2 ms·

The Presidential aka executive branch does not have that kind of direct authority in the United States. At best, the executive can start a criminal investigatio

by pnathan 11y ago

The Presidential aka executive branch does not have that kind of direct authority in the United States. At best, the executive can start a criminal investigation, which case must be made before the court branch; the laws that were broken were set by the legislative branch. Courts in the US are given an extremely high degree of independence, in the goal of limiting corruption.

rms_returns 11y ago
> Courts in the US are given an extremely high degree of independence, in the goal of limiting corruption. And exactly the opposite ended up happening in this case, isn't it? Corruption is a world-wide problem, but I don't know how widespread it is in developed countries. And its the same problem, people sitting at the top don't have authority to curb the ground-level corruption. Here in India at least, the government has started implementing something called Lokpal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal It is an agency which works at the ground-level to curb the corruption both in the private and public sectors (and also the ministry). A question arose, however, that what happens if the Lokpal people itself went corrupt? And that's why the concept of decentralization was introduced. The central Indian agency, CBI can check the corruption in Lokpal, and of course, the courts have authority over both CBI and Lokpal. Thus, decentralization is at least, the present way of stopping corruption here.
- pnathan 11y ago
  Right, I remember the controversy over Lokpal, I was following India news more then. Developed countries tend to have less overt corruption and more implicit corruption; the populace simply doesn't stand for open bribes. Chicago is probably the most overt location in the US for corruption; elsewhere it tends to look very much like "rotating door" policies, as well as police looking the other way for important people.

by pnathan 11y ago

rms_returns 11y ago

> Courts in the US are given an extremely high degree of independence, in the goal of limiting corruption. And exactly the opposite ended up happening in this case, isn't it? Corruption is a world-wide problem, but I don't know how widespread it is in developed countries. And its the same problem, people sitting at the top don't have authority to curb the ground-level corruption. Here in India at least, the government has started implementing something called Lokpal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal It is an agency which works at the ground-level to curb the corruption both in the private and public sectors (and also the ministry). A question arose, however, that what happens if the Lokpal people itself went corrupt? And that's why the concept of decentralization was introduced. The central Indian agency, CBI can check the corruption in Lokpal, and of course, the courts have authority over both CBI and Lokpal. Thus, decentralization is at least, the present way of stopping corruption here.

pnathan 11y ago
Right, I remember the controversy over Lokpal, I was following India news more then. Developed countries tend to have less overt corruption and more implicit corruption; the populace simply doesn't stand for open bribes. Chicago is probably the most overt location in the US for corruption; elsewhere it tends to look very much like "rotating door" policies, as well as police looking the other way for important people.