"How many times have we turned a blind eye to corruption as long as it worked to our advantage?"
"How many times have we turned a blind eye to corruption as long as it worked to our advantage?"
Corruption – as a priest friend who happens to be both a canon lawyer and a civil “juris doctor” once pointed out to me – comes from two Latin words, “cor” which means “heart”, and “raptus” which translates as broken. Hence, etymologically, the word “corruption” means broken heart. This definition literally and figuratively captures the full meaning of the word “corruption.”
More than the act itself of stealing from the government or accepting bribes for political favors, what is even more worrying is how our people appear to have been desensitized to the extent of corruption in Filipino society. Euphemisms have even been used to refer to corrupt practices, such as “pabaon” for retiring government officials or “SOP” in government contracts. But by any measure, corruption cannot be made part of a government’s “standard operating procedure.” Over time, we have been made to accept that corruption is endemic in our culture and ingrained in society as if it were normal.
American economist Robert Klitgaard explains the logic of corruption through this formula, C = M + D – A. It means, corruption equals monopoly plus discretion minus accountability. It means one person having monopoly over making decisions would encourage more corruption. This, however, can be reduced by instilling and increasing accountability. This could mean introducing accountability mechanisms like independent audits, freedom of information and civil society participation.
Eradicating corruption, however, is far from Klitgaard’s simple formula. The question of ending corruption is perhaps the most difficult to solve in the long history of human societies. Flawed as our human nature is, so is the tendency to put personal interest over the common good, or the propensity to use public goods for personal ends. However, it is not our brokenness that truly defines what is best in our nature, but rather our innate capacity for goodness. Normalizing corruption would appear that we have resigned ourselves to the fact we are not capable of building a just and upright society.
Klitgard’s formula, however, proposes a good starting point – accountability. Who indeed is to be blamed for the corruption in government? There is no question that the corrupt and the crooked among our public officials share a huge amount of the guilt. It could also be said that the weak political systems and structures have allowed for too much discretion without demanding a greater or even just an equal amount of accountability.
Or, as we exact accountability from others, have we also examined ourselves? Have we considered what acts of commission or omission we may have done to allow the growing prevalence of corruption in Filipino society?
The problem of corruption in the Philippines may be as old as our nation’s history. What is worrisome, however, is it seems that we never learn, or worse, that we do not even care. The truth is that we have become like the frog placed in a pot of water set to boil. The poor frog didn’t realize the steadily rising temperature in the water and the moment he did, it was too late. At boiling point, the hot water meant certain death to the poor frog.
Corruption in our country has thrived in the same manner. We turned a blind eye to its existence – and even by our acts of commission or omission, allowed it to happen. Then suddenly, we found ourselves trapped in the whole system of corruption and patronage. Without us noticing it, corruption has taken root, perhaps even infected, the whole political system.
Then, we shouldn’t be even pointing only at those we accuse of corruption. Probably, we shouldn’t exact accountability only from those we elected to office, but we should also ask it from ourselves who voted them to office. How many times have we turned a blind eye to corruption as long as it worked to our advantage? How many Filipinos have exchanged their vote for money – and yet complain and point fingers as if we do not share in this societal sin?
Our failure or even complacency to demand accountability from ourselves, in a way, forfeits our right to exact the same from others. Similarly, eradicating corruption cannot be realized without the social participation and moral commitment of the people.
Solving corruption, therefore, begins with us. Change does not come by way of changing the names and faces of our political leaders, without doing anything to change the system in place. There can be no good government without an accountable electorate. But how can we demand accountability from our officials when we are indebted to them instead of them being beholden to the people’s trust?
The inconvenient truth is that corruption never happens without our participation – that is, either by our action or inaction. Demanding integrity from people in government is a double-edged sword. We cannot demand integrity from people in government if we are not willing to live by it – as citizens and most especially as voters. If we do not vote for the right people in government, if we sell our votes and if we are complacent and tolerant of the corruption around us, then we cannot demand integrity from others.
The evil that we have to fight are not just those above us, not just those in power. We have to fight the evil within us too. We have to own politics to transform it and value accountability and transparency to demand it from others. In the end, politics can either be a curse or a blessing. Because ultimately, we just get the type of political leaders that we deserve.
For so long, corruption has made us a heartbroken nation – a country mired in poverty and misery. But as they say of broken hearts, we can heal only if we are willing to put together our broken pieces, that is, our own individual actions geared towards a collective good. In the end, no one else can heal us but ourselves. It is up to us to work together to restore this nation and make it whole again – heart and soul.