Going Too Far: How Expansive Definitions of Corruption Can Undermine Democracy

Corruption is perceived to be a growing problem, not only in “the usual suspect” countries, but in the established western democracies as well. This perception could have any (or all) of three distinct causes: more behavior falling into a fixed category of “corrupt”; no real increase in such behavior, but more investigation and reporting leading to greater awareness; expansion of the definition of “corrupt”, so that more behaviors fall into the expanded category. Attempts by institutions like OSCE/ODIHR, GRECO, and the Venice Commission to support “the proper functioning of democracy” by limiting the first of these, however, can have the perverse effect of undermining public support for democratic politics by increasing the relevance of the second and third. Liberal democracy, like liberalism more generally, assumes that people are basically driven by self-interest, although that interest may include the interests of favored groups and extend far beyond narrow economic advantage. But once the legitimacy of private interests is accepted, this creates a problem for the definition of corruption in liberal democracies. In expanding the definition of the corrupt beyond such obvious crimes as bribery and embezzlement to include anything that violates ideals of selflessness far beyond expectations for any other arena, and in assuming a duty to promote “the national interest” rather than the interest of any particular group, international democracy promoting organizations risk stigmatizing the exchange of favors that is essential to the building of coalitions, and indeed to the maintenance of any social system. An unrealistically expansive definition risks furthering the perception that democratic politics and politicians are all corrupt, and indeed risks branding as a “corrupt bargain” the representation of interests in exchange for electoral support that lies at the heart of liberal democratic theory.