It is well-known that the buying and selling of officer commissions was common and legal in the British Army until the 1800’s. Of course, there were advantages and disadvantages to this practice, but eventually it was decided that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages and the practice was abolished. One advantage was that people who could afford to purchase a commission were likely to be invested in the status quo and not likely to start a rebellion or rock the boat socially, while a poor person who happened to be educated and skilled in military matters might be looking toward a merit-based commission as a way to effect social change.
Are there any public or private positions of leadership today that are legally and literally for sale? I’m not talking about bribery and the fact that in many areas of the world, a sufficient “donation” (heh heh) to your local police department can result in them looking the other way while you commit crimes or even get them to harass a law-abiding person that you happen not to like, but cases where a “payment” can get you real, de jure authority. For example, are there any jurisdictions anywhere in the world where the Sheriff legally offers Deputy Sheriff positions with real LEO powers to the highest bidder and you can walk off the street, make a payment, and walk out with a real badge?
One thought I had was that buying a controlling interest in a corporation might be treated in some way as “buying” a position of power, but this is generally a winner-take-all scenario - if you can’t afford a controlling interest in the company or can afford it but don’t want to spend all that money, a lesser investment only gives you votes toward major corporate activities, not management authority over a proportional subset of business activities. Are there companies where a more modest but substantial investment can literally buy you a middle-management position and a smaller investment can buy you the position of Janitorial Manager for Suites 100-500 and you can “lord it over” toilet bowl cleaning activities as you feel would be most appropriate?
In France, both “hussier de justice” and notary public offices are bought and sold.
-An “huissier de justice” primary role is to serve courts document and overview the implementation of court decisions, and also to act as an “official witness”. For instance, let’s assume that, through carelessness, you damaged the house you were renting and your landlord wants you to pay for the damage and evict you. He might hire an “huissier de justice” to check the damages, and his written report will be considered as accurate in courts unless you can prove otherwise. Later on, after a court decision against you, your landlord is likely to use again an “huissier de justice” to recover the money you’re now owing, and he will be the only one who can seize your property to cover your debts. He also will have to be present if you’re evicted. Being a kind of lawyer, he might also advise on various issues and he is often hired to recover debts. He’s a weird mix between an independent lawyer and a court officer.
-A French “notary public” is very different from his American counterpart. Like the “huissier”, he’s somewhere in between a lawyer specialized in real estate and a public officer. All sales of real estate and all inheritances must go through him. In both cases, he will make sure the sale/inheritance is in accordance to the law and he will recover all related taxes. He also keeps (and generally write) wills, search for unknown heirs, etc…Given his training, he often acts as a financial or legal advisor (neither him nor an “huissier”, though, can act as a regular lawyer. For instance, they can’t represent you in a court of law)
The fact that they are in an “in-between” position results in many peculiarities. For instance, you can hire whichever notaire/huissier you want, but what he will charge will be strictly regulated by law (X % for an inheritance, € XXX for an eviction, etc…). He has the authority to recover taxes owned on an inheritance or seize property but will be personnally responsible for any mistake, etc…
If you want to become one, not only will you need the proper legal training but also you will have to buy your office from an existing “huissier” or “notaire” (and also, you must be approved by the ministery of justice, if I’m not mistaken).
Similar offices exist in other civil law countries (for instance Germany) but I wouldn’t know if they are bought like in France.
Ambassadorships, arguably. To get your foot in the door for appointment to a primo ambassador post it helps to have raised a crapload of money for the winning presidential candidate. This may not be quite what you had in mind by de jure, but as a pretty well known and open practice it blurs the line fairly well.
With regards to US ambassadorships, I have always been surprised that the practice of nominating major donors is obviously widely accepted in spite of the fact that this actually means selling an office.
I assumed for a long time (but I can be wrong about that) that contrarily to other nations, being an American ambassador in a major country is more an honorific job, while the actual work is done by real diplomats.
In other words, I assume that an American ambassador is a bit like the Queen in the UK. He has ceremonial duties but he isn’t the one discussing serious matters with the foreign government.
I based this belief on the fact that several ambassadors to France I heard about in the past had zero qualifications for the job. I believe at some point the American ambassador to France was a retired actress, for instance. The current one is apparently a former bussinessman who, according to wikipedia, “was the California finance co-chair for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign”.
Well, in defense of the practice. Anyone successful enough to be a major donor probably has some skills that could be transferred to the job of ambassador.
I think it depends on the state of diplomatic relations with the government, not on whether the country is major or not. Less-qualified ambassadors will be sent to postings where they can’t screw things up too badly, which would include traditional allies like the UK or France, or else small countries which aren’t seen as too important. Professionals will be sent to countries where the relationship is more problematic like Russia or China, or to trouble spots.
Please do not misunderstand me, and think that I’m accusing you of being wrong. I merely want a deeper understanding of what you’re saying.
How do you distinguish between ambassadors and diplomats? Could you, for example, name a country, and tell me who the ambassador is, and who the diplomats are?
My presumption is that the ambassador has a staff of diplomats, and that he/she is also a diplomat, and is the highest-ranking of them.
Most American ambassadorships are filled by career diplomats, who have spent a lifetime in the Foreign Service. There are a couple of dozen posts that traditionally go to political appointees. Generally, these are in nice parts of the world with little substantive difficulties. And, yes, these often go to major party donors.
A couple of special cases: The ambassador to the Court of St. James (the official title of the ambassador to Britain) was almost always a political appointee wealthy enough to fund the social life expected in that postiion.
Until relatively recently, the ambassador to the Soviet Union was ALWAYS a career diplomat.
These are generallizations; you can always find exceptions.
I think clairobscur is using “diplomat” to mean officers who are trained, professional diplomats. Technically, of course an ambassador is a diplomat, but in the American system, there is no guarantee that they have any diplomatic training or experience at all.
But, that’s not unusual in other government positions. For instance, in the Westminster parliamentary systems, Cabinet ministers routinely have no prior professional experience with respect to the activities of the ministry they head. They rely on the trained professional public servants for advice on the operation of the ministry, but are the ones who get to make the decision.
If you want to manage a fast food restaurant you can buy a franchise. AFAIK some of the franchisors will set up everything for you in terms of finding space, leasing it, setting up a restaurant, and so on. You just pay them the franchise fee; manage the restaurant; and keep the profits.
That is one of the rationales given for the practice, that political appointees who have either been major donors or major fundraisers have already displayed some of the necessary skills of social interaction and schmoozing on the highest levels, and it doesn’t hurt that they’re generally wealthy and able to do it on their own dime. This article is pretty interesting: The Economics of Being a U.S. Ambassador
No, I couldn’t. I do not say that the American ambassador isn’t a diplomat. He certainly has a dipmomatic passport, and is accredited by the receiving state, etc…
I only say that I suppose that a former actress (for instance) isn’t really in charge of anything, but only nominally so, in the same way, again, that Elizabeth II is the head of state in the UK but doesn’t decide anything by herself. I’m not sure how to convey better than with this example what I mean.
The “diplomats” I was refering to would be civil servants, career diplomats who would actually do the job of ambassador without having the title.
And again, I’m not stating that it is the case, just that I assumed it to be the case.