> I don't understand where this implication comes from. From "blackouts are due to corruption -> corruption was just as bad in the past". Especially since blac

> I don't understand where this implication comes from. From "blackouts are due to corruption -> corruption was just as bad in the past". Especially since blackouts were the only symptom of corruption mentioned. Yes, it's possible blackouts didn't manifest due to different reasons, despite equal corruption - that's why it's an implication. > Is it worth "clearing up", given that blackouts are not a direct function of corruption? A simple hypothetical "Yes blackouts are more common, but the old government was just as corrupt due to <list of reasons>" would have been much more informative, so yes I do think it's worth clearing up. Are we supposed to compare governments without comparing the state of the country they ran (run)? Except, of course, apartheid - that doesn't get left out.