More than Necessary, Less than Sufficient: Democratization and the Control of Corruption

This paper offers two arguments. First, putting limits on the uses of wealth and power has often been a matter of contention and controversy driven by citizens’ self-interests, rather than of dedicated efforts to build good government. Indeed, without such contention we would not have any clear concept of corruption. Such “deep democratization” is necessary for effective and lasting reform. But democratic politics is scarcely sufficient: we might hope voters would use their ballots to oust the scoundrels and reward those who govern well, for reasons ranging from the nature of corruption to the electoral choices to the limitations of popular mandates, they do not usually do so. In the end, two recommendations are offered: first, to pursue a phased strategy of deep democratization building demands for fairness and better government performance, and second, to choose anti-corruption reforms that aid citizens’ ability to defend their own interests, rather than proposing grand corruption control strategies and then seeking citizen support. There are no guarantees that such efforts will prevail, but without them the anti-corruption movement will continue to have only indifferent levels of success.