|
|
|
|
|
|||
opinionAlso in this section: Martín and the sources of public corruption by Eric Jackson It´s an old question, and as far as I can see one without a single correct answer. Or shall we more properly divide the question? From whence, what or whom does public corruption come? Back in high school, in the days of Richard Nixon’s first term, I had a teacher who pleaded with increasingly alienated students like me that the public institutions of the United States were worth keeping, but overgrown with people who needed to be weeded out. “Get rid of the bad people, but keep the system,” he advised. I think that Americans worship the US Constitution to an unhealthy degree, but one of its great strengths is that the document was drafted by men who distrusted concentrations of power. Some of its most anti-democratic and suspicious provisions have frequently been decisive tools in the fight against public corruption. For one example, just because a political party gains control of the government with a popular mandate does not give it the legal right to silence dissidents or suppress a critical press --- so says that First Amendment, which when viewed that way upholds individual rights against democratic majorities. For another example, Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution, some of whose drafters personally knew and despised one Benedict Arnold and all of whose drafters had risked everything to overthrow the authority of the British monarchy, provides that “[n]o title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign State.” For a third example, Article III, Section 1 provides that federal judges "shall hold their offices during good behaviour." All of these constitutional provisions, and a number of other ones and beyond them a whole body of statutory law and many court decisions, speak to a desire to prevent and curb the abuses of political power. To be sure, these and other strictures of a political culture that suspects authority didn’t stop the rise of the robber barons who founded the modern corporate power structure in the decades after the Civil War, nor did it prevent the Teapot Dome, Watergate or Halliburton contract scandals. In all of those instances corrupt individuals or groups took advantage despite the legal safeguards, but in most of these cases there was a payback time within the framework of the constitutional order. Public corruption comes from dishonest, greedy or power mad individuals, usually working in concert as groups. However, systems and cultures do matter. Institutions can be designed to resist corruption or encourage it. Societies can resist, tolerate or even clamor for the abuses of crooked politicians. One of the hardest things of all is to be an upright leader in the face of public pressure to suppress dissenting minorities, electorates that believe in nepotism or political spoils systems, or societies that are apathetic about public affairs. The US system is not the Panamanian system, nor should it be. However, in public life there are a few universal truths, and well run governments based on very different premises --- theocracies and secular states, authoritarian and democratic regimes, governments of the left and right --- tend to come around to the same conclusions about certain fundamental matters by their distinct internal logics. Martín Torrijos essentially promised that the Panamanian government would be well run when he coined his “zero corruption” campaign slogan. On the personal level, I have yet to see where the president has taken bribes, stolen from the public coffers, awarded himself or his family public contracts or otherwise been personally afflicted with the usual sticky fingered political disorders. He has even, for example by repealing some of the most abused anti-press laws, done some things to strengthen some of the institutional safeguards against corruption. However, Torrijos has yet to demonstrate that he’s that sort of courageous leader who will consistently stand up against corrupt individuals in his own party and entourage. Nor has he shown sufficient concern about institutional safeguards, given the predatory nature of the current Panamanian political class. For one example, as originally submitted to the National Assembly, the Torrijos Social Security Fund (CSS) reforms weakened the ban against the fund’s directors bidding on that institution’s contracts. To indirectly but effectively emphasize the point, we heard from a loud-mouthed sleazy demagogue, one Miguel Bush, for the first time in months during the course of the Seguro Social debate. Bush, showing zero proof because there is none, accused the militant SUNTRACS construction workers’ union, which is spearheading the opposition to the Torrijos proposal, of being financed by drug dealers. Recall that back in his old Colon city legislative circuit, members of his own PRD threw Bush out of office by rejecting him in their party primary. Recall that one of the reasons why Bush got the boot from the PRD rank-and-file was that despite the legal prohibition against legislators holding public concessions, he nevertheless --- via a company of his --- obtained a lucrative gravel pit contract from the government. Now if Torrijos showed the prudence that he keeps asking of the opponents of his reform package, he would disassociate himself both from Bush’s obnoxious smear tactics and from Bush himself. If he was reasonably diligent in his professed quest for better government he would strengthen, not weaken, the institutional safeguards against the corruption that has historically plagued the CSS. At first glance, it appears to me that the problem with President Torrijos is that his political party leads him rather than the other way around, and that party --- like all the others --- is infested with people who are in politics for personal gain. He doesn’t seem to understand that legislative steamrollers, unpopular legislation or police crackdowns do not in themselves demonstrate strong leadership. Those are all tools to which a strong leader may be forced to resort, but they’re also the preferred tools of mere despots. A strong leader sets a good example by his or her personal conduct in the public arena, sets and enforces high standards for subordinates and hands cleaner and stronger institutions than he or she received to his or her successor. Compared to Mireya, Martín looks good on all of those counts. But compared to what ought to be, he’s falling short so far.
Also in this section:
News |
Business |
Editorial |
Opinion |
Letters |
Arts
|
Review |
Community |
Fun
|
Travel
Build a home in Las Cumbres with Villa Concordia ---
http://villaconcordia-pma.com/
Make the Executive Hotel your headquarters in Panama City --- http://www.executivehotel-panama.com |
||||||
|
