> To me it's chicken and the egg. Do you need to have this type of unassailable position if you're going to root out very powerful corrupt peers/figures? Or do

> To me it's chicken and the egg. Do you need to have this type of unassailable position if you're going to root out very powerful corrupt peers/figures? Or do you root our very powerful peers so you can have an unassailable position? I wonder about the premise: I think the widely accepted theory is that 'assailability' and corruption have an inverse relationship; that is, the less assailable you are the more likely you are to be corrupt. I think the real chicken and egg question is, 'do you need an unssailable position to root out your political opposition, or do you need to root out your political opposition to become unassailable'. Democratic leaders are far more assailable -- they have limited power, they can be removed from office, and they are open to public attacks by the media, the public, and competing politicans -- but are considered, partly for that reason, to be less corrupt.