Corruption: Is Law enough?

Waeti · Newbie

Corruption: Is Law enough?

abre les ojos · Guru

Waeti wrote:

I wonder whether, law and courts are the only avenues to end corruption? What about our moral attitudes? I feel there are more to it. For sure our society is corrupt and is busy breeding corrupt leaders who cannot just change their attitudes by being persecutted by law. Common folks!!!

It's all politics. If you were elected leader tomorrow you'll probably act the same. Honesty in politics is rare. Why do you think that?

game · Guru

waeti.

i think corruption is an illness driven by greed,in malawi we dont practice a tendency of what is best for the rich can be best for the poor,serf enrichment is a degree which poverty imposes,our moral values need to understand and recognise these bounderies and limitations,which are the primary causes of poverty.these lie in certain deficiences like education,organisation and discipline.

if our laws and courts will protect the welfare of the poor,they wont be manipualated in any way.people need a little bit of education or a small portion of knowledge and intellect to use their best judgement when they come face to face with these corruptors.

Date: Feb 10, 2006

The legal sytem is just one tool that must be used with many others for corrutption to be dealt with effectively. It's completely useless when used in isolation.

Pope · Guru

I agree in full with Game,unless our legal system is not corrupt then we can win the war against coruption.Polititians are another good carrier of corruption,I mean they are more corrupt than civil servants.

Waeti · Newbie

Corruption: Is Law Enough?

I want to reply to all who took part in the discussion forum especially on the topic I ignited. I hereby clarify what I intended to mean.

I concur with Sibweni that law is one of the means but not the end all.

You will agree with me that the sensational attempt to curb corruption has become a formula inaugurated African presidents use to gain legitimacy and good image with international donor community. However, the sensational arrests or persecutions that take place (e.g. Mwawa’s case) should be viewed in the proper context as what I call “quick-fix band aid” solution to structural corruption. As I stressed in the preliminary correspondence, this structural corruption eradication treated as a social injustice centres on treating the effects rather than its root causes (dubious stratagem). I have a big problem here. Further, in representative democracy the diagnosis and treatment of corruption should focus not only on representatives (as is today in Mutharika’s gvt.) instead of focusing on both the representatives and the represented society.

The other sad effect of structured corruption is that, rather than the wider society and its social institutions, the diagnosis and treatment of corruption is left almost exclusively in the hands of government institutions, although pointing out may be done other institutions especially when the corruption cases concern government officials.

Perhaps more importantly, corruption is wrongly viewed as a question of criminal law and not attitude. I argue that there is need to revisit the concept of corruption with the objective of reconceptualising its understanding and restructuring the application of its treatment. I propose for a broader definition and a balanced interpretation of corruption in the field of criminology that is generally fraught with emotionalism, sensationalism and ideological controversy. Thus, a contaminated corrupt society, I argue breeds corrupt leaders as representatives, and leaving it untreated would be tantamount to accepting corruption rule our impoverished country.