mandate, promises, and pledges and follow their predecessors. Leaders rise to power bearing anti-corruption slogans but become the most corrupt individuals after attaining the position (Morris & Blake, 2010, p.52). It is worrying that the citizens with the mandate of electing the leaders, keep on re-electing the same type of leaders despite their underperformance and corrupt deeds. People have the power to elect leaders with their best interests at heart, yet they choose corrupt leaders due to their love for instant gratification through bribery. Creating a chain of corruption which democracy tries to fight.
Opinion
Mismanagement of democracy can become the tool for destruction of a nation since it gives power to the wrong people. It also leads to inferior decision-making due to the extreme politicization of every issue concerning the government. Politicization of issues shifts focuses away from important matters of corruption (Lieuwen, 2000, p.92). Proper management of democracy, however, can be the source of redemption for a nation undergoing political problems such as Venezuela.
Policy Recommendation
The rule of law should govern every aspect of a nation and offer protection of citizens, particularly the vulnerable ones. Venezuela should, therefore, consider including restrictions in its constitution that prevent interference with the judiciary by any arm of government. Periodic auditing and assessment of performance would help in detecting any cases of corruption and undertake persecution of concerned officials (Buxton, 2001, p.111). Prevention of re-election of public officials to office will prevent officials from overstaying in office and personalizing operations. With a credible judicial system, strict penalties should be issued for any leader found engaging in corruption. The mandatory stepping down of any leader to pave the way for investigation when implicated in any corrupt activities should be supported. Strict election laws should be reinforced whereby any corrupt person is not allowed to vie for any leadership post and their voting rights suspended. Primarily, the election of moral leaders with a good reputation is the key to eradicating corruption.
References.
Amundsen I. (1999). Political Corruption: An introduction to the issues. Postterminalen. Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Buxton, J. (2001). The failure of political reform in Venezuela. Aldershot: Ashgate Publioshers.
Girling, J. L. S. (2002). Corruption, capitalism, and democracy. London: Routledge.
Gloppen S. (2010). Courts and Power in Latin America and Africa. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Isaksen J. (2005). The budget process and corruption. Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, 3.
retrieved from http://www.U4.no. viewed 3 May 2016.
Khan M.M. (2004). Political and Administrative corruption: Concepts, comparative experiences and Bangladesh case. Transparency International. retrieved from
http://www.ti-bangladesh.org/ viewed 3 May 2016.
Lieuwen, E. (2000). Venezuela. New York: Oxford University Press.
Melo, M.A.(2014). Democracy works. Rio de Janeiro. Legatum Institute
Morris, S. D., Blake C. H. (2010). Corruption & Politics in Latin America: National and Regional Dynamics. New York: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Technical Publication Series (1999). A handbook on fighting corruption. Washington D.C. Centre For Democracy And Governance
