Political Corruption, Democratic Theory, and Democracy

According to recent conceptual proposals, institutional corruption should be understood within the boundaries of the institution and its purpose. Political corruption in democracies, prominent scholars suggest, is characterized by the violation of institutional ideals or behaviors that tend to harm...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Doron Navot
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Université de Montréal 2014-09-01
Series:Les Ateliers de l’Ethique
Subjects:
Online Access:http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1029057ar
id doaj-44398951376a40df8385e1c6baf9109a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-44398951376a40df8385e1c6baf9109a2020-11-25T00:25:49ZengUniversité de MontréalLes Ateliers de l’Ethique1718-99771718-99772014-09-0193424http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1029057arPolitical Corruption, Democratic Theory, and DemocracyDoron Navot0University of HaifaAccording to recent conceptual proposals, institutional corruption should be understood within the boundaries of the institution and its purpose. Political corruption in democracies, prominent scholars suggest, is characterized by the violation of institutional ideals or behaviors that tend to harm democratic processes and institutions. This paper rejects the idea that compromises, preferences, political agreements, or consent can be the baseline of conceptualization of political corruption. In order to improve the identification of abuse of power, the concept of political corruption should not be related directly to democratic institutions and processes; rather, it should be related to ideals whose content is independent of citizens’ preferences, institutions and processes. More specifically, I articulate the relations between political corruption and the notion of subjection, and include powerful citizens in the category of political corruption. Yet, I also suggest redefining under what conditions agents are culpable for their motivations in promoting private gain. By doing this, we better realize how democratic institutions can be the source of corruption and not just its victims. Such a redefinition, I propose finally, is the basis for the distinction between individual and institutional corruption.http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1029057arDemocracy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Doron Navot
spellingShingle Doron Navot
Political Corruption, Democratic Theory, and Democracy
Les Ateliers de l’Ethique
Democracy
author_facet Doron Navot
author_sort Doron Navot
title Political Corruption, Democratic Theory, and Democracy
title_short Political Corruption, Democratic Theory, and Democracy
title_full Political Corruption, Democratic Theory, and Democracy
title_fullStr Political Corruption, Democratic Theory, and Democracy
title_full_unstemmed Political Corruption, Democratic Theory, and Democracy
title_sort political corruption, democratic theory, and democracy
publisher Université de Montréal
series Les Ateliers de l’Ethique
issn 1718-9977
1718-9977
publishDate 2014-09-01
description According to recent conceptual proposals, institutional corruption should be understood within the boundaries of the institution and its purpose. Political corruption in democracies, prominent scholars suggest, is characterized by the violation of institutional ideals or behaviors that tend to harm democratic processes and institutions. This paper rejects the idea that compromises, preferences, political agreements, or consent can be the baseline of conceptualization of political corruption. In order to improve the identification of abuse of power, the concept of political corruption should not be related directly to democratic institutions and processes; rather, it should be related to ideals whose content is independent of citizens’ preferences, institutions and processes. More specifically, I articulate the relations between political corruption and the notion of subjection, and include powerful citizens in the category of political corruption. Yet, I also suggest redefining under what conditions agents are culpable for their motivations in promoting private gain. By doing this, we better realize how democratic institutions can be the source of corruption and not just its victims. Such a redefinition, I propose finally, is the basis for the distinction between individual and institutional corruption.
topic Democracy
url http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1029057ar
work_keys_str_mv AT doronnavot politicalcorruptiondemocratictheoryanddemocracy
_version_ 1725346880947224576