Why People Are Corrupt

Corruption in government is a given. For years, Filipinos have known that it exists – embedded in a system that is tolerated, if not whispered about. But the recent revelations of corruption in Bulacan’s flood control projects, now rippling across major provinces, have struck a nerve that can no longer be ignored. This time, the people are disappointed. They are furious. They demand not just investigations but accountability. They want the guilty to be jailed forthright and not coddled by endless investigations. And the unrepentant engineers, contractors, corrupt government personnel, and politicians under suspicion are nervous. They are afraid. Their tails are tucked in between their legs as they continue to lie to save their skin. They sense that the people are no longer passive, and they demand justice.

For me, the anger is personal. But it also raises deeper questions: Why are people corrupt? Why do educated individuals – engineers, senators, governors, mayors, congressmen and congresswomen, even those who regularly attend Sunday religious services – engage in such a betrayal of public trust? Has something darker overtaken them? Is it greed, power, ambition or something more sinister like the devil?

The resignation of Senator Ping Lacson, chair of the powerful Senate Blue Ribbon Committee who is probing the anomalous flood control projects, adds another layer. As he investigates suspected corruption among his peers, he was reportedly pressured “to take it easy” on them. Such an act is not about protecting the integrity of the Senate. It is an act of cowardice and self-preservation, shielding the guilty senators under the guise of institutional preservation.

In my search for understanding, I came across an article by Professor Domenec Mele titled Corruption: 10 Possible Causes that sheds light on how corruption operates, not just in systems, but in human psyche. I share it in this article that it might educate, provoke thought, and perhaps stir others to act with conviction and decisiveness when faced with shameless corrupt government officials.

Mele, a Catholic priest and professor emeritus in the Business Ethics Department of the IESE Business School, proposes ten potential causes of corruption and poses a series of reflective questions:

1. Personal greed that leads to an unfettered desire for money or power, with no regard whatsoever to moral boundaries. The underlying anthropological cause is the innate human impulse to own external goods, when it is not subject to personal integrity. Is personal integrity less valued than it used to be? Is there a need for religious or other types of motivation that were once stronger?

2. Decline of personal ethical sensitivity, either due to lack of education or negative learning experiences, developed by downplaying perverse conduct in the past. Should ethical education be put under review? Is it time for a personal reassessment with sincerity and repentance, to learn more about its influence in promoting positive learning?

3. No sense of service when working in public or private institutions. This is seen, for instance, in those who use politics for their selfish interests, instead of serving the common good through politics. How can we promote politicians and leaders with a true service-oriented spirit?

4. Low awareness or lack of courage to denounce corrupt behavior and situations conducive to corruption. That is the case of someone who is aware of corruption and stays quiet. They simply cover for the corrupt individuals, perhaps thinking that it is not their problem, or perhaps out of cowardice, so as not to make their lives more complicated. Would it help to promote a culture of denouncing corruption?

5. Cultural environments that condone corruption. Such as defending or even admiring crooks (“you have to be pretty smart to evade taxes”). Or rationalizing false arguments with no moral basis (“everyone does it”; “take advantage while you can”; “life is short”). Who ought to promote that culture? Social leaders? Everyone?

6. Lack of transparency, especially at the institutional level, but also in less formal organizations. Knowing that what you do is seen by everyone, wouldn’t that deter acts of corruption?

7. Regulations and inefficient controls. Increased regulations and control mechanisms are probably not the answer. They are costly and tend to stifle initiatives and administrative dynamics. But why not have better regulation and more effective control in areas prone to corruption. Is that so difficult?

8. Slow judicial processes. In some other countries, we would have to add “and unreliable” to that statement. Swift processes can have a greater exemplifying effect than those that, by the time the sentence comes, the crime already is nearly forgotten. Justice requires appealing processes and warranties, but not if it means slowing down the administration of justice. Do we need more judges, but also better processes?

9. Lack of moral criteria in promotions. Corruption is prevalent when there are no criteria for proven integrity and responsibility in the promotion. Such criteria are ignored when someone is promoted simply because of their loyalty to whoever is in charge or those in control of the party. Or if it is only their strategic or organizational skills that are evaluated. Obviously, someone can be wrong when making a promoting someone, but there should be no problem distinguishing between a simple mistake and culpable ignorance due to negligence or a lack of ethical assessment. Is it an issue of ethical shortsightedness?

10. Downplaying or reacting mildly to corruption charges. Little power of decision within organizations to penalize acts of corruption to set examples creates an environment conducive to perpetuating corruption.