4 ms·

Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens. That is legally-enforced corruption.

• eru 4y ago
  What definition of corruption are you using here? As far as I can tell, an absolute monarchy that is run for the benefit of the ruler can still have rule of law and low corruption. As an alternate history example, take Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, but make him king and increase his salary to 1 billion SGD per year (instead of 1 million SGD per year). Change nothing else. They would still be one of the least corrupt countries on earth, and have a judiciary that enforces the rule of law. > Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens. That can and does happen in democracies, too.
  • TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    That's no different than if the president of the US used his power to acquire money. The only difference is that in Singapore the law itself has been corrupted to allow it. Corruption, and even corrupt laws, exist in democracies too, but in a non-democracy all laws are inherently corrupt. Non-democracies have no legitimate basis for even having laws.
    • eru 4y ago
      What makes democracies magically more legitimate?