Category: Politics & government

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[2285] Of why is bribery wrong?

Bribery is wrong. That is a given. Yet surprisingly, I am struggling to explain why it is wrong.

The best I can come up with without referring to other sources is that bribery undermines a system of rules and it gives those involved in the transaction unfair advantage against those who adhere to the rules.

This casts too wide a net however, hence an imperfect reasoning. Not all rules are good and bad rules should be broken. Without looking into what separates the good rules from the bad, the breaking of good rules is a necessary condition in making bribery wrong but it is not a sufficient condition. The determination of wrongness depends on the kind of rules being broken.

Unfairness is also only a necessary condition but the concern for unfairness is only secondary because it arises from the breaking of rules. If a rule is broken, then it is immediately unfair because there are those who follow the rules, with an exception that I will go into below near the end of this entry.

The collective necessary conditions can be construed as the sufficient condition.

Is there any other sufficient condition?

I can at least define a minimum why bribery is wrong, which I propose as another sufficient condition. This goes back to the rationale of establishment of a third party or the state to protect individual rights. If a person bribes the authority to erode the rights of others to the briber’s benefit, then the briber has committed a wrong. When the rules involve individual rights, then the breaking of these specific rules becomes the sufficient condition for bribery to be wrong.

This minimum or sufficient condition is highly unsatisfactory however. Bribery can be wrong even when it does not involve the protection of individual rights. Consider a person who wants a document be kept confidential and there is a company offering safekeeping service, much like a bank. The person engages the company. And then, a third party becomes interested in the document and bribes the company in order to access the document. Quite clearly, a wrong has been committed. Or, maybe the wrong is not due to bribery but due to a breach of trust? I do not know. It requires more thinking.

In any case, if the idea that bribery is wrong is dependent on the idea of rule-breaking, then what if there is no rule? Would bribery be wrong under that situation? Under this situation, bribery ceases to be a concern anymore because the idea of bribery ceases to exist. Any action that can be construed as bribery under rule-based environment suddenly becomes just another mundane transaction in the marketplace under no-rule environment. Bribery simply becomes a purchase of service.

Now comes to the original question that piqued my interest in the idea of bribery in the first place, that subsequently made me to question my basic understanding of why bribery is wrong. What if there are rules but everybody breaks it? The Daily Chart blog at The Economist has a chart reproducing the findings on corruption from Transparency International.[1]

It shows that in Liberia, nearly 90% member of the public had bribed an official. Nearly ninety percent is nearly everybody. I am highlighting this because if everybody does it, it effectively takes the necessary condition of fairness out of the equation. Since nobody follows the rules, then the person who engages in bribery is not being unfair to anybody. Without the fulfilment of the necessary condition of unfairness, does bribery cease to become a wrong?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — ONE in four people paid a bribe during the past year, according to the latest Global Corruption Barometer, which is published annually by Transparency International, an anti-corruption campaign group… Among the countries surveyed, this kind of everyday corruption was most prevalent in Liberia. Britain was the cleanest. [Something for your troubles. Daily Chart. December 9 2010]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — I have found two very good short pieces by Richard Posner on corruption in general. They are:

  1. Economics of Corruption
  2. Corruption

I especially like Posner’s distinction between corruption in the public and private spheres. In retrospect, this blog post of mine involves bribery in the public sphere, i.e. public institutions.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2280] Of centrists lose with a viable “third force”

There is talk of a third force in Malaysia. Lawyer and activist Haris Ibrahim has stated that the third force is a bunch of independents ready to co-operate with Pakatan Rakyat. Zaid Ibrahim wants to form a third political party. If in the end, it comes to a third competitive and national political grouping capable of affecting national elections, then I do not think it is the wisest of all moves.

A third party will adversely affect Pakatan Rakyat more than Barisan Nasional, given that members of the so-called third force seem to be those disillusioned liberals. They sided with Pakatan Rakyat in the last general election but that alliance is unraveling. They are disappointed with Pakatan Rakyat due to various reasons.

While liberals, they are liberal in superlative terms instead of being proper liberals who adopt a comprehensive liberal worldview like the classical liberals. Some may even be social liberals, however, noting how Kua Kia Soong has written that the third force has to stand on the left of Pakatan Rakyat, assuming he is part of the so-called third force. But never mind whether they are proper liberals or not. What matters is that these groups disagree with the status quo in the country.

Furthermore, Barisan Nasional, the beneficiary of the status quo, does not have too many liberals within its ranks. The liberals are closer to Pakatan Rakyat than Barisan Nasional, hence any competitive third grouping will compete more against the former rather than the latter. I would be in agreement with Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad about the effect of a third force as defined earlier in encouraging the status quo, i.e. having Barisan Nasional continue to be in power, for better or for worse.

Pakatan Rakyat, however, will not be the only side to lose because of a third force. A system of one-party dominance is bad for centrists because it provides only one choice to centrists. Instead of Sophie’s choice, one faces Hobson’s. In fact, it is worse than that. Regardless of choices, there is only one outcome: more of the same.

Another point on the adverse effect of a third force can be demonstrated through the famed Hotelling-Downs model.

The model is a location game. In a two-party (or two coalition like in Malaysia; it does not matter as long as the parties within the respective group collude) democratic system, both political parties gravitate to the center. This happens because political parties want to win elections and they win it by garnering the most votes. Meanwhile, voters will vote for the party that is closest to them. As a result, a party that sits farther from the center with respect to the other party will get fewer votes than its rival. Both sides know this, sooner or later. Eventually, there is only one solution: sitting at the center is the best winning strategy.

Now, I do not think highly of centrists. More often than not, their positions are inconsistent. It is forged out of convenience rather than conviction. Their positions are a hodgepodge of points assimilated from everywhere, regardless of contradictions. Some centrists are centrists simply because they are apathetic.

Nonetheless, centrists do provide the stability required in a political system. They are the anchor in society. Given that many views are diametrical, centrists would process these views and hold compromised ones instead, if they care at all. Since the Hotelling-Downs model suggests centrist voters — more accurately the median voters — will win, the other side of the coin suggests that a competitive two-party system has the capability of preventing extremists from assuming power.

Unfortunately, this central tendency within the model is weak. The moment the system accommodates a third competitive third party or more, the central tendency weakens, or even disappears. It has been proven under the Hotelling-Downs assumption that there is no equilibrium with three competitive parties or more.

It will always be optimal for parties to change their positions, be it at the center or somewhere else. A party can always do better than the others can until the other parties respond by changing their positions. That in turn encourages the original party in question to change its position to outdo the others. The process will continue on forever.

There is no guarantee that the center position will be taken. There is really no reason why the center position is special anymore. The political centrists cease to be the anchor. Their influence on national politics decreases with respect to extremists. Thus, it is quite possible for extremists to hold power in the end, even if for a short while.

The lack of equilibrium is not necessarily bad, of course. It is an opportunity for diverse political views to prevail. There are many other benefits to having a third competitive party, but breaking the one-party dominant system is not it.

Even so, it is hard to see these liberals switching their positions too much in order to win elections. Their views are ones based on conviction and not convenience. The same cannot be said about Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. If the Hotelling-Downs model can be used and if the competitive third party is strong enough to affect the election outcome, then this suggests that it will be optimal for Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat to move away from the third party and away from the center.

Again, centrists will lose out.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on November 24 2010.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2276] Of it requires an answer

At a recent public lecture in Sydney, Australia, Anwar Ibrahim said he avoids answering which he aspires to: a secular state or an Islamic state. He reasoned that the issue is contentious and unproductive to engage in. He believes what exists instead is a quasi-secular state, and a hypocritical one at that. He went on to state that the problem revolves around hypocrisy. I left the lecture dissatisfied with the message. Immediately after he ended his speech, I began to wonder about the kind of consistency he was looking for.

He argued that part of the reason why the issue is contentious is that both mean different things to different person. For instance, there are opponents of secularism who believe that secularism is anti-religion. That illiberal brand of secularism stifles religions in the public sphere, like what happened in Turkey before. And then there are proponents of secularism who assert that secularism is neutral of religion. Backed by liberal principles, a liberal secular state will treat all religions equally as long as those religions do not infringe on individual liberties. I myself subscribe to this idea.

Being the glue that holds Pakatan Rakyat together, it is completely understandable why he avoids the question. If anybody needs a reminder, DAP and the Islamist PAS are both the main component parties of Pakatan Rakyat. Both have rattled sabers over the matter within the Malaysian context. In Sydney, he stressed the need to build consensus. Fair enough.

The avoidance, however, is problematic when he is critical of the double standards in the implementation of Islamic law in Malaysia, where the rich and influential get away with what Islam frowns at while others get punished. That criticism relies on the idea of equality before the law. Such equality itself is a sound concept. Yet, not all equality ranks equally in terms of preference.

While the application of unequal weight of the law is distasteful, I shudder to think of a situation of equal implementation of Islamic law, especially in its current form in Malaysia. This is because it violates individual liberties — especially for those whom the state considers as Muslims — such as freedom of conscience. That translates into law that states whom a person can marry, what he or she can eat or drink, what a person can believe in, etc. It excessively dictates one’s personal life. An Islamic state that runs on Islamic law necessarily does that.

Religion has always been a personal, private matter for liberals. When religion is a private matter then the state has no say, freedom has more opportunities to flourish. This is why liberals prefer a secular state with respect to any religious state, while holding all other concerns constant. The opportunity for liberty to flourish doubles when there are guarantees for individual liberties within a liberal democratic framework, which addresses the problem of tyranny of the majority.

Criticism of hypocrisy and the existence of preferences in different kinds of equality essentially introduce back the question of secularism and Islamic state. The question does not need to be framed in such a stark contrast. Forget the labels. Ask instead, will religion, specifically Islam, be used to dictate a person’s lifestyle? More specifically, will it be used to dictate a Malay’s lifestyle?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on November 18 2010.

Categories
Photography Politics & government

[2273] Of Anwar Ibrahim at the University of Sydney

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[2261] Of the importance of apathy

An interesting parallel appears here between economics and exit, on the one hand, and politics and voice, on the other. Just as in economics it had long been thought that the more elastic demand is (that is, the more rapidly exit ensues whenever deterioration occurs) the better for the functioning of the economic system, so it has long been an article of faith of political theory that the proper functioning of democracy requires a maximally alert, active, and vocal public. In the United States, this belief was shaken by empirical studies of voting and political behavior which demonstrated the existence of considerable political apathy on the part of large sections of the public, for long periods of time. Since the democratic system appeared to survive this apathy rather well, it became clear that the relations between political activism of the citizens and stable democracy are considerably more complex than had once been thought. As in the case of exit, a mixture of alert and inert citizens, or even an alternation of involvement and withdrawal, may actually serve democracy better than either total, permanent activism or total apathy. One reason, stressed by Robert Dahl, is that the ordinary failure, on the part of most citizens, to use their potential political resources to the full makes it possible for them to react with unexpected vigor—by using normally unused reserves of political power and influence—whenever their vital interests are directly threatened… [Albert Hirschman. Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Chapter 3. 1970]