I’ve been reading a new book on corruption. It’s a good read. It talks about those interested in power, whether bad people aspire to power and what can be done, whether power changes people, and so forth. It tells a lot of stories I have never heard.
It says bad people who become dictators get better at being bad. It gives the example of a Ukraine election in 2000, where people could vote freely for a corrupt leader. But in opposition areas, voters were given pens with disappearing ink so that ballots later looked blank. Is this true? How was this found out?
It says ridiculous myths about dictators learning to drive as toddlers or golfing with a score of 25 have a purpose. Someone willing to repeat such obvious twaddle is a henchman you can trust. However, it may require the invention of ever more outrageous crap. Does this have any relation to recent orange US presidential figures? Does this say anything about Q Anon or other groups? Repeating but not believing group myths equals loyalty or belonging?
Do you think bad people are more likely to seek power?
Do you think power corrupts good people?
Would you be surprised most people only want enough power to control their own life and are disinterested by it?
It talks about King Leopold of Belgium. He ruled benevolently in Belgium , building widely, but became rich through using widespread murder and violence to control the supply of rubber in the Congo. How is he seen in Belgium today?
Well, yeah. I mean, that’s why they’re bad. Bad people, at their core, are all the same. Me me me, my my my. Their needs come first. Even their wants come before someone else’s needs. Their ideas are the best. Right and wrong are as they define it.
No. Apologies to Orwell, but I don’t think that power necessarily corrupts. I think that good people find themselves caught up in a system that inherently rewards bad people, and that system eventually grinds the good people down. But it doesn’t always corrupt them (though it can).
Not really. That’s how I am (or at least, how I tell myself that I am). I want to be responsible for me, and me alone. I do sometimes wish that other people would straighten up and get on board with my way of thinking. It’s patently obvious, I think, that my ideas are the best.
I’m not in Belgium, nor am I Belgian, but my own opinion, and what I know of most general opinion on Leopold, is that he’s considered a homicidal monster.
I don’t know whether I agree. But even if it’s true that, as you say, all bad people are self-centered, that still may manifest in different ways. For some, it does make them seek power, but for other bad people, it’s essentially the opposite: they’re lazy, passive, and irresponsible, and don’t want the trouble of having and using power.
It depends on whether you interpret the question as “Do you think power sometimes corrupts good people?” or “Do you think power inevitably corrupts good people?” I would answer Yes to the first, No to the second.
Being self-centered is not enough to make someone a bad person (IMHO). The bad person will seek to control others to satisfy that self-centeredness. So a bad person necessarily seeks power to one degree or another.
I think that there are many people in power who try their damndest to do good with what power is granted them. Many people are in power because they are extraverted, enjoy having responsibility, and gravitate toward leadership. These are alien qualities to me but I recognize they are valuable to society.
A goodly percentage of those people are or become arrogant, a percentage of that percentage are already narcissists, and then you have the sociopaths. I tend to believe people start with a proclivity and then burrow their way toward it through many decision-points. So I don’t think power corrupts as often as it provides a fertile ground for strong nasty people to find their worst nature. But they were nasty to begin with. Just a hypothesis.
The book is Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us. Author Brian Klaas also has a podcast called Power Corrupts, which I do not know. It”s a solid read.
The chapter on attracting incorruptible people to power is interesting. It suggests randomly appointing reluctant people to advisory committees to debate and form a consensus’s to give to people making important decisions - giving them the same briefings. Rotating people in corruptible positions at risk of overly cozy relationships. Attracting “reluctant rulers” rather than those attracted to bright power like moths. And others, of varying pragmatism. It makes a convincing case those seeking power tend to be very different from the status qui, in both good and bad ways.
The book talks about sacrifices made by great leaders like Churchill and Lincoln. Churchill “let some people die” by not acting on information known from cracking the Enigma codes since there was no alternate way of gaining that intelligence and letting it be known the code was cracked would be a disaster, (The book discusses the HMS Sydney). Lincoln was mentioned for resorting to bribes to convince some to pass anti-slavery legislation. These seem like harsh examples, as the author acknowledges. Were these decisions we’ll known, or whitewashed? Does it matter? It occurs in a chapter on the difficulties of making decisions and the difficulties of always making upright choices.
I don’t think it’s quite that simple, and I like the take of the video The rules for rulers.
The basic idea being that a degree of corruption is necessary to get and hold power. That’s not to say that we should tolerate it, just be aware of it so we can design systems that minimize it.
I would also add that this is probably a bigger problem for countries with more expensive elections, or that require politicians to raise significant money for their party.
AIUI he was largely revered until recent years. As part of the BLM movement, more of the atrocities became common knowledge. Or at least, it was a chance for the Belgian public to have a conversation about it and decide whether it was still appropriate to have statues honoring him in many public places. The answer was no.
Incidentally, as with controversial statues elsewhere, there was controversy and an agenda right from the time they were erected. Apparently it was part of an attempt, during the interwar period, to whitewash Belgium’s image which had been tarnished by international condemnation of the congolese genocide (yes, even early 20th century Britain and the US were appalled by what had happened there. That says a lot).
Anecdotal (yet seems a common refrain through history) was when I learned about Robespierre. The French statesman so famous during the French revolution.
Robespierre seemed to be a pretty decent guy with some good ideas for improving his country. And once he got power he became a monster and was central in starting the Reign of Terror.
Did he seek power or just came by it due to circumstances? I am not sure although I think once he had it he sought more.