In his popular, military-backed autogolpe last year, Peruvian President
Fujimori dissolved Congress and the judiciary, charging that these
institutions were deeply corrupt. Presidents Collor de Mello in Brazil
and P6rez in Venezuela were impeached for using their office for per-
sonal gain, in 1992 and 1993 respectively. This June, Guatemalan President
Serrano attempted his own self-coup, using corruption as an excuse to shut
down Congress and the Supreme Court. De Le6n Carpio, Serrano’s succes-
sor, has also tried-so far unsuccessfully-to dissolve Congress for the
same purported reasons. In the United States, the House banking and post-
office scandals and the savings-and-loan debacle followed on the heels of Iran-Contra. Meanwhile,
rumors of corruption continue to swirl around Argentine President Menem’s inner circle. And, from
the Andes up through Mexico, drug corruption continues to play a major role in the public debate.
So why has corruption become such a “hot” issue now? And why all over? Has corruption
increased or assumed a new character in the right-of-center democracies in Latin America, or are
people just becoming fed up? Have certain systems or social structures more readily lent them-
selves to being corrupted? Has corruption taken different shapes in each country, or is the same
problem with the same root causes playing itself out in different contexts? And has the well-being
of society been served by the course that events have taken? That is, have governmental attempts to
clean house yielded significant reform?
The first part of our report title, “the politics of corruption,” is meant to suggest a focus both on
the political structures that determine the form and degree of corruption, and also on the way in
which the issue of corruption can be used as a ploy in the game of power politics. The second part
of the title, “the corruption of politics,” refers to the flip side of the process. The flagrant abuse of
the public trust in the pursuit of illicit goals or private gain degrades the political process and
betrays democracy.
orruption is a slippery term. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines it as
“inducement [as of a public official] by means of improper considerations [as bribery] to
commit a violation of duty.” Yet how does one differentiate between proper and improper
considerations? The notion of corruption is inextricably bound up with norms and standards of
behavior, which vary over time and place. What is and is not corrupt resides, to some degree, in the
eye of the beholder. Politics involves an intricate set of inducements, threats and negotiations
between office-holders and their various constituencies over a wide array of public policies and the
distribution of scarce government resources. While lobbying and campaign contributions are fre-
quently considered acceptable forms of influence, most observers feel that kickbacks and bribery
are not. But where is the fine line that divides what is corrupt from what is not?
The articles in this report reflect the idiosyncratic use of the word. Theotonio Dos Santos narrow-
ly defines corruption as “irregular transfers and commissions.” Peter Andreas tries to strip the word
of its connotations of personal morality and consider it purely in its functional sense. In the drug
trade, he says, corruption is simply the cost of doing business in an illicit industry without recourse
to lobbyists and lawyers. Peter Kornbluh and Malcolm Byrne use the word “corruption” in its
broadest sense. In their analysis of the Iran-Contra scandal, they speak of political corruption as the
violation of the delicate system of checks and balances that underlies democracy.
There are many reasons why corruption didn’t emerge as an important issue before now. Over
the past three decades, much of Latin America was under the iron rule of military dictatorships.
VOL XXVII, No 3 Nov/DEC 1993 11REPORT ON CORRUPTION
Not only did corruption pale as an issue next to the brutal abuses of military power, but even if citi-
zens were inclined to complain, there was little safe political space in which to act. And in a non-
dictatorial framework, other issues, for better or worse, have simply been considered more com-
pelling. As Dos Santos argues, the struggle for social justice and greater equality may have rightly
taken precedence over the struggle against what many consider to be petty dishonesty.
In addition, when times are good, as in Venezuela during the oil boom, a considerably greater tol-
erance for corruption seems to exist. In fact, many observers have found a marked tolerance for cor-
ruption as long as its rewards are perceived to be somewhat open to all. In this context, Venezuelans
were not inclined to boot P6rez out of office during his first term when the expressed feeling among
many was “sure he steals, but he lets you steal too.” Something similar is probably responsible for
the lack of a public outcry against the corruption of the Reagan-Bush years in the United States. As
long as the promise of riches seems credibly open to many, why complain? Moreover, some politi-
cal scientists see a little corruption as a way to open up avenues of mobility in a capitalist economy,
and assuage potential political dissent.
But after a decade and a half of hard times, people’s tolerance has worn thin. The gap between
the haves and the have-nots is growing alarmingly wide, and for an increasing number of citizens
of an increasing number of countries-North as well as South-the struggle for life’s basic neces-
sities is growing desperate. At the same time, the hard sell of the neoliberal restructuring package
may have raised unrealistic expectations of quick economic success. The good life was said to be
around the corner for all those who worked hard. Some indeed have gotten very very rich, but that
wealth has been slow to trickle down. Empty promises have bred resentment, and resentment has
fueled the anti-corruption movement.
It may also be that what we are witnessing is not only a growing awareness
and concern about corruption, but a growing incidence of corrupt behavior
as well. After all, when greed is enshrined as ideology, the unfettered pur-
suit of self-interest becomes the socially sanctioned goal for all of us. The
growing income gap may have made corruption more of a necessity than
ever. It may have become more difficult to get ahead by licit means just as
self-enrichment was becoming the official creed. This is a lethal combination. It produces the kind
of official corruption Peter Andreas chronicles in the drug trade. For some, looking the other way
may be less a corrupt choice than a perceived necessity.
And violation of the public trust is hardly limited to the public sector. The goal of corruption
may be power, but the mediation is always money. When private interests control the commanding
heights of social and economic power, private malfeasance-false advertising, insider trading,
etc.-can be just as great a violation of the public trust as any politician on the take. Of course, as
Dos Santos points out, when private interests also control the state, the distinction between public
and private may be moot.
A certain amount of corruption may well be built into the impersonal, utilitarian relationships of
contemporary life. Galeano takes this concept furthest when he talks about the corruption of mem-
ory itself. Social amnesia becomes a logical outcome of a system in which we are encouraged not
to know where the food on our table comes from. Why not choose to forget the uncomfortable facts
of modern life? Indeed radicals-those who choose to examine the root of social problems-are
chastised now more than ever to leave the system unexamined, since there is clearly “nothing to
replace it with.”
What has been the upshot of the new pan-American concern with corruption? After Congression-
al inquiries, impeachments, and attempted crackdowns on “corrupt” political institutions and
actors, has the political system been reinvented or transformed? People may be less hesitant to
voice their outrage and demand accountability from their elected leaders. But is there an alchemy
brewing between that outrage and a new political will? This alchemy, as Kornbluh and Byrne tell
us, is necessary to create the conditions for meaningful social change. Concrete results have so far
been in short supply. Despite painstaking investigations and reams of evidence unearthed against
unscrupulous politicians, few people have been imprisoned for corruption and few legal reforms
have been enacted. And-perhaps most importantly-the systems that have encouraged corruption
remain firmly in place.
Menu
