4 ms·

> Corruption purges in Leninist states are always political. This is true to a certain extent. But this is actually truer here in democracy country than autho

> Corruption purges in Leninist states are always political. This is true to a certain extent. But this is actually truer here in democracy country than authoritarian country. Think about it. In authoritarian country, corruption is part of the system that has internal regulation. While here in democratic country, corruption has no explicit definition. It's just a matter of if your enemy sees corruption attackable. That makes punishing corruption in democratic country entirely political driven. This phenomenone happens on industry: like Boeing, it has doged punishment until political resentment is no longer containable. It happens to high power, as epstain's case; and government officials Trump and Biden's family for example.

skissane 3y ago
> While here in democratic country, corruption has no explicit definition. It's just a matter of if your enemy sees corruption attackable. That makes punishing corruption in democratic country entirely political driven. Some democratic countries have independent apolitical anti-corruption agencies. For example, the Australian state of New South Wales has an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) which is headed by a judge. Few seriously argue it is politically motivated, although it has caused controversy by destroying the careers of politicians over what some see as relatively minor offences (e.g. in 2014, the state Premier was forced to resign because he gave it false testimony over a $3,000 bottle of wine, although he insisted the falsehood was due to forgetfulness not intentional lying) It also has an official definition of corruption, and subjects of investigation can challenge in the courts whether the investigation is consistent with that definition. In 2015, a senior prosecutor succeeded in getting a ruling from Australia’s highest court that ICAC had overstepped its authority in investigating her for a personal matter unrelated to her job as a prosecutor (she had been recorded on a wiretap giving advice to her son’s girlfriend on how to evade a police investigation into a traffic accident). However, legislators subsequently amended the definition, effectively overturning that court judgement.

skissane 3y ago

> While here in democratic country, corruption has no explicit definition. It's just a matter of if your enemy sees corruption attackable. That makes punishing corruption in democratic country entirely political driven. Some democratic countries have independent apolitical anti-corruption agencies. For example, the Australian state of New South Wales has an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) which is headed by a judge. Few seriously argue it is politically motivated, although it has caused controversy by destroying the careers of politicians over what some see as relatively minor offences (e.g. in 2014, the state Premier was forced to resign because he gave it false testimony over a $3,000 bottle of wine, although he insisted the falsehood was due to forgetfulness not intentional lying) It also has an official definition of corruption, and subjects of investigation can challenge in the courts whether the investigation is consistent with that definition. In 2015, a senior prosecutor succeeded in getting a ruling from Australia’s highest court that ICAC had overstepped its authority in investigating her for a personal matter unrelated to her job as a prosecutor (she had been recorded on a wiretap giving advice to her son’s girlfriend on how to evade a police investigation into a traffic accident). However, legislators subsequently amended the definition, effectively overturning that court judgement.