This week I've chosen articles that highlight the challenges that special interests and corruption present to reformers. Corruption is a major problem in most Latin American countries. In some cases, citizens see it as an inevitable part of politics and doing business. Progress has been made in some cases. According to Transparency International's 2012 Corruption Perception Index, not a single Latin American country was more corrupt in 2012 than in 2011. Even in Brazil, the subject of two of this week's articles, recent legal changes have led many to conclude that the culture of impunity is being eroded.
Here are the articles:
Brazil, Where a Judge Made $361,500 in a Month, Fumes Over Pay
Brazil's zombie politician's: unstoppable?
Mexico's politics: tearing up the script
Question 1: given a history of systemic corruption, how can a society best go about reducing corruption?
Question 2: as highlighted in the article on Mexico, monopolies and other special interests often constrain the extent to which leaders govern in line with the will of their voters. How can the citizens of a country produce a system which is more responsive to their needs and desires?
Remember, if you signed up for the week of February the 18th your post is due by 8am on Friday, February 22nd. Comments are always accepted on my two most recent posts. Post and comment away!!
I personally believe that these Latin American societies can start reducing their historical corruption by implementing a more strict legislature for punishment of
ReplyDeletecorruption on not only a federal level, but on local government authority levels such as local judges and law enforcement. Additionally, removing any notorious politician known for corruption and bribery to be exiled from politics in that specific country. If a specific politician's corruption was much more severe and controversial, additional punishment must be instilled. I believe that a correlation of a grassroots attack on corruption along with punishment and enforcement at a federal and state level will improve the reduction of poverty in these countries.
The thing that I find most worrisome is that the Brazilian people are willing to vote for these politicians, despite their apparent corruption. While an attempt was made to prevent this from happening with the "ficha limpa" law of 2010, it was more or less useless, as it wasn't implemented until after the elections. Hopefully the law will be better carried out in the next elections, but wavering support for political parties has made it hard to tell. It seems like a step in the right direction, which is a positive sign, to say the least. It definitely makes me think though, we're so appalled by the corruption of the Brazilian government, but perhaps they are just more transparent than the US government. It would be hard to believe that our government was totally corruption free....
DeleteI must agree with Emilee....
DeleteFirst of all, let us all not forget that corruption is a phenomenon that occurs all over the world. The United States, ranked as 19th, is far from a perfect model of a “free” and honest society even if it ranks higher then most other Latin American countries. (Transparency International) If Mexican President Peña is “a puppet of special interests, such as the teachers’ union and powerful broadcasters,” then I think that we have to look at our on political system and the many people that receive incentives form big business. In our own political system lobbyist and corporate thugs play such a large part in true decision making that at times its hard to know who is in charge. During president Bush’s administration new oil fields where opened up for exploitation and development and once again under President Obama similar actions have been taken in the fields of natural gas.
I don't think that there is any difference between what President Peña is doing today and what FDR did back in the golden age of US society. The breakup of large corporations and redistribution of power in industry means that the economy will diversify. When one man, like Carlos Slim, controls the majority of the telecommunication and Television in the country the result is a uncompetitive market, limited options for the consumers and the extreme profits to one man.
Mr. Peña has taken many steps to “free” up the political and social atmosphere in México with his administrations freedom-of-information acts. Of course, there is a lot to be done but there is evidence of a step in the right direction as to how domestic policies have been handled thus far. Lets hope that Mexico can truly become more “free” and continue on the path that it is on.
I agree but feel that many of these countries have such an established culture of corruption, that if change is actually going to occur it must take place not only on a government level, but on a broader social level as well.
ReplyDeleteThat is an excellent point regarding the “broader social level” changes. The government is responsible for implementing new laws that restrict the ability of politicians to abuse their power, but we will not see any effectual laws enacted without the public’s widespread knowledge of the corruption that is occurring. More pushes for transparency like the freedom of information law mentioned in the NY Times article and the persistence of watchdog groups will increase the public’s awareness, greatly furthering the reduction of corruption in Latin American countries.
DeleteI agree with what has been said about "broader social level" changes, however, i'm not convinced that governmental laws and watchdog groups will have the desired affect. As shown in one of the articles, a man whose nickname in Portuguese is "to steal money from public funds" was elected after being convicted of overcharging and bribery. I feel like these country's need a cultural shock that will stem the corruption in government. There can be as many watchdog agencies as you want, but until the people get the candidates they deserve, there will not be any change.
DeleteAn important part of changing this culture of corruption in Latin America is increasing the expectations of the people so that they demand higher quality representatives. The fact that the Brazilian people are willing to vote for these corrupt politicians is indeed troublesome, however, one must take into account the existing political culture in which the slightest increase in the quality of representation is seen as a huge improvement. In order to decrease corruption throughout Latin America the individuals who live in these countries need to understand and believe that it is not normal to have members of Congress who have been previously convicted of corruption.
DeleteWhile it is troublesome that the Brazilian people are voting for these corrupt representatives, it can't always be assumed that they are starting out corrupt. Often times the true colors of a representative won't be recognized until he/she has gained a stable seat. Yes the politics of Latin America has often remained in a corrupt culture, but it is up to higher individuals to put their foot down. Politics and governments will always have a certain level of distortion, but it is about time that it is better monitored and ultimately modified.
DeleteI, too, agree that legislation against corruption can only do so much if the people do not demand an end to the corruption themselves. So, why aren't they? I'm wondering if maybe the extreme income disparities throughout these countries, namely in Brazil, are contributing to the justification. Although the judges are receiving ridiculously high salaries, the income disparities exist throughout the entire country for many other professions. Perhaps, this is just seen as "normal". Another possible reason for the lack of concern is correlated with the lack of upward mobility. When these poor masses feel powerless, of course their first concern is not to combat corruption within their government - it is to survive. That being said, I believe that when income inequality (not necessarily just within the government) is tackled and effectually there is a growing middle class, the citizens of these Latin American countries will demand an end to the political corruption.
DeleteThe article Brazil Seethes Over Public Officials 'Super Salaries' discusses one of the aspects of corruption in Brazil that should not be taken lightly. We have seen countless examples of corruption throughout Latin American countries and their effect on the economy and people. In this particular scenario those who work for Brazil's government are earning unfair, over the top salaries. This has led to resentment over the inequality among the population. I believe we should care about this issue because corruption has become somewhat of a norm in Latin America. Therefore, if this is clearly something that isn't hidden then why hasn't anything been done to fix it?
ReplyDeleteSome recent reforms to increase transparency include a freedom of information law and the Clean Bill of Records which doesn't allow people with pending legal cases to run for office in Brazil. Mexico has implemented anti-corruption reforms over the past decade. Also, Peru's corrupt former president, Alberto Fujimori was put behind bars. Obviously, there have been some steps taken to help lessen corruption but there is still lots of room for improvement.
As we have seen in our study of Chile during the reign of Pinochet's 15 year coup-seized leadership we know it is possible to overcome corruption: but it isn't easy. In Chile people feared Pinochet and the secret police therefore, they were afraid to act out and stand up for what they stood for in fear of being tortured, exiled, killed or 'mysteriously' disappearing. But in the end what helped overthrow Pinochet was the 'No' campaign movement which led to a turnout at the polls that beat him out of office. The people of Chile went about reducing corruption by uniting together for what they thought was fair.
It's possible society can reduce the corruption going on in Brazil and these unfair salaries by taking a similar approach as Chile did during the Pinochet rule. Overall, to reduce this problem I think it's vital to punish wrongdoings of corruption and increase transparency. This would ensure that people in higher-up positions have to report on their activities which allows the general public to hold them accountable and prevent them from abusing their power.
I see how this goes along with what Matthew said above about how change needs to occur on the social level in order to infiltrate politics. The Brazilian people will need to come together, realizing the inequalities here, in order to promote change in the same way that the Chilean people rallied for the "No."
DeleteI am shocked that average, hard-working Brazilians are allowed a few days off for Carnival while public officials enjoy two entire weeks (Economist). Two full weeks?! Becoming a lawmaker and playing a part in politics is supposed to be a sacrifice on behalf of the people; it seems like the only sacrifice going on in Brazil is by the people, rather than on their behalf.
In both cases, Brazil and Mexico, there is a great need for increased transparency, and for decreased power amongst major corporate shareholders and monopolies.
The fact that Brazilian lawmakers take a long holiday does not worry me too much. The US government dose this just as much. Beyond everything else what really concerned me was the fact that a third of Brazil’s lawmakers have either been convicted or are being investigated for crimes ranging from vote-buying to theft to slave-holding. In a democratic society it is up to the people to vote these politicians out but the people seem to have become desensitized to criminal activity in politics. I do find it hopeful that more people are relying on the courts to go after these corrupt politicians, with stiff sentences.
DeleteThe freedom of information law that president Rousseff is trying to push through certainly makes sense as an attempt to try to bring some transparency to Brazil, but the fact that Brazil suffers from a culture of corruption makes me think that this will be less than effective. I think corruption is seen as more acceptable in Latin America, as framed by the question - if you were in a high-paying position for the government, wouldn't you do your best to maximize your own welfare? I think that while it is easy to say that, no, that's wrong, it is probably a lot more difficult to follow through with not being corrupt considering most other people in your position would be. As others have mentioned, it needs to be a societal change, and unfortunately this may take a couple of generations to manifest itself, on the condition that other important factors such as standard of living are on the rise in that time too.
DeleteI also believe Rousseff's freedom of information proposal is a huge step for Brazil in moving towards a less corrupt state. Such an initiative would increase awareness and add increase pressure to stop political corruption. However, I would not say the people are necessarily accepting of such corruption. In comparison to the United States, where freedom of speech and information is much more progressive, American citizens seem to take a more passive stance on ending said corruption. Going back to the class discussion in which the U.S. scored above many Latin American countries in corruption, it would seem that we are the accepting ones, because our information is accessible, but yet our state is among the most corrupt.
DeleteHere's an interesting article which touches on Bill Clinton and the absurd amount of money he makes for political and economic speeches:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/its-not-about-reelection-bill-clintons-80-million-payday.html
I agree that Brazil needs to increase the awareness and therefore pressure to stop political corruption. It is crazy to me that there has not been a large move in this direction but then it sort of makes sense. I hope to see a mass movement of people in the future that will direct them away from this corruption.
Deletethe naked capitalism article posted above is enlightening yet depressing-- We all know that there is a lot of money in politics but this article is particularly upsetting because of the magnitude and the terms they put this corruption in. So many American think we are so superior to most other countries- but I ask the question; in what ways? and at the cost to whom?
I agree with the comments that change has to occur on a broader social level. It seems absolutely ludicrous to me that in order to try to get someone or their salary reviewed, you have to submit an online request, and find a number in some cases, as one of the articles mentioned, that is in that respective individual's possession who is making too much money. It is a system that does not make sense, and does not help at all with any of Brazil's problems with corruption. It seems like a vicious cycle that is bound to repeat itself unless somehow, some kind of major change is made.
ReplyDeleten the article by the Economist, “Brazil’s zombie politicians: Unstoppable?” the author talks about numerous lawmakers who still retain their office or win reelection a few years down the road even if they have been found guilty on acts of corruption. As stated by the article, “In total a third of Brazil’s lawmakers have either been convicted or are being investigated for crimes ranging from vote-buying to theft to slave-holding.” The article by New York Times, “Brazil, Where a Judge Made $361,500 in a Month, Fumes Over Pay” shines a light on why the corruption in Brazilian politics has escalated to such a high point. The article points out the large disparity between wages as the vast majority of lawmakers are making an inflated salary compared to other public workers like teachers and librarians. However in the Economist article, judges and lawmakers are attempting to remedy the problem of corruption by the next elections in 2014 by barring any candidate for eight years who is found guilty of a crime or who stepped down to avoid investigation.
ReplyDeleteWe should care about the amount of corruption in Brazil because the increasing income gap between public workers alone is causing the market to pause and prevent any further economic growth and the corruption of its government is keeping a majority of the population in poverty. As seen from our discussion of Chile and the Pinochet regime we see the ability of citizenry to remove even the most corrupt leaders from office through public demonstrations, petitions, and political party movements.
I believe that best way for a society to reduce corruption in their government is through the public forum. The first major step that needs to take place is government transparency and the freedom of the public to access records like campaign finances and budget reports released by Congress. As pointed out in the Economist article many citizens are happy to vote these corrupt officials back into office because they do not know any better. For real change to take place you need a knowledgeable and active citizenry. I believe Brail shows that they want change through the law passed in 2010 by the legislature and the signed petition for the impeachment of the President of the Senate.
For real change to take place in places like Brazil and Mexico the public needs to persuade the governments to pass regulations on elections, campaign finances, and the budget that reduces salaries which will decrease the incentive of high risk for high reward in the government. The solution to this problem will either rise from or die in the hands of the public and their elected representatives.
I believe that in order for a society to reduce it's corruption, it first has to stop allowing these corrupt politicians back into the political spectrum. In the article, "Brazil's Zombie Politicians:Unstoppable?" it states that a "third of Brazil's lawmakers have either been convicted or are being investigated for crimes ranging from vote-buying to theft to slave holding." In my opinion, none of these politicians should be able to remain or later be involved with any politics because they've already proved they are corrupt and cannot be trusted. There needs to be stronger/harsher laws or legislature against corruption because it is a serious problem. They need to not only take hold of this issue at an international level, but also at a state level even for the local governments. If they don't create more strict policies against politicians accused of corruption and keep allowing them to come back into politics even after corruption allegations, absolutely nothing is going to change and their corruption levels are going to continue to increase.
ReplyDeleteThe point made, of Brazil needing to make harsher laws to punish and control corruption in politics at a national and state level, makes complete sense and seems, indeed, to be the best option. The problem is that many of the ones with the capacity to make these changes and write the laws are actually corrupted themselves. These not only makes it harder to make a turn-around in policies and regulations to fight corruption but it also means that it is practically impossible for this problem to go away in a short term. Instead, corruption needs to be, in a way, “attacked on the roots”. Therefore, the most probable way in which corruption is going to be diminished is by having these politicians and government workers leave their jobs and make sure that their successors/next generations are capable of not going through the same path and instead help get Brazil out of corruption. In order for this to work Brazil’s education system needs to improve and become capable of producing future ethical workers that actually care about the country and go by the rules. Generalizations are certainly unjust but as seen in many countries around the world, not only Latin American, corruption is present when values such as respect for work, honesty, work ethics, just to mention a few, are lost. Perhaps the fear of real punishment can do part of the trick.
DeleteI just want to highlight a few sentences from the Economist article on Brazil which I found to be the most telling (and alarming in regards to reducing corruption):
ReplyDelete"..a third of Brazil’s lawmakers have either been convicted or are being investigated for crimes ranging from vote-buying to theft to slave-holding.
Many Brazilians are perfectly happy to vote for such people."
While the system itself obviously needs to be changed, the real question becomes - how can that change occur when the general public is not concerned with such issues? And, further, if it is somehow modified, who will hold the politicians accountable to the new higher standards if not the citizens themselves? Most worrisome.
The people need to push for reform so that such exploitation of the masses can cease – BUT, understandably, apathy is pervasive, as each new highly publicized case of corruption acts only to reinforce the perception that this type of crime is simply inevitable. Shedding this great widespread indifference might only occur if the citizens believe that the system can be fixed - and for such belief to take root, political actors will have to take the steps necessary to renew the collective faith. Unfortunately, based on what we have seen thus far in history (particularly in Latin America), that seems most unlikely to happen, for it is particularly foolhardy to believe that the drive for change will come from the very individuals (in this case the politicians) who will benefit most from maintaining the status quo. And therein lies the problem
This broken system must be fixed. But how?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The people must unite.
Sydney Morauer
ReplyDelete2.22.13
Blog Post #1
A Culture of Political Elitism in Brazil
Corruption in government and among political elites is one of many factors that have impeded democratic stability in Latin America. According to Vanden and Prevost, this can be attributed in part to Latin America’s colonization history, as the Iberian archetype reinforced “the cultural model of the all-powerful executive that has permeated Latin American political (and business) culture to the present day” (Vanden and Prevost, p. 39).
A system of political elites and vast economic inequality is evident for example, in Brazil, as highlighted in this week’s current events articles. In The New York Times article regarding the high pay of select government officials, it is apparent that Brazil maintains a corrupt political elite that greatly contributes to the vast economic inequality between rich and poor. In line with Vanden and Prevost’s theory, the article states that: “some historians blame Portugal, the former colonial ruler, for creating a powerful public bureaucracy in which mandarins wield great influence and earn outsize salaries.”
This extravagance promotes corruption as teachers and police officers, for example, are not compensated in the same way as some judges and legislators, creating employment opportunities that are vastly unequal. Government officials are likely protective of their high economic status and will be hesitant to equalize pay in the service industry. This reinforces a government elite and can lead to further corruption and greater economic disparities between the upper and lower classes. There is also a greater cultural consequence—that education, law enforcement, and other social services are not being properly reinforced. As the NYT article states, this exacerbates “the country’s pressing security concerns and long-faltering education system.” This in turn devalues services that are crucial to a healthy society and democracy.
A society such as Brazil can go about reducing corruption by equalizing pay in government services, for one. While this will not only help to lessen the economic gap between upper and lower classes, this will send a cultural message that education and other government services are greatly valued in a democratic society. As discussed in modernization theory, one way in which to affect change towards a more stable, democratic nation state is to change the value systems of individuals. This cannot be done without the reform and modernization of cultural and political systems. Theorist W. Moore has described this facet of modernization as “the process of rationalization of social behavior and social organization” (Valenzuela and Valenzuela, p. 539). What is perceived as rational behavior in Brazil is illustrated by the high number of fairly-elected representatives who have been convicted of corrupt or criminal activity. As The Economist states in this week’s article on Brazil, “many Brazilians are perfectly happy to vote for such people.” While I am not making an argument for modernization over dependency theory, I do think it is crucial to change the behavior of the social organization and examine what is culturally perceived as rational behavior. If a society’s understanding of rational behavior involves a system of political elitism and corruption, this will not change until the behavior and demands of the people change. The new Freedom of Information Law in Brazil is an important step towards government transparency and ultimately greater public awareness of government corruption.
I thought the article on Mexico's president very effectively represented both the positive and negative perspectives of the president's actions. This is demonstrated when the text reflects: "he has gone 'from the wrong narrative to no narrative at all'" in contrast to earlier detail which suggested that Pena decided to alter policies when he realized that the majority of people did not support him: "Mr Peña’s change was partly prompted by the circumstances of his election. His 6.6% margin of victory fell short of the predicted landslide." His willingness to change, and the seeming transparency of his governance demonstrate the benefits of his presidency, while the fact that he has "indeed delivered several new policies and reforms—just not the ones voters and pundits expected" reveals a more negative approach to the president.
ReplyDeleteThe article "Mexico's new president: Tearing up the script" discusses and analyzes the first three months of Mexico's new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, in which Mr. Peña promised fiscal reform of the government's tax policy as well as a change in the energy industry where Pemex, a state-run oil and gas monopoly, would soon be privatized. However, the tax reform nor the energy reform have been of any priority to the newly elected president and instead, Mr. Peña has focused his attention on taking power away from the teachers union, breaking up the concentration of power in telephony, and strengthening freedom-of- information laws.
ReplyDeleteThis focus on monopolies in the telecommunication industry as well as Mr. Peña's special interest in the teachers union and freedom-of-information laws have distorted his main goals set fourth in his campaign. Having said that, this isn't a new phenomenon in the world of politics. Many politicians vouch for certain policies and promise the change people want to hear but unfortunately that's rarely the case. For example, a quote from "A Nation of Enemies" states, "Over the next few days, the commanders reassured Chile's eleven million citizens they had no desire to seek revenge or absolute power. 'This is not a coup d'état, but a military movement'...There would be 'no victors or vanquished', only Chileans united in a 'brotherly task' of rebuilding the nation." (Page 19). Now this might be a much more extreme case compared to Mr. Peña's decision to focus on different policies/reforms than the ones he initially proposed but it shows how many times, politicians give people what they want to hear rather than what will likely occur.
As to how to go about changing this almost concrete characteristic of politics, I think citizens of a country must be diligent in using their voting rights to elect political figures that line up with not only their political views but also their values. Just as important is a citizens' duty to be active in politics and also well versed in the current economic, political, and social issues that their country is facing. Another aspect that I feel is necessary to mention is that in order to create a system that is more responsive to a citizens needs and desires, one can't solely rely on the leader of the nation but rather all political figures that range from the President to the local mayor. I say this because not everything starts and ends at the very top; instead change is a process that must start and grow locally so that it can gain the momentum and power needed to make it to the top. Therefore, being politically active at the local level could potentially cause a ripple effect in which citizens’ actual needs and desires will finally be heard and met at the national government level.
In response to the question concerning how a society can best go about reducing corruption, I believe there are a number of ways. I feel that the issue of corruption throughout South America needs to be attacked on both a large political scale, with reform of certain laws and regulations. I also feel the issue needs to be combated on much broader social level as well. The article titled “Brazil, Where a Judge Made $361,500 in a Month, Fumes Over Pay” mentions a number of causes of corruption and examples of unequal pay in the public sector throughout Brazil. For example, certain judges in Brazil are making around $360,000 a month, while the top judges in New York pull in close to $200,000 a year at the most. Cases like this, where certain professions in the public sector are earning ridiculously unequal salaries in comparison to their peers are common throughout Brazil. This is leaving many other hardworking people in the public sector, such as teachers and police officers with very little take home pay and causing resentment for those receiving such large paychecks. The article states, “some historians blame Portugal, the former colonial ruler, for creating public bureaucracy in which mandarins wield great influence and earn outsize salaries. Brazil’s byzantine judicial system also provides ways for certain senior civil servants to circumvent constitutional pay limits”. This leads into my argument concerning the dynamics of the issue of corruption throughout South America. It appears that the politics that have created a situation that allow for such long-standing corruption have existed for quite some time. The article places blame on an outdated judicial system and former colonial rule. This has undoubtedly harbored and helped create a social as well as political system that is somewhat accepting of corruption. This interconnectedness of political and social acceptance for corruption is the very reason I believe a society must combat it on both a legal and much broader social level. I feel that a country like Brazil could benefit greatly from reforming their colonial style judicial system. Also, increased education amongst the youth concerning the problems with corruption could help set a precedent for future generations actions.
ReplyDelete“Brazil's zombie politician's: unstoppable?” and “Brazil, Where a Judge Made $361,500 in a Month, Fumes Over Pay” chronicle the malfeasance of Brazilian public officials. “Brazil's zombie politician's: unstoppable?” details resilience of corrupt politicians and the feckless laws enacted to prevent them from taking office again. While well intentioned, these laws have been essentially been sidestepped. “Brazil, Where a Judge Made $361,500 in a Month, Fumes Over Pay” highlights the exorbitant wages some government employees make, even eclipsing the salary of the president. Something needs to be done other than barring these politicians from the office again. Clientelism might offer an explanation for the continued election of the corrupt lawmakers. These politicians might have strong relationships with the people they serve, so they would overlook continued wrongdoings on the part of the legislator.
ReplyDeleteBeyond just barring these politicians from future elections, there need to be more punitive laws that will prevent these well connected people from being in positions of influence again.Given the importance of the panelinha in Brazilian political culture, these politicians won’t struggle to find a job with prestige or influence. It does not benefit anyone if these people just are shuffled around the bureaucracy and into other positions of influence. Attempting to change a corrupt system is an overwhelming task, but removing the people who have perpetuated it and benefitted it from it is an important first step.
“Tearing up the script” describes the unexpected course that Mexico’s new president is taking. The new government is seeking to reform some of the interests it was thought to be beholden to. While there is still much to be desired from this government, this seems to be promising. Less than a decade ago the Zapatista Army lead an armed revolt against the government of Mexico. While this struggle is still ongoing, the situation in Mexico seems to be improving. The new governments attempts to be more open by passing a freedom of information act, makes one hopeful that it will be easier for people to participate in the democratic process. While any optimism might be unfounded, hopefully Mexico will continue to seek reforms.
I agree that this is an almost impossible task. As evident in Mr Calheiros return to politics after being pushed out under suspicions of corruption shows just how hard it will be.
DeleteClientelism is defiantly to blame for a large portion of the corruption but I don't think that we can say that it all lies in this issue. I think that it is a moral issue as well.
Their is no doubt that the culture of corruption is something that emanates to the very core of politics in Latin America. During my travels I have seen Taxi drivers pay off police officers, friends work their "magic" to get into a show or to the front of the line. I believe that at the fundamental level corruption must be dealt with by dealing with poverty not just in Brazil (which has a decreasing percentage of its population living in poverty) but in all Latin America. Once this issue is address I believe that it will force a more corruption free atmosphere in the higher echelons of society. If their politicians are corrupt and they know its wrong (because of the moral shift) then with democracy in place they can be removed from office.
That's my theory as to how to help the problem of corruption.
Sufficiently answering the question of what to do to mitigate endemic corruption in states where it is systemically rooted would probably land me a job with any government in the world as the global community has been grappling with this problem for centuries. On the surface the problem looks immense but there is a one word answer to the problem- transparency. This might seem such a simple answer that it is redundant but it is the single most effective method to solving this problem.
ReplyDeleteCritics of this answer might point to the fact that transparency has been brought to the public of Brazil about the actions and payrolls of their public officials and yet the corruption continues but what is pivotal here is that transparency and even more so the effects of a transparent government take time to tickle down to all of the people especially in such a large state as Brazil as well as time to spread throughout the international community and then have its most desired effect of naming-and-shaming which is key to corruption mitigation.
Brazil is certainly an interesting case to look at when it comes to corruption in Latin America. I think that most people were surprised when they read about the amount of corruption that was present in Brazilian politics and society. For a country that in the last two decades has emerged as one of the most active economies in the world and the most important in the region I certainly could not believe that it was possible. Yet again, with an economy that grew at almost 13% a year for as long as Brazil’s did, it makes sense that corruption happened on the scale that we see today.
ReplyDeleteAs many of you have pointed out from the article on Renan Calheiros, the extreme and excessive money politics that is taking place is affecting the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the people. This is no better represented than in the article about Brazilian judges who make close to $300,000 a month! Who is this really affecting? The Poor!
Now before everyone comments back saying the poverty has fallen in the last decade as the economy grew (and you are certainly right) is it not also true that those huge pensions and salaries could be put to better use. Maybe ending poverty in Brazil once and for all!
As Brazil nears its spot on center stage in the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics, society in the country is changing. The urban poor who live in Favelas are being constantly pushed farther out (as their homes are bought up by foreign investors) and/or closed off from the public view as in many of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo’s largest and most impoverished ghettos.
So, I want to pose a question to everyone… Do you think that as the World Cup and the Olympics come to Brazil, will corruption increase or decrease as a result?
The article on mexico provides evidence for reducing the amount of contributions from special interest groups. If special interest groups were limited on the amount of funds they are allowed to contribute we would see a form of democracy that more represents the will of the people. It would lead to less rent seeking by politicians and there time would be better spent advocating for some public benefiting policy rather than a position lobbying for a cable company. This would to lead to more fair outcomes as political decisions would face less pressure from outside interest groups. These fair policies would prevent the formation of monopolies like we see in mexico. Government could even subsidize the development of new companies to rival the large monopolies. The same thing can be said for the USA. Special interest groups have to much power and the only way to limit their pull is to limit the amount of money special interest groups can contribute.
ReplyDeleteIn the article referring o the judge that made over $300,000 in a month suggest how Brazil's economy is up-hill path. The money being distributed are more then compensating people for their work, (not suggestion that they don't work long, strenuous hours)and this allows for people to spend more, invest more, and build the economy as well as contribute o bringing up the poverty level. Although inequality may still be a problem i believe that would be a point of emphasis in a long term goal. By dealing with poverty and meeting the essential needs of people who would normally not have these things accessible to them. I'm hoping by taxing these well paid employees it would untimely go towards contributing to decreasing poverty and eventually inequality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of the previous comments regarding the need for social change in order to reduce corruption in Brazil. Brazil's economy has grown substantially in the last decade due to economic strategies such as high inflation, taxes on imports, and a dirty floating exchange policy keeping the real weak and Brazilian exports more competitive. However, improvement in the social sector and reduction in income inequality and poverty have been slow.
ReplyDeleteWhile the government claims to be making efforts to reduce inequality, wage differences, as described in the articles, perpetuate the huge income gap and make improvement impossible.
It is shocking that police, with one of the most dangerous and disrespected jobs in Brazil, often sent in with machine guns to patrol hostile favelas, and teachers earn such low wages.
Education is the key to social change and improvement. With teachers earning such low wages in a society where many poor children don't even attend school, it is easy to see why Brazilians lack the knowledge and a clear understanding of the government and its actions. Brazilians, required to vote, often check off their ballot with little understanding of any of the candidates positions. This also makes it easy for even local celebrities and soccer stars to earn government positions. It is also what allows for easy manipulation of votes through bribery.
This corruption of the voting system, as well as wage manipulation, are also embedded in Brazilian culture. "Jeitinho," is a Brazilian word used to describe getting out of something or getting what one wants or needs. With this idea of manipulation, for example, paying line-cutters or paying off cops, rampant throughout Brazilian society, of course it will be reflected in the government as well. I would almost go as far as to say that Brazilians know that it is occurring and they don't care and actually expect it. Questioning someone's "jeitinho" is frowned upon with the idea that it can benefit everyone at some point.
Before corruption can end in the government i first needs to be eliminated from Brazilian society. But how can this happen without education and, more importantly, interest? What cost will it have on Brazilian culture?
Transparency and freedom of information is key to having a less corrupt nation, I believe that freedom of press and multiple sources to information is key. With tools such as the internet and other foreign papers many citizens will be able to measure how relative their level of corruption is to the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that Latin America as a people and society as a whole have become socially accustomed to corruption and being lied to. Especially from western states, there is very little trust. Therefore when there are leaders who defy many western ideals and represent more Latin American ones people tend to trust the enemy at home then from abroad. In time leading the people to trust their corrupt officials at home rather than states that form the IMF and western states.
If Brazil's economy continues upon their slow rate of growth then possibly we may see more turnover in the next election. Which in my opinion could very well happen as Rousseff's new poverty plan only enlarges bolsa la familia, which although good for the poor neglects to provide proper and much needed funds for infrastructure. As infrastructure begins to deplete so will the economy and Brazil's edge over the rest of it's neighbors. Corruption and short term political goals are the driving force behind such notions, if the middle class and poor become disenfranchised enough there may be possible riots and eventual turnover.