What Does America Rely on to Prevent Corruption: Democracy Is the Enemy of Corruption

From the 1820s to the 1980s, America experienced high levels of corruption. An important factor in this was that American democracy was still maturing. In those days, even though the U.S. had the basic foundations of a democracy, its level of democratization was still relatively low. Not only was the voting population not large enough (in 1880, the U.S. had a population of 50 million, but only 5.6 million were eligible to vote, 11.2 percent of the general population), but also the actions of the country’s policymakers in Congress were undemocratic (it wasn’t until Roosevelt’s New Deal that the center of the government shifted to Congress from the president). Leaders weren’t directly elected either (it was not until 1913 that direct elections were established). In those days, it was more accurate to describe America as an oligarchy built upon democratic foundations. It was a “millionaire’s club” type of oligarchy, where talented leadership that was uncorrupt and sincere had become an “iridescent dream,” in the words of then-Senator John Ingalls, and predatory hawks had become the “embodiment of virtuous men” (Richard Hofstadter, “The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made It,” page 209).*

Rampant corruption’s “Gilded Age” ultimately ended because of the American progressive movement. The progressive movement’s main theme of the disparity between workers, farmers and urban dwellers and the “search for private interests eventually revitalized American democracy” (Hofstadter, “The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made It,” page 294). This expanded democratic practices and perfected democratic institutions. The development of these practices and institutions was critical for saving the American government from corruption and created the preconditions for it to become the world’s most powerful country.

The United Kingdom followed the same path as the U.S. in eradicating corruption. The modern U.K. is a birthplace of constitutional governance and a democratic leader. But it wasn’t until the latter half of the 1800s, with the reform of the British Parliament and the expansion of voter enfranchisement, that democracy replaced oligarchy. (Out of England’s population of 24 million, only 400,000 could vote. Reforms took place in 1832, 1867 and 1884, adding 5.7 million voters. By 1928, enfranchisement had been extended to 97 percent of the population and led to the establishment of a true general election.) For a long time, the effects of large-scale corruption had enshrouded the U.K.’s government.

In reality, as political scientists have proven, there is a relationship between democratization and levels of corruption. That is to say, as a country undergoes progressive democratization, its levels of corruption will decline. However, the move from autocracy to democracy means that corruption can increase in the short-run, due to the move from a top-down system to a bottom-up one that does not have enough authority, in addition to other unfavorable political conditions, such as the level of economic development, public education, unrestricted media, etc. But this declines as democratization and development continue.

This is because democracy is the natural enemy of corruption. The basic characteristic of corruption is the use of a public official’s authority to directly or indirectly promote personal interests over those of the public. This is a violation of the public good, which is by definition the good of everyone: “Each is the only safe guardian of his own rights and interests” (John Stuart Mill, “Essays on Politics and Society,” page 44). The greatest opponent of violating the public good is the public itself. Democracy is rule by the public and thus is guaranteed to promote the public good: “A dependence on the people, no doubt, is the primary control on the government” (“The Federalist Papers: Number 51”). So, democracy is a strong and resolute foe of corruption.

Surveying the entirety of human history, it is apparent that while democracy has not appeared, or at least has not become entrenched, everywhere, all cultures have experienced political corruption to different degrees. It was only when democracy interacted with constitutional governments on a large scale that there began to be notable checks on corruption. At the very least, before modern society, the unequal distribution of resources was seen as a matter of course. Now, this inequality is seen as evil.

Indeed, a democratic system — particularly under-developed democratic systems — cannot guarantee the eradication of corruption, as seen in leaders like Joseph Estrada, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Chen Shui-bian. However, a democratic system ensures that corrupt behavior is exposed and investigated. Estrada, Arroyo and Chen Shui-bian have all been sent to prison. Democracy is not the only factor involved in eradicating corruption, but it is a necessary one; moving authority to the bottom from the top reveals mechanisms that limit power and play a critical role.

The move to a modern industrial society from an agrarian one not only increased general wealth, but also completely restructured legal, political, moral and cultural institutions, while at the same time increasing their flexibility and complexity. In the midst of this transformation, leaders were able to better control wealth and resources, while it was harder for the public to check their power. This led to an increase in corruption. This is a historical problem, and without being able to elect leaders, this problem cannot be addressed.

America’s history of corruption leaves us with two mechanisms to address corruption. The first is a mechanism to discover violations. There needs to be an unobstructed chain of command, as well as smooth channels of communication to avoid the issue of asymmetric information and the problem of “unsupervised leaders, unsupervised peers and unsupervised subordinates.” The second is an enforcement mechanism. Pressure from the people and a system of checks and balances effectively ensure the implementation of the system. There needs to be equality before the law without exceptions for this to work. Without these two mechanisms, other efforts will lack fundamental support. Like a house built with thick bricks and ornate doors but without a sound foundation or structural pillars, it will be poorly constructed.

The author is a scholar in Shanghai.

*Editor’s note: Citations are author’s own.