What is the best way to end political corruption world wide?

f0rumwebmaster · Jan 16, 2009

First of all, please don't tell me it's impossible, unless you have sufficient proof to back it up: What is the best way to end political corruption world wide?

I really think that the best way to end corruption is to have a true democracy, one in which the people actually pick their leaders- not the electoral college or the corporate media as is the current case in western states. The hypocrisy of the word "democracy" is everywhere, I mean the 'democratic republic of congo' isn't a democracy at all. What do you all think about this?

omej · Jan 16, 2009

Honestly, the best way to cut down on political corruption is to give the government minimal powers to corrupt.

If you cut down on what people can do, there is less incentive (or reward) of corrupting anything.

GunnedDown · Jan 17, 2009

Well yeah, I agree with omeythehomie.. if you just give the elected government limited powers, then how will that person "rule the country"? If he tries to (well he can't because he has limited powers to do so) then it won't work.. Seriously though, I'm not a troll or anything, but if the above doesn't work, it's pretty much impossible to do so unless you can give any better ideas on how to do so.

hmm.. democracy>all

Creativeelement · Jan 17, 2009

I think the way to end it is to not shove governments opinions down other people's throats that way more nations won't hopefully fight and they will get along better.

jessika · Jan 18, 2009

Well I live in world's biggest democratic state, India and believe you me, it's not just about being democratic, it takes more than that to cut down corruption. I think be it any form of government, the participation of young, innovative minds is very important. These youngsters have a tendency to come up with fresh ideas and are more radical in their views where as those who have lived their life are always preoccupied by their own personal interest.

mike21 · Jan 18, 2009

i truly agree with you jessika,the time has changed and people have changed themselves with time but the problem is that we need more innovative and crative minds in the world politics and for that we need young people participating in politics and it is happening in India as rahul gandhi,sachin pilot and sindhiyas are there and so is bobby jindal in u.s.a,the corruption will end as more people will get educated and more aware about their rights.

The Parakeet · Jan 19, 2009

Simply put, the best way would be to have severe penalties in play. A politician has earned the trust of the people through an election. If they betray that trust, then they should be severely punished for it (15 year sentence sounds about right). There's already growing oversight through expanding technology, so that is already limiting just how secretive they can be.

I don't think direct democracy would do anything to help it. We'd just have a different type of corruption. A corporation is usually quite good at manipulating the masses with prizes and gifts. There's also the increased risk of mob rule or incompetent voters, which i think is a bigger problem.

pingpong12 · Jan 24, 2009

omeythehomie said:
Honestly, the best way to cut down on political corruption is to give the government minimal powers to corrupt.

If you cut down on what people can do, there is less incentive (or reward) of corrupting anything.

YESSSS, 100% agree and this is what the constitution was designed for yet the elite have found a way around that. Ron Paul is for smaller government and we need more people like him out there to make that TRUE CHANGE.

myp · Jan 24, 2009

Small government and free markets are definitely the best way to cut down on corruption because, as omeythehomie said, they give people less of a chance to to do it. Please note that small government and free markets does not mean no oversight for fraud because no economic theory condones fraud. Oversight is ok, excessive regulations are not.

tix · Jan 25, 2009

No matter what the government wraps its arms around, it will take a forceful teaching of the PEOPLE and a willingness of the people to focus on what is RIGHT for them. The globe cannot be universal. We all have different soil and climate.

pingpong12 · Jan 25, 2009

We must stop meddling into the affairs of other nations. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is the lesson that we should learn and one that has happened time and time again throughout history.

Jlk311 · Feb 11, 2009

Here is the best way to end corruption how bout we have a direct democracy? This is the future why do we need ppl to represent us when we can represent ourselves. We vote on bills via the internet. That way the people rule.

The Parakeet · Feb 11, 2009

I believe that would be called mob rule. The founding fathers did everything that they could to prevent it.

Do you have any idea how easily swayed people could be by flashy advertising and lobbying? Can you imagine how many people would vote for some bill because the lawmaker sent them a candy bar?

Damocles · Feb 16, 2009

Jlk311 said:
Here is the best way to end corruption how bout we have a direct democracy? This is the future why do we need ppl to represent us when we can represent ourselves. We vote on bills via the internet. That way the people rule.

No thanks. Direct Democracy would be directly insufficient to protect individual liberty, it would be tyranny of the majority.

Imagine what laws would look like in the US with the majority being Christian for so long.

myp · Feb 16, 2009

Damocles said:
No thanks. Direct Democracy would be directly insufficient to protect individual liberty, it would be tyranny of the majority.

Imagine what laws would look like in the US with the majority being Christian for so long.

I agree. Think about what sort of corruption this could lead to with buying votes from people who really don't care about the issues. I am for direct election of officials, but not for direct democracy, we just aren't technologically advanced enough to make sure corruption doesn't happen in that system.

omej · Feb 16, 2009

myp said:
I agree. Think about what sort of corruption this could lead to with buying votes from people who really don't care about the issues. I am for direct election of officials, but not for direct democracy, we just aren't technologically advanced enough to make sure corruption doesn't happen in that system.

Not to mention that a direct democracy is impossible given the size of the country. Hell, I don't think that its possible anywhere.

Damocles · Feb 16, 2009

myp said:
I agree. Think about what sort of corruption this could lead to with buying votes from people who really don't care about the issues. I am for direct election of officials, but not for direct democracy, we just aren't technologically advanced enough to make sure corruption doesn't happen in that system.

Even without corruption it is a system that would ensure that the minority never had a voice. Libertarians have little enough voice as it is. Laws made off of direct majority rule would be a terrible and direct infringement of the rights of the minority.

Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? They often refer to the term "Tyranny of the Majority". The representative democracy with direct inclusion of rights, limits to the government was created to protect against this very thing. Listing the rights you have by simple being, what western philosophy calls "natural rights", and limiting government from infringing on those rights we created something that has protected an enduring freedom.

The strongest means we have to protect against such infringement is education. People must know and understand the concepts that helped to create what we have, we must be vigilant to protect our freedoms or diversity of thought will be homogenized, the individual will be forced to forgo their freedoms to the general will.

Another good thing to read would be Rousseau, people do not realize how much the French philosopher influenced the founders of the United States.

pingpong12 · Feb 25, 2009

The Parakeet said:
Simply put, the best way would be to have severe penalties in play. A politician has earned the trust of the people through an election. If they betray that trust, then they should be severely punished for it (15 year sentence sounds about right). There's already growing oversight through expanding technology, so that is already limiting just how secretive they can be.

I don't think direct democracy would do anything to help it. We'd just have a different type of corruption. A corporation is usually quite good at manipulating the masses with prizes and gifts. There's also the increased risk of mob rule or incompetent voters, which i think is a bigger problem.

The problem with penalizing any one politicians is that it doesnt solve the systemic problem. We need to stop allowing the 2 party system to consolidate control over the debates and we need to stop allowing any campaign contributions by special interest groups whatsoever.

Ron Paul was funded solely campaign contributions by the American people and believe it or not more military soldiers sent money to Ron paul then any of these other crooks err, opps, i meant politicians .

On top of that we need to enforce more transparency as far as where our funds go throughout the government. Every dollar is paid for by our tax money and we should be able to know where it is going to the last penny.

No more secret budget funds, and every congressman and politician should be made by law to contribute a portion of their yearly salaries back into the national treasury. They are supposed to be there for the american people, not to line their pockets with cash and become rich.

The Parakeet · Feb 25, 2009

There's plenty of problems with multi-party systems though. Just look at Germany before WWII.

I do figure that a decent third party will splinter away from the Republicans if they insist on going to the religious right. Then again, I think we've been waiting for a moderate party for a long time.

There is actually a ton of transparency. I believe you can get a copy of the budget if you really want to read it. The CBO releases much more concise reports online and they are quite interesting to read at times.

Congressmen also don't get rich off of their salaries. I'm having trouble finding a good number. I think it's about $150,000 a year (It's from wikianswers...sorry if it's way off I don't have time to dig around and my connections bad right now), which isn't actually that much, since most of them could be making far more in the private sector.

The real money would come in the form of cushy lobby jobs that they get after they step down.

deanhills · Mar 19, 2009

myp said:
Small government and free markets are definitely the best way to cut down on corruption because, as omeythehomie said, they give people less of a chance to to do it. Please note that small government and free markets does not mean no oversight for fraud because no economic theory condones fraud. Oversight is ok, excessive regulations are not.

You could not have said it any better for me. For example, imagine how complicated the latest bail-out package is going to make accounting in Government and the Banks? It is obviously going to increase Government and increase Bank governance, as well as create many additional opportunities for corruption. Governments are notoriously bad at managing money. :shy:

What is the best way to end political corruption world wide?

Similar threads