Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
frontiersin.org
frontiersin.org
Anyone with the slightest amount of official power, like a government officer, has the ability to prevent things going forward on his part. In this kind of society, most people are poor and it would be considered stupid to not demand a small (or large) bribe from the citizen in order to unlock the process. Everyone does it, more with outsiders and to a lesser extent with one's circle of acquaintances (because the social fabric between known parties is the other way to unlock things). Corruption surely is one thing that really trickles down from the top.
So, things like like obediently waiting in the queue for your turn or complaining about the officer won't help unlike in high-trust societies. If you try that in a low-trust society there will be additional documents, stamps, acknowledges, or signatures you need, and keep needing, in order to complete your request until you get the drift and bring a little something. Corruption gets things going and in a society that has no trust it is a positive trait.
In Western democracies this sounds unimaginable because there's a stronger sense that right things will work out right just because of the rules. Western corruption happens on a different level: a regular western citizen has no benefit from giving bribes and he would object to the police or government officials from demanding one. Western corruption mostly concerns about the powerful and rich making friendly mutual agreements to bend the governing bodies and law to enable themselves become more powerful and richer.
Ultimately, if you believe that the officials currently in place were doing their jobs without bias then this looks like corruption. If you believe that the existing officials were compromised by their politics, then this looks like removing corruption.
It's all perspective.
The answer is: those who are already in power.
Do you?
This is just false. The word is “взятка”.
If I were you I would not trust that report you’re referring to.
You could've checked that faster than it took you to write your russophobic comment
EDIT: commenters are still all referring to Singapore which I remind you is the very rare outlier case.
Singapore has yet to have a leader willing to take over the system, because two of its leaders were the dynasty that created the system. The real test is what happens when someone like that shows up; but even Western democracies face this problem, it’s just that the system has more built in speed bumps to overcome.
On the flip side, if nobody else requires bribes but you do, you will surely stick out like a sore thumb. If I don't get paid bribes and I am an influential powerful person, why should I pay you any bribes? Especially for something that is legitimate and a part of your duties?
And then you might consider talking to the local paper to see if it would make a story. Also the crapper tabloids might even pay for the story.
Furthermore, I’m tired of the false equivalence some people in this thread draw between the level of corruption in democracies and authoritarian regimes. They are simply not on the same scale - if you ever experienced both you would know that.
Rule of law doesn’t address the problem of bad laws (from bad governance).
This is because, in principle, everything comes down to the fundamental threat that the people can remove the current government, and the government does have full control over the unelected civil servants. If they keep ignoring appeals, they'll eventually get dethroned.
There's a nice symmetry between this and the fact that the law is ultimately guaranteed by the governments monopoly on violence. They can dethrone you too if you don't comply.
When a democracy works, there can be a very effective balance between the people's leverage towards the government and the governments leverage towards the people.
In an authoritarian regime the same forces are present but they are not balanced in the same way. The people can still rise up and dethrone the ruler through violence, but that is so much harder, and it is mostly offset by the governments greater power of violence. So they can get away with so much more.
Democratic governments can operate without a plurality of support for the current government, because the population generally supports and is invested in the system of government. When democratic governments fail, there is usually very little danger of violence or economic and societal instability, because there is trust in those systems. Corruption and malfeasance harms trust in the systems of governance which democracies depend upon.
Authoritarian governments depend on confidence in the government to continue functioning. The system of government isn't necessarily trusted, the workers of government aren't necessarily trusted, but the leaders are in charge and doing things. Media manipulation and effective propaganda is certainly an important tool for these governments, but pointing out that it exists doesn't mean that it doesn't work! Propaganda totally does work, by almost all measures. Russia, China, Cuba, Iran all have high domestic support for the government.
Authoritarian governments also tend to be very stable - people know what to expect. Democracies change periodically. The stability and familiarity are key to the trust that authoritarian governments maintain. The protests in Iran prior to the current conflict are a good example of what happens when a government fails to maintain the trust of the people - the arrival of war saved the current regime from falling apart at the seams when Khomeini died of cancer in a few months and a squabble for the leadership broke out amid a collapsing economy.
Also, that collapse you refer to can take an awful long time under authoritarian control.
The rule of law and checks and balances also means these elected officeholders don’t have arbitrary control, which has a lot of upsides (and produced a professional and effective federal workforce) as well as some limits.
I swear we have a problem where we quantize to caricatures rather than recognizing tuned balance, and control theorists would probably anticipate this means things will start to swing a bit wildly.
Fractional direct appointments are the usual case in any large organization. If you're the chief executive, you don't hire individual department workers, you might not even pick individual department management, you probably pick other "C-level" staff and have them manage management personnel most of the time.
It's more like a captain of a ship than "an ant driving an elephant." Every avenue you have to direct the ship depends on a network of knowledge and relationships supporting steering and operational systems. You don't DIY turning the tanker, you team-turn the tanker because you've learned how to work with a team.
At worst the person gets fired and is prohibited from public sector jobs at that tier of government afterwards for a period of time while the story is fresh in peoples minds, in the rare case the plutocratic owned media let's such a story come out of its mass media products about the not-paid-for bureaucratic elements of government in hopes of reducing polarization that comes from over-promoting one of the arbitrarily different parties as a means of providing the commoners what Orwell called "Two Minutes Hate" or a means of obtaining cathartic release from the tensions that making them believe they are somehow co-authors of the government to keep them engaged as willing participants.
This explains the current state of US mass media so well...
One key difference is the extent the authorities have discretionary powers. Can they do whatever the consider necessary to do their jobs (until the courts tell otherwise), or do they only have the powers explicitly given by the law? Common law systems tend to favor discretionary powers, but they vary on how eager the courts are to keep the officials in check. Civil law systems can be anywhere on the spectrum, but it's usually a legislative choice made in advance rather than a judicial choice made after the fact.
can democratic societies be corrupt, can autocratic societies be not corrupt this is also true.
accept things as they're, not as they ought to be - one of the fundamental lessons one has to learn to operate in this world.
Where this fails is when the person who wants to get things going their way doesn’t have enough money. And that’s why it’s usually paired with inequality as well.
That's a red herring:
> We first demonstrate that perceiving corruption predicts lower generalized trust almost universally across individuals.
That couldn't be the case if autocracy meant a "society that has no trust." You're just speculating (or perhaps "anecdozing") while the article is attempting to measure these things.
Edit: clarification
This key dynamic is what Russians call blat. My explanation of it is summarized from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn86C4ZwBSg.
When we witness corruption, our trust is eroded the distance between how we think that things should work, and how they do work.
In a democracy, there are official rules about how things are supposed to work. Those rules are how we expect things to work. Therefore, encountering corruption violates our expectations. And reduces our trust.
In an autocracy, nobody expects that the official rules are how things actually work. You don't say that - doing so is dangerous - but everybody knows it.
However behind the scenes, people learn to cope. And a key part of coping is a blat network. This is the classic, "I know someone who knows someone who can make this happen..." In other words, people develop personal networks of others that they trust.
This trust is not eroded by encountering official corruption - that's expected.
This trust is also not eroded by having to grease a few palms as part of getting something through the blat network. In fact it is improved. You expect to have to pay something. The whole point of a blat network is to get something otherwise unavailable, or at a better price than you otherwise could. And so these encounters with corruption increase your trust in the power and effectiveness of your personal network!
Now go watch that video. It explains that what Jeffrey Epstein was doing was running a blat network. The availability of sex crimes was social proof that created trust among elites in what Jeffrey Epstein could do. His real money came from fundraising, brokering deals, and so on. For example Leon Black paid Epstein about $158 million for financial advice, such as structuring tax shelters. (Care to bet whether Epstein's connections made the IRS less likely to question those arrangements?) Bill Gates paid him some unknown amount for brokering deals with JP Morgan, meeting Saudi princes, etc.
We, the general public, have mostly focused on the sex crimes. But we should also be concerned about the normalization of corruption as "business as usual" among elites. Because politics is like a fish - it rots from the head. Corruption at the top will not forever remain corruption at the top. If left unchecked, it will some day be corruption for all of us.
This means that in a corrupt society, it's extremely difficult as an individual not to participate. The corruption isn't something that happens at some level, it's a core part of the economy. If you try to do things by the book, you will just not get any result. You won't get to buy a limited product by waiting your turn. You won't get your kids into a better high school by having them display academic excellence. If you take a principled stance and refuse to participate in the many small-scale acts of corruption the society runs on, you'll have a harder life. I don't want to say it's impossible but I would compare it to living off-grid in a modern Western country. It's possible but it requires a lot of dedication and that lifestyle then determines many aspects of your life.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn86C4ZwBSg for an excellent explanation of it. And also an explanation of why the most important thing that Epstein did (the thing that actually made him most of it money), was run a blat network. Elites who had learned to trust that he could let them have otherwise impossible sexual experiences, were willing to pay him large amounts to broker introductions and financial deals that others couldn't.
That said, they do sound less similar to someone who has learned a Slavic language. We learn to distinguish pairs of sounds that differ in our language. English doesn't have a lot of words with a "ya" sound, and so to us "я"and "а" are easy to confuse. It is easy to confuse "d" and "t". But the easier to hear distinction is a hard sign т versus the soft sign on дь. But hard versus soft isn't even a concept in English, so you're not listening for it.
It's a difficult concept to translate to English because it's not synonymous with corruption or bribes. A one-time bribe transaction isn't blat. You want a school to accept your kid so you "gift" the school some supplies, that's not blat, it's a one-time thing and the school principal doesn't owe you any additional favors. Blat is more like a social network of people trading favors, and each individual transaction within your blat network may involve different things. It could be money, it could be access to a product (that you still have to pay for), it could be time or labor.
Maybe you know a plumber and he will come look at plumbing problems for you and your family, for free or for a low price. But you work at a grocery store and the plumber can always buy cheese because you set some aside for him. That's a blat relationship. And then the blat network grows - one day you mention you'd like to see a theater pay and it turns out the plumber's wife works in a theater and can help you get tickets, he'll set you up. Your husband is an engineer though so he can help tutor their child in mathematics.
Or perhaps in all of these examples the plumber/grocer/engineer is entrusted with responsibility from the government to ration a scarce resource?
But surely the cheese case would not be okay even in a Western capitalist context where the store is privately owned. Just replace it with a more scarce product. A store employee isn't allowed to tell customers the store is out of iPhones while keeping a dozen stashed for preferred buyers.
I think the Soviet context is key. Because the state is rationing these items, it creates a black market based on personal connections. In Western society nobody cares because (ideally) the market is competitive and you can just buy from someone else.
But the Soviet everyday corruption variety of retail employees reserving cheese for someone who can return favors, that particular thing is particular to a socialist economy with a scarcity of relatively basic goods.
The plumber is working for a company. He's supposed to be working on an official job. But he's doing the work slowly because he's actually working on your plumbing problem.
You are working for the grocery store. You are stealing cheese from the store system that is supposed to allocate it, and making it available it to the plumber as payment for your plumber being corrupt on your behalf.
Again, the wife "who can help you get tickets" is stealing access to them. That's corruption.
The engineer who is tutoring, is paying for that act of corruption. This may or may not happen when the engineer is officially supposed to being doing something else as part of their job. If so, that's possible because people learn to look the other way for you, so that you'll look the other way for them.
And in a society where everything works this way, what do you think happens to overall economic productivity? Exactly! Which creates scarcity. Scarcity that makes the ability to get things through the blat network even more valuable!
If I said "I baked a cake for my mother," then you could say "BUT YOU STOLE THE FLOUR!" It doesn't prove anything.
That said, there were contextual clues. If you go back, I said, "You get what you need through corruption..." The next reply was agreeing and expanding on that. This strongly suggests that each step in the description involves corruption in some way.
That said, hopefully you're now clear that these blat networks involve pervasive corruption.
When a community that is used to blat networks moves to a different country, the blat network doesn't go away. Throughout US history, it has been common to see blat networks in immigrant communities turn into straight up organized crime. The most famous example being the rise of the Mafia. But it is hardly an isolated example.
Yes. It's fascinating, HN is in most ways a bubble with a particular kind of leadership, but sometimes these cultural differences shine through.
To me, it's completely obvious that in the case of a plumber working through blat, he's not just legitimately doing extra work (assuming the law allows that in the first place). Of course it means the plumber is working on your pipes while he's supposed to be doing his actual job, or maybe he actually does it outside the hours but when he needs to replace some part for you, he steals it from his work. But apparently to people who grew up in a different environment, what comes to mind is legitimate side business.
It was perfectly possible to have a decent salary but nothing to spend it on because the better items just aren't available. Maybe there's some delicacy you enjoy, or a special item you want like a cassette player and you could afford those if the store actually had them, but they don't. In that situation, your ability to buy more desirable items depended more on your connections or perseverance in doing things "the hard way" like queuing for hours to buy bananas, or recycling enough kilograms of paper to buy a book.
Like you can't get a plumber so you have to use your personal network or there aren't enough tickets so you have to obtain one through your personal network, etc?
It's never just one thing.
I think that the real question is not how the corruption started. But, rather, how in some places rule of law came to be established instead.
That said, I don't have a good answer to that question either.
That action is basically stochastic theft from the grocery store, because you've altered the pricing of a possibly scarce good.
What rules are you breaking to do your favor? What rules do you expect someone else to break for the return favor? What rules might they later expect you to break? To what extent do you stop seeing the rules of external society as rules that you're supposed to follow?
It starts as favors.
By the time you're stealing from your employer, it's blat.
By the time you're recruiting one friend to submit paperwork to help another friend commit insurance fraud, it's still blat. But also its starting to look like something else.
Once you owe a favor to a Mafia Don, it's called organized crime. But the underlying blat is still recognizable.
Is that not the definition of corruption?
Those are examples of soft corruption
My grandmother was ill. My grandfather, her husband, was sufficiently well connected that she got good medical coverage. Then he died. And so we lost our connections to the good doctors, to the good healthcare she was getting, and her care got significantly worse.
We have a family member with some property that's in a weird state, paperwork-wise. We were working on it, because another family member had a friend in the bureaucracy - think, the local tax office - who could have helped us sort it out on paper. Then he died. So now, we have to do things by the book, which is incredibly difficult without having a friend there to cut through the red tape.
It's not about getting the plumber to prioritize your work, or getting the nice slice of cheese. It's about making sure grandma's osteoporosis gets treated, it's about not losing your house.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/good_old_boy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_boy_network#United_States
Of course, it has several connotations depending on exact context.
> Blat is more like a social network of people trading favors
It's like Vito Corleone in Godfather but applied to an entire society.
And oh my do I hate blat.
This wasn't the global south, and we weren't even especially poor (though some in our neighborhood were). We were prosperous citizens in the core of an empire at the peak of its uncontested power. This is just how a community works, and has since the beginning of time. The extremely marketized nature of modern upper middle class life is the aberration in human history, and presumably will not last forever.
They're also not big on oversight and I got what it looked like to me a surprising amount of autonomy and responsibilty in a very short amount of time, that I felt out of depth for a while, but got accustomed to it. A very laissez faire way of work.
I felt much of the system was informal, and based on the expectation of not abusing trust. Which was very refreshing, as most companies in my experience exist in a state of bureaucratic gridlock - you need to push the change to repo X, but Y needs to sign off on it, and it depends on changes by person Z, who's held up by similar issues etc.
It's a very emotionally draining and unproductive way of working, and is usually overseen by bosses who create these processes, because they don't trust their employees, or to get a feeling of power and control, or they simply don't understand how and what their subordinates do, so they kind of try to force things into these standard flows.
Which also doesn't work, but it accountably doesn't work. Even if a days' changes take a week, and still end up lacking, you can point to that Task A is blocked by deliverable B, which is at a low priority at team Foo, so lets have a meeting with that teams manager to make sure to prioritize that in the next sprint etc etc etc.
This is how most places turn into that meme picture where there's one guy digging a hole and 5 people oversee him.
The Swedish term for how you describe work is "frihet under ansvar" - translated, "freedom under responsibility". That's a common approach at workplaces where you're doing qualified work, like engineering, and the meaning is that you're given a lot of flexibility and freedom in how you do your work as long as you reach the expected result and you take responsibility if things don't work out. That's good, and yes companies here are very informal. We don't even culturally like things like managers instructing employees on what to do, it's all phrased very casually.
In context of government work or the public sector, I'd say we take rules and procedures seriously, which is one of my favorite things about the country. To me, that makes interactions much more predictable than in countries with a "people before systems" culture.
In the US we're being led by a career fraudster who was a Wharton grad only because he had a family friend who was an admissions officer, and according to his sister, he paid someone to take his SATs for him. We have not been serious about the massive consequences of white collar fraud and corruption and we are now beginning to understand the butterfly effects.
This is an uninformed non-sequitur. In China or Mexico for example, it's well known that to get certain things done you have to bribe local officials. The central government is against corruption by policy, but nevertheless corruption is endemic. It's only "inaccessible" to some because some people are poor and can't afford the bribes.
My tour guide was this bright 22 year old who dreamed of going to the UK to be an uber driver, so he could make enough money to get married. I told him if he went to the UK, he needed to know to never bribe officials, ever. He made the most adorably confused face - like his brain was blue screening. He had no conception of how a society could function without bribes. “But … how does anything get done?”
Somewhere in between, there was definitely what you described. I've heard people with the remarkable complaint "there isn't even anyone to bribe". Of course if a society gets stuck too long at this stage, it turns into a different problem altogether.
Russia is considered a corrupt country by the West, but I have never bribed anyone and never felt that a bribe is expected.
>better high school by having them display academic excellence
Worked just fine for me.
Not at a governmental level, and not powered by cash, but it is seen when working for companies.
Managers are highly corruptible - it's got next to nothing to do with the output of a given worker, instead it's about their ability to "kiss up" (something framed as "soft skills")
You have a very narrow definition of corruption here. A manager using his management powers to intentionally make his life easier at the cost of the company is corrupt regardless how he does that. He could do that via bribes, but also could do things like hire a lot of deadweight people to bloat his org and raise his own salary without making the company more productive, that is also corruption since he hurt the company to benefit himself.
That isn't "bad management" since it was done intentionally, he knew what he did was bad for the company and good for himself. Corrupt management often masquerades as bad management to avoid getting sued, but it is still corruption.
I think increasingly this describes how things work in the US, if we broaden our definition of "corruption" a bit to include things like corporations stealing your data, charging hidden fees, etc.
I love how media is in this game , printing endless articles how customers are really supposed to pay tips because poor server. And even when customers are revolting against tipping culture it is going from 25% to 22% as a way of speaking truth to power.
See for example how an horrible pink "sculpture" could cost over 8 million euros.
There's an awful lot of low level corruption in the form of NGOs who receive government funding with no accountability for what the funds are spent on.
corruption you have to GIVE to get stuff done
vs corruption with loophole for RECEIVING money
(I'd rather have the latter )
The NGOs also subcontract to other NGOs, who take their cut, and eventually just a trickle winds up going to the purpose of giving money to the NGO.
My other friend forgot his drivers license at home while being non-white and was arrested/charged and forced to explain why he didn’t bring his license to a judge.
India hasn’t had a very long authoritarian regime since its independence. Yet, corruption has existed at every touch point with the government and shows no signs of reduction. In India, getting a driver’s license or getting a passport (for which there’s a “police verification” step) or buying/selling real estate or filing a police complaint or getting some work done in a court of law or even getting the final rites of a deceased person (burial or cremation) done require bribes in most places.
Also, paying a bribe means standing in line with the rest of the people who paid bribes. Things don’t move fast just because money exchanged hands.
All this is to say that I don’t know what to make of your statement on authoritarian vs. democratic regimes (though you mentioned “western”). The main factor seems to be the culture and what others here have described as low trust vs high trust.
Believe it or not, this is how lawmaking is supposed to work in a democracy. No one in a position of power is going to be completely selfless. The Civil Rights Acts were only able to pass because NAACP promised to endorse the Republicans and Southern Democrats who were the deciding votes. Voters have since lost interest in actual lawmaking, and have in fact become hostile to it. For example, in the first half of the Biden administration, there was a real possibility for a minimum wage increase, but voters saw any compromise to the $15 target as weakness even though they depended the vote of Joe Manchin, a Senator of a poor state that would suffer from economic turmoil with a California level minimum wage.
To be clear, it's not fair that the rich and powerful are better equipped to influence lawmaking. However, that's mainly a consequence of the utility of money and power rather than the system being fundamentally broken. Dismissing things like lobbying as corruption may provide comfortable explanation of why you're losing, but only helps the rich and powerful by eroding interest in grassroots lobbying and normalizing actual corruption (e.g. Binance insisting that its $2 billion investment be settled in Trump's stablecoin shortly after CZ was pardoned).
This is a very succinct description of arguably the biggest problem of our democracy right now.
A huge part of Trump’s success is convincing voters that everyone in politics is corrupt, to inoculate himself from criticism for the very overt acts of corruption he engages in.
Many people seem to support him under the argument “they’re all corrupt, at least he’s not pretending to NOT be corrupt.”
Trump didn't have to convince anyone of that. Voters already believed that, and have for some time. Trump merely had to speak to that widespread, preexisting belief.
one thing he said was (in my words) - the americans don't refer to a person in charge, they refer to the constitution.
so your comment makes sense. In other societies they corrupt a person, in the US they corrupt the law.
There's a prof at Johns Hopkins, Yuen Yuen Ang, who wrote a whole book on the topic in China. She dubbed this 'access money'. Corruption that 'greases the wheels' and removes red tape by bureaucracies, which authoritarian states are very prone to, is a net positive. It doesn't erode trust because it stimulates growth and doesn't interfere with the lives of ordinary citizens. It's basically a hack to get things done.
The East Asian countries in particular tend to have this at the corporate levels. Chaebols in South Korea and Zaibatsu in Japan tend to be corrupt in that sense but it has if anything an organizing function.
In most democratic countries corruption tends to happen at the individual level, think Indian police in some states who are famous for extorting travelers like road bandits. That's significantly more trust eroding and economically harmful. If you don't differentiate what kind of corruption you're talking about you can't really make sense of it.
In autocracies (outright or electoral), the media is used to bash only those who oppose the supreme leader.
That's why when projects are late under opposition its "corruption" or "policy paralysis"
But when the same happens under the party that's ruling via electoral autocracy, it's a "delayed gift"
Now if you are in a high trust society, you may have a lot of leveraged businesses or governments who have gotten loans or permission to do something based on past trust history. If the trust degrades systematically Investors may want returns faster, or interest rates go up, or partnerships don’t happen. That’s why low trust places don’t grow as fast - trust is the oil for growth engines and lack of it is sand for the same.
Corruption also does a lot of small-profit-for-the-corrupt that leads to massive damage to the overall society via second and third order effects. (example: someone stealing copper cables that stop electricity to entire cities for a while).
Look at how business works in the rich west works. Everything is formalized with contracts, risk is portioned out and offloaded to every party under the sun. You bring in people with licenses and accreditation, 3rd party consultants, etc, etc. All of this work and expense is incurred so that if things go wrong then the parties all have precisely defined ways in which they can (expensively) drag the matter through a courtroom and whatever comes of that will be enforced with state violence.
Contrast with (certain parts of) the far east and eastern europe. The west is the low trust environment.
In a society where corruption rules, you have no reason to spend time and money on any of that because you know you’re one bribe away from it all being kindling for your next bonfire.
So yes, in areas with high corruption they don’t bother. They either just set aside some cash to pay off whatever official they need to if things go sideways, or they hire the local judge’s son to an empty position of power so that they can win anything that goes to “court”. That’s not a sign of high trust, that’s an acknowledgment there’s no point in bothering.
Is there a source for this or is more of a vibes thing?
So I would caveat it as if you are a really good strong student in China, it would seem that you are much more likely to go into Engineering, Business, or Join the CCP. Its not an A student type of career, more of a B or C student.
But it's not true , or only half true 30 years ago. I personally know 3 or 4 of my alumina abandoned their expertise of Optical Engineering to pursue Lawyer career 20 years ago and made big money.
Another example is one of celebrity law professor (not lawyer though) who recently got involved in a controversy because of Epstein file. He shut down his “weibo" (a Chinese Twitter ) account. He also made tons of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_Xiang
China moves very fast compare to the western society. Something true today might not be true 3 years later. Let alone half-truth 30 years ago.
> But it's not true
Is it even widely believed in the west? I'm European and my idea of China is that it's the home of Confucianism and legalism and that bureaucracy, the state and the law are all taken seriously there.
When I was young I remember people describing Alan Dershowitz as "the greatest legal mind in America." The idea was that he got his clients what they wanted through fiendishly good logic and argument. Of course we now know that he just knew who to send poorly-written emails to.
So conservative groups started developing lists of "ideologically reliable" judges who the Republicans were supposed to appoint. Reagan and HW Bush would negotiate with these groups that they would appoint a judge from the list followed by a more "normal" judge, splitting their appointees between hardliners and institutional jurists.
Clearance Thomas was one of HW Bush's "hardliner" appointments opposite Souter. In the Clinton era, Thomas was frustrated at the pay SC justices received and threatened to resign to make his fortune in private practice. To prevent this conservative activists started showing him with gifts. His main benefactor was mega-landlord Harlan Crow.[1]
This more than anything started the eara of "justice for pay" in America, where the purpose of getting on the bench was to be ideologically reliable, partisan, and to make a fortune off of the people coming before the bench.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-com...
Are you assuming that the foundation for those, Rule of Law, is alive & healthy in an autocracy?
Being able to rely on being able to enforce contracts means you need less trust in people you do business with.
If the government cannot be trusted, or rather, can be trusted to be biased and corrupt, then - a person or an organization needs a lot of trust in their partner, and writing contracts is, like you say, not very interesting.
But actually, I would say it's the middle ground, where trust is partial, is where you see long and detailed contracts with provisions and indemnification clauses and long definitions and long lists of corner cases etc.
But business wise, western Europe is still relatively high trust. I suggest you read more about this.
Singapore was high trust before it become wealthy, though.
If institutions such as courts are trustworthy (in that they will impartially adjudicate contracts and help you enforce their terms) then you are able to work with a wider spectrum of counterparties who you do not yet trust. You just have to document and hedge against the risk via contracts and insurance, as you point out.
If institutions such as courts are absent, corrupt, or otherwise captured then you must ensure that you only interact with counterparties that you can trust or have direct leverage over. Perhaps ones with which you share personal or reputational connections.
Trump tried to solicit bribes from anthropic, retaliated by violating the DoW contracts when they didn’t pay, and then somehow forced Dario to publicly apologize for bringing the matter to light. Do you really think this is how the US will win at AI?
Look at the car industry, where the corruption and coercion started earlier. For some reason, Trump used ICE to illegally detain a bunch of Kia engineers. They announced they’re not going to add more trimlines to their EV lines in the US.
Honda announced they’re canceling planes to build three new model lines in Ohio.
The macro statistics are dire. Pre-Biden, US factory investment was $80B per year. Trump wiped $30B off that number in 2025. Biden got it up to $240B, so Trump “only” wiped out 10-15%, but, because he was starting from a high number, the damage is equivalent to 35% of all factory investment that existed when he last left office!
The rate at which industrial production is fleeing the US is increasing. This year, the loss will probably be greater than the entire 2018 US factory investment base.
There are similar trends happening in tech and academia. There’s not much left once that happens. (Insurance, banking and marketing, mostly.)
Define "win at AI". Because this kind of idea seems more at home in some fact free political discussion. Many models are already open. Anyone who can get GPUs can run them. Its hard (for anyone) to win in a nationalistic sense when that's the case. That being said, I really don't like Dario but I still don't want him to be exhorted by the government.
PS take your meds, the numbers you present are clearly a fabrication.
PPS Interest rates are the most important factor influencing the amount of industrial investment in the US...always have been.
Although in reality high trust softies tend to have higher personal trust (both as a cause and effect). The presence of functional enforcement mechanisms is not evidence of a lack of personal trust.
Sounds like formalized corruption to me.
In my country the politicians are openly very corrupt. (Well, possibly yours too ;)
Recently there has been a lot of improvement to the infrastructure. I realized that what has happened is, a lot of EU funds have been made available for development, and people are lining up to skim a little bit off the top.
How you say, the incentives are aligned, yeah?
I find myself in the odd situation where for each dollar that gets embezzled, a little bit of actual construction happens. That seems like a force you'd want to work with, rather than against.
I mean yeah ideally we'd get rid of corruption, but haha good luck with that. At least now they're fixing the roads.
those people fixing the roads are incentivized to do the work cheaply so they can skim more “off the top”
And you still need to fight corruption to some level or it will come to a point where there’s more skimming than work being done
this incentive exists with or without corruption
without corruption you could do a shitty job once and then you won’t get another contract because you did a shit job
with corruption the quality of the work won’t matter so in the extreme case you can deliver nothing at all and you’ll still keep getting contracts - In my country we call this being “plugged in”
That is the problem, how you get corruption to go the way you want?
Lots of politicians see Paulo Maluf, and think they can imitate him, that they will be beloved by the public and steal money somehow and line their own pockets, except those are too self-serving or too incompetent to pull that off properly, so they steal in ways that go against the public.
So for example in one city where I lived, one mayor stole the money from the kids lunch, resulting in hungry kids. Another mayor stole ludicrous amounts of money from garbage collection services, the result is that the city ended with debts in the billions while being a tiny city (it has 100k people, yet has debts bigger than cities with millions of people).
Paulo Maluf meanwhile built lots of useful infrastructure that is still in use. (also hilariously he used to brag a lot using the phrase "Maluf that did it!", one time some comedic journalists went to a bridge opening, and asked him who did the bridge, he replied: "Maluf didn't do this bridge. But he did the two roads the bridge are connecting, so there is no bridge without Maluf!")
I have no fire department where I live, nor really any effective police. We don't have public infrastructure nor public roads or anything like that. People here do not use public services and our taxes aren't high enough to pay for them, they are almost $0. We do have zoning and codes, but that's sustainable only because it's funded by enforcement fines, otherwise you're on your own.
Copying the visible behavior but not doing the actual part that matters.
Also incredibly common in corporate.
Same idea here except that it happens under the table. Elected officials usually get a fixed pay, and often, it is not that high compared to the importance of their work. What Paulo Maluf is proposing is essentially "I am going to pay myself well (through corruption), but I will do what's best for the city".
However, the loans they owed to that bank were still good, and would get bought by an "investor" for pennies on the dollar. They no longer had their bank account to make their normal loan payments from, yet the full repayments were still due, despite the original bank that made the loan going under and closing its doors.
So many farmers ended up having to sell or foreclose on their farms and then attempt to rent them back from the new owners.
I am not quite sure, how exactly you mean "trust". For example there are countries, that I would consider quite corrupt, but that are able to leap ahead. I would say there can be a lot of trust, even in a corrupt system, if the ones making the leap, are part of the corrupt system, and trust that system to continue to "work". But you could say: "Well, then there is trust!"
Ultimately, I think where there is more trust, there is more to destroy, so any betrayal of this trust, causes more damage, than in a low trust environment, where there was not much trust to begin with.
I would agree many countries are making progress but I would contend they are mostly closing the gap. I don't see countries advancing far above the pack while being extremely corrupt that hinders their ability to progress beyond the rest of the advanced nations.
It does not take a very high number to make most capital investments look really bad.
And you compare that (investing in something new), to instead using the capital to bribe your way into the “system”.
Societies have very different opinions which kinds of corruption are perfectly fine, and which kinds are criminal.
The Soviet Union did manage to get massive leaps in some areas (in particular related to armament, but not only) such as
- armament/weapons
- space technology
- mathematics
- physics
> (a lot of money on a leap means if you don’t trust the other side or the government to keep conditions stable, you won’t see a return).
I guess you can immediately see how the Soviet Union "solved" this problem by the fact that you simply couldn't gain a lot of money from your innovation.
They were still innovating in military technology in the 80s but analysis since their collapse analysis that they were at least 20% of GDP on defence, if not as high as 40%.
The West managed to match and surpass Soviet military and scientific advances without sacrificing consumer goods or the economic wellbeing of their people.
Also, investing into military tech prevents war on your territory, which is, well, highly disruptive.
Look at a city and the traffic there we know that everything can either feel empty with only a ~8% decrease, or be completely gridlocked with a ~8% increase. Small adjustments in what we spend money on has a great effect. Being destructive is the easiest way to show this. If you bomb a hospital, does that cost ten million USD for the bombs or one billion USD to rebuild and handle loss of quality of life.
Total USAID budget: $50 billion in 2023, $19 billion in 2026. https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/agency-for-international-...
> And neither of those items are of much significance on the US federal budget.
$95 billion / year is $620 per US taxpayer.
> social safety net programs are half of the federal budget
I suppose you are referring to the big 3: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are programs that people pay for. In the same way that retirement savings, pensions, and private health insurance is something that people pay for.
But whatever, every dollar wasted to blow up people in another country can be excused because the federal budget includes programs that provide services to people in this country...or something. It is extremely revealing how some people are completely unbothered by some spending and are extremely bothered by other spending. The nuclear weapons don't bother you, but spending a bit of money to help alleviate famine for people in destitute countries is just unacceptable.
They definitely supported a lot of their rocket science from found documentation in Peenemünde et. al. (The personnel OTOH did its best not to fall into Soviet hands, and most of them ended in America, even though some didn't make it and were captured by the Soviets.)
They had genuine excellency in mathematics and theoretical physics. First, those specializations didn't require much expensive or advanced equipment back then. Second, by their very nature, they were freer from ideological bullshit than other specializations, and that alone attracted many of the best and brightest there.
(I can confirm that even in late-stage Communist Czechoslovakia, very hard sciences were considered an intellectual haven for non-conformists. The ideologues didn't understand them and did not consider them subversive per se.)
On the other hand, biology was under full tyranny of Lysenko et. al. and "bourgeoise geneticists" would get imprisoned in concentration camps and even executed or starved to death. As a result, Soviet biology never recovered to a respectable science again, not even after Lysenko lost his power.
Until today, you will find ex-Soviet textbooks of maths and physics all over the net, and people actually download them and use them to study. That does not apply in most other domains.
This holds for "pure" biology. On the other hand, for medicine, in the East Block phage therapy was intensively developed (which in the West was barely done; instead in the Western countries there was an intense development of antibiotics).
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phage_therapy&old...
"In the Soviet Union, extensive research and development soon began in this field. [...] Isolated from Western advances in antibiotic production in the 1940s, Soviet scientists continued to develop already successful phage therapy to treat the wounds of soldiers in field hospitals. During World War II, the Soviet Union used bacteriophages to treat soldiers infected with various bacterial diseases, such as dysentery and gangrene. Soviet researchers continued to develop and to refine their treatments and to publish their research and results. However, due to the scientific barriers of the Cold War, this knowledge was not translated and did not proliferate across the world."
Unlike with Lysenko, where shortages of food for the regular population never demonstrated themselves on the nomenklatura's own dinner tables, there was some feedback mechanism that could not be ignored.
But I agree that the exact border between biology and medical science is murky.
Mathematics and (theoretical) physics are capital-light research sectors. Weapons platforms and space technology were state managed (I.e. didn’t require private sector capital financing).
Mathematics and Physics maybe but not in a way that benefited the broader society overall.
I think of society as an extended family. If you do not trust your spouse, many things in your home simply will not work.
China's pretty corrupt politically but the social trust is quite high, the highest outside of northern europe as far as I can tell
There are a few reasons for that that I can imagine:
- China is one of very few autocracies that has managed to significantly improve the standard of living of most of its population.
- The public trials and (sometimes) executions of allegedly corrupt individuals might help improve the perception of corruption.
- The same harsh penalties mentioned above might influence people to declare a higher level of social trust than they actually have, even if the poll is supposedly "confidential" and "only for scientific purposes".
This 100%.
Political imprisonment and reeducation camps are antithetical to any definition of a high trust society that I would subscribe to.
Eg Nazi Germany still benefited from a high-ish level of social trust, despite numerous atrocities.
You can’t honestly say that a country where citizens inform on each other and put each other in forced labor camps based on rumor is a society where trust is high.
> The Deutscherblick ("German Look") was a tense, habitual glance over the shoulder used by citizens in Nazi-era Germany before speaking about sensitive topics like food rations, Hitler jokes, or the war’s progress
Nazi Germany was full of dedicated informers who would even earn money or other privileges for denouncing someone. It had about as much trust between strangers as Iran under the Revolutionary Guards might have today.
Care to elaborate, Mr. Godwin?
Something about this doesn’t sit right with me. I’m not a historian but something tells me not everyone else was a-ok with atrocities that existed before nazis.
Also, again I’m not a historian, but I believe their promise to act was also tied up in blaming others and hate.
“At least they got things done” is very often the seed around which a belief in fascism crystallizes. They don’t deserve any recognition for what they promised or what they accomplished.
This is a thread about my definition of a high trust society.
So far the only argument in support of nazi germany being high trust is that they got shit done.
I don’t see how anyone could argue that imprisoning your own population in forced labor camps based on rumor is something that can happen in a high trust society.
There is no trust in such a society, only fear.
Arguing about this any more is making me feel sick.
You can read more about the Weimar Republic. If it weren't so fundamentally broken, Nazis would never come to power. Stating this is not Nazi apologia but a warning of what happens if governments and the ruling class ignore the will of their own people and actively work against it for a long time.
The nazis don’t need you to come to their defense.
Nazism is basically ignoring the will of their own people and actively working against them.
>Eg Nazi Germany still benefited from a high-ish level of social trust, despite numerous atrocities.
>What's the benefit of social trust when a society can commit such atrocities?
Then you come in with
> It's not like atrocities started with Nazis
Your comment pretty much directly says the nazis weren’t that bad and in context looks like you’re agreeing with previous poster they are high trust.
Nazis were one of the worst regimes we had in Europe, but the German regime before them was also bad. Bad enough that many saw Nazis as a viable alternative. In desperate times, people make desperate choices.
This is more or less a historical consensus, which I pointed out. If we want to prevent a Nazi-like regime from coming to power again, we need to avoid mistakes made by the Weimar Republic. Unfortunately, I see a global trend of governments making the same mistakes again, and I fear it will end in the same way.
I don't think Nazi society was high-trust. But I also don't think Nazis destroyed trust, because it already eroded before them.
What are those?
Yes? How does that preclude Germany still having absolutely high trust (by global standards), even if it was lower than the even higher levels before?
I found Singapore somewhat bracing in how honestly they acknowledge the two tiers (natives + wealthy foreigners vs poor "guest" workers) in their society. The same division functionally exists in many "western" countries, but is broadly ignored. (To be clear, I do not endorse this - and, in fact, think it appalling - but appreciate straightforwardness more than I do obfuscation by empty rhetoric.)
2. In a relatively severe, but consistent regime, the high penalties for violating trust in everyday cases (crime) act as a deterrent.
3. Fear may cause people to be selective and mindful about their social associations based on stronger proofs of trustworthiness. You might tell a Hitler joke to someone you have used more energy/caution to "vet", but avoid being too casual in environments of undetermined trustworthiness.
That is China is a complex country and books (which are not written and many cannot be for decades yet) are needed to understand this, not a short comment box. [This applies to every other country anyone here mentions]
I think you’re right that culture plays a key role. For example if small bribes are customary, that doesn’t erode trust, that’s just the way things are.
For (2) China doesn't look too different from the U.S., for (3) experts think it has gotten much worse since the time of Mao but I'd say China is on the honest side of the "global South".
Note that lay perceptions of corruption are widespread in the US
https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/51398-most-americans-see-c...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/185759/widespread-government-co...
https://www.occrp.org/en/news/survey-reveals-corruption-as-t...
though unlike India I think very few Americans have paid a bribe to a cop. See also
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/05/in-25-countr...
Since SG has the opposite problem from China: ((low) gov corruption XOR (low) social trust).
The paradox is that the strat will have wildly different failure modes in SG vs CN or JP (all are aware of this!)
Note also that SG is consistently ranked in the top 10 together with the Nordics+NZ+IE+CH in spite of this failure mode..
My informed opinion is that LDP+loyalist-bureaucrats have been shipping and failing the same strat for years-- LDP dominance is the tell. Any critique of Xi's policy can be backed with JP data. Prediction: Xi will succeed if and only if CPC fall (or do the ship-of-theseus thing)
https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/japans-new-ldp-scand...
Keywords (actual jargon)
天下り (fox->human) 忖度 族議員 行政指導
No one, left or right, thinks there is street level corruption. Not the kind accessible to someone in a traffic stop. I have experienced it in Mexico and think that kind of corruption would still be worse because I cannot imagine how to recover from it. I have hope that a few high profile arrests of c level fall his may turn the tide. If not then there are extrajudicial methods open to American culture.
I know from my own personal experience that I haven't paid a bribe to a cop or to an alderman to get a zoning variance. There are some places where this kind of thing is routine. (e.g. I know there is a crooked cop somewhere but I also believe that if I tried to pay a bribe to a cop it wouldn't go well)
Thus I trust people's reports of street level corruption.
If it comes to perceptions of "corruption in high places" that is mediated by the media. It may well be that it is very corrupt and you never hear about it, or that it squeaky clean but you hear allegations 10 times a day. Or a Democrat might think everything is corrupt when Republicans are in power and then when Democrats are in power, Republicans take up the slack.
So I don't trust people's reports of corruption in high places.
Now I know a lot of people who are involved in road construction and maintenance in upstate NY who range from "drives a truck" to "manages $10M+ projects" and the belief that there is corruption in highway projects is widespread based on second- and third- hand accounts.
What are you comparing with? I don't think PR China has more social trust than Singapore or Japan or Korea?
My company took the biggest telecom company in France to court for a violation of our license on a soft, license was GPLv2, we won, but it took 12 years.
Justice is a very poor and slow institution in France. For the same countries the budget of police forces per capita are nearly the same for example.
A rich person buying their way into power (either through gaining a formal position or influence) robs the people of that society of their power, which is a limited resource. There is no upside to it, if it were good for the people at large there would be no need for the corruption.
Conversely, a powerful person enriching themself can be a good thing. A crony being put in charge of a state owned corporation, for example, doesn't really take anything away from the common person. It's not like you were in line to be the CEO of a random oil company. So long as your material condition is improving, the rising tide is lifting your boat, who cares if the tide is also lifting someone else's bigger boat. This sort of corruption aligns the interests of the powerful with the economic well being of the nation - the better things are run, the more comfortable the leaders will be - and it's certainly preferable to other ways they could potentially abuse their power. Who wants to be lead by someone so incompetent that they can't find a way to skim a little off the top?
We in democratic society also don't really mind too much if a person achieves tremendous wealth so long as they don't dilute our power. Whether they be startup founders, business moguls, movie stars, rock stars, reality tv stars, socialites spending daddy's money, so long as they stay out of politics and avoid accusations of heinous crimes we not only put up with them, we idolize them. That's not to say that the Kardashians are morally equivalent to the current CEO of Gazprom in terms of how they gained their fortune, but none of us are under the illusion that their wealth is the consequence of hard work providing a much needed good or service to society at large, and if they leverage their status to make even more money that's not going to erode our social trust in any meaningful way.
Where it breaks down is the stage where the cronies being put in charge aren't competent, and their only qualification is their proximity to power. Then (too much of?) the tide gets diverted, and most of the boats stop rising.
I can think of no examples where a society that permits leadership-by-crony did not reach that end-state.
In the US, it seems corruption is only allowed at the top. If you tried to bribe your way out of a traffic ticket as a regular person, you'd get in big trouble, then meanwhile the president pardons wealthy fraudsters [1].
Meanwhile, in countries like Russia, everyone can get in on the action. A colleague of mine told me if he were to get drafted to the war, he knew exactly how much to pay and who to pay off locally to get his name off the list. It's equal opportunity corruption.
[1] - https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/28/nikola-founder-trevor-milt...
The availability of corruption is a huge grease for economic activity and weirdly - order - but soviet type of corruption has a massive flaw that bad corruption bets (big impact, high publicity) would be mostly unpunished. In asia however it's quite interesting how the face saving and family culture corrects for that a bit as bad corruption bets will backfire despite lack of legal framework for cleanup.
Unfortunately it's _not_ equal opportunity corruption as low economic classes are left out and suffer the most, the cruelty of these systems are really hard to put in the words of a single comment. This also creates a massive overhead for corruption beaurocracy where entire positions are found not on actual product or activity but corruption "middle managers".
So despite your friends take this is not a good system on it's own and merely a relief for terrible autocratic rule. Autocrats actually actively allow corruption as this relief is what keeps them in power precisely because people with some power get a relief and poor class bears the slave worker burden.
Was kinda eye-opening as a native-born U.S. citizen. I'd always just assumed things worked according to the rules here, but then after he said it, I started seeing corruption at the top all the time.
But the wealthy write the rules.
...and look how nice it sounds it live in Russia.
But which laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President are mostly determined by financial donations more so than public opinion.
Science (broadly understood) looks for explanation and for verification. The point is to understand. Many interesting things may be found by analysis of what is known.
An autocrat is supposed to be "Powerful" beyond all else and typically aren't required to be accountable to anyone so as long as the narrative of "Powerfully competent" holds corruption is merely an part of the narrative.
In democracies the leadership is very much meant to be by and off the people and held accountable under the same legal standard they enforce on everyone else, and when that leadership start to act with the impunity of an "entrenched" aristocracy and stop following the rules the narrative breaks.
And lets not forget that the original feudal aristocracy held their position almost entirely by the mechanism of unchallengeable property rights in an zero sum economy* and we begin to understand why the accumulation of property/wealth into fewer and fewer hands is a almost unmanageable threat to the narratives of western democracy.
*We are returning to an zero sum economy as the planet have essentially run out of unowned/unused resources and that means that modern western economic solutions(grow grow grow) is simply not available anymore.
Yes, those who pay receive special benefits, but it is against the background threat of reprisal if you cease paying.
Hey, that's a nice software company, it would be a shame if something happened to it. By the way, my son is raising money for his new crypto venture. You should think about investing.
Also I wouldn't bother comparing corruption between democracies and authoritarians. I have lived under both and the only thing I see is the common human nature represented in different ways. And I see "lack of well-educated citizens who can push back without hesitation" everywhere.
I guess that's why we are in a world that keeps competing for incompetence.
So yes, you'll be more pissed if someone violates the contract with you vs never having one in the first place.
The "four types of corruption" breakdown by Yuen Yuen Ang I think is really informative here, with its two-axis breakdown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption#:~:text=Petty%20the...).
Amalgamating all corruption into a single corruption index doesn't distinguish between these types, and it seems reasonable that different "flavors" of corruption impact social trust in different ways.
Autocracies are low-resolution systems trading on vague promises of 'order' and the explicit assumption of prerogative. In that framework, an official favoring their own isn't 'breaking' the machine; they are exercising it. You can't lose trust in a promise of impartiality that was never made. For the democratic actor, corruption is a breach of contract; for everyone else, it’s just the weather.
See things like Digital ID, censorship, surveillance - nobody voted for this, but certain wealth managers want this to happen and so it takes priority over issues that actually people would want to be resolved (housing, healthcare to name a few).
Or the problem is harder then to be solved with just wanting to solve it?
Well your population grows trough migration, your land does not and your construction doesn't match either in a long term inflationary environment with every incentive pointing in the continuation of that path.
See also Canada, Ireland, UK, Netherlands, Australia, etc, etc
> Then there's the whole thing about criminal organizations that typically rely on social cohesion and upholding all kinds of rules.
Those rules are broken constantly and have to be reinforced via force constantly. The members of actual criminal organizations do not trust each other. They take the risk of betrayal very seriously. Including by pre-emptively killing own friends to protect themselves.
> As is the "bribe economy" – the general understanding that getting X done generally costs you around Y, where Y is not arbitrary
That's really not how that works. Sometimes your bribe will be refused. Sometimes they'll ask for more money even when you think you paid. Sometimes they'll simply not do whatever you bribed them to do. Sometimes it will work as expected.
There is no certainty in autocracies, no guarantees. If Americans only knew what they're heading into, they'd be fighting tooth and nail to avoid it.
"Iterating the prisoners dilemma" at all levels of interface with government, moral qualms about autocracy/authoritarianism aside, is a very inefficient way to run a society, because government is an inherent and natural monopoly.
Even in private commerce, it only works where there are choices and not monopolies.
"Zero trust" is optimal for machine communication networks, not human organizations.
I'm not sure where the disagreement is. I agree that people need to trust government in a high trust society. Government is also the ultimate inherent monopoly.
This should be a deterrent to those who would pursue power for its opportunities in unethical behavior. It would also be a way for society to recognize the seriousness of this breach.
like people in democracies do not know how good they have it!
Corruption makes things less democratic in a pure democracy by granting more soft power to some individuals' 1/N office ( N= population size).
Technically, maybe yes? But autocrats tend to use "de facto authorized" corruption as a carrot for their loyal supporters, and "arrested for corruption" as the corresponding stick. Which leads to outcomes little different from an absolute dictatorship.
Except the autocrat now has a convenient scapegoat for problems affecting the populace - corrupt officials - and a nice narrative for explaining the sudden removals of officials whose loyalties or performance were not to the autocrat's liking.
Western idealism has taught us perfection and that corruption/cheating/lying/fraud/etc... is not the standard.
However, it's not that simple there's a different kind of trust that comes with these types of social structures and they usually trust that as long as they keep their head down nothing will change. You can obviously draw parallels with conservatives here, but in reality people more often than not just want to live their life.
Democracies tend to be a lot more active politically and promote transparency so there is trust that your government is being transparent and that your vote matters. Of course if you find out that your political activism and votes don't accomplish anything due to corruption you check out and start disliking your government. Autocracies don't have political movements to begin with (exceptions apply) so it is way less impactful. There's way more comparisons to be made, but in general they roughly boil down to the same thing.
Ronald Reagan's joke[1] might sound like a joke but this is in fact very much the mentality we are dealing with. And the current US administration's actions are playing beautifully for russia, china, etc. Same for dictator wannabes here in Europe. And even if they get caught lying(which they do on daily basis), all they have to tell their citizens is: "look at {insert_anything} that {democratic_country_where_criticism_is_not_prohibited} is doing". They are basically hijacking legitimate opposition: they criticize the US government for instance, portraying them as bad, regardless of who is behind the wheel and are benefiting the most from the least competent ones in charge: the least competent ones do a terrible job, but because they get criticized in the same way by local opposition and foreign enemies, the local opposition gets automatically associated with the foreign enemy and invalidating anything they say,. And thus, ensuring that blind and delusional supporters will stick with the current status quo no matter what.
by "democracy" they of course mean liberalism
The country I live in consistently ranks as rather non-corrupt but I would disagree with this assessment since I know that our biggest party (where I was a member for some years) is slavishly loyal to one of our main 'stock market owner families', and would consider a lot of legal practices and regulations highly corrupt. Clearly this is also outside of the scope of this study.
Now let's look at the US:
Tucker Carlson is under the gun for allegedly being a Russian or is it Iranian agent. But the US is a democracy.
https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-foreign-agent-charge...
If we're talking about the same case, the EU sanctioned him, the man is at least dual citizen, and received Russian funds via his media company in Turkey, then proceeded to say it was all because it was about his coverage of Gaza. All of that is in the EU sanctions page, but "democratic" media coverage focused and pinned it on the Gaza bit.
If you're talking about Thomas Röper (of Anti-Spiegel) and Alina Lipp, well, it's even more clear cut, not sure how are you trying to sell legal action against those as lack of democracy. It's disingenuous in the best case.
Regarding UK, the 12k figure is real but related to all forms of communication, and by large involving threats, domestic violence and the like. Not for "social media posts".
>Tucker Carlson is under the gun for allegedly being a Russian or is it Iranian agent. But the US is a democracy.
Tucker Carlson took the grifter turn and makes money off it, not unlike Alex Jones. He'll behave like anything that can bring him manageable and profitable attention.
Calling autocracy the sanctioning someone for being on the literal payroll of RT, state media of a hostile country where extrajudicial executions of journalists were commonplace before Roscomnadzor was given near absolute powers over media is, again, a very hard sell.
It's just that Europe and the US use more words to justify their censorship. Hypocrisy par supreme.
https://www.counterfire.org/article/the-not-so-mysterious-di...
"Arrested for social media posts" including things that aren't protected speech anywhere (harassment, threats, incitement to violence).
>Tucker Carlson is under the gun for allegedly being a Russian or is it Iranian agent.
As critical as I am of the US administration (it wouldn't surprise me if they were investigating their critics, especially those who have large platforms and are openly supportive of adversaries), Tucker Carlson built his career by shilling conspiracies and persecution complexes. There's nobody here whose word you should take.
I'm asking because all I could find was a list on Twitter that didn't cite any sources itself and also had very implausible numbers (including he 12k/year for the UK). Implausible based on the lived reality of friends of mine living in e.g. the UK or Germany.
You can't go around exporting your flavour of free speech at the point of a gun while arresting your own people for yapping on X.
The definition of hypocrisy.
PS 12k a year is more people than Russia jails a year for speech violations.
Our districts are embarrassing. People tolerating the blatant corruption by the Trump administration is something I don't understand. They will get upset about Epstein, but don't care about the corruption. (See for example the recent Jared Kushner contracts for one of many examples) Congress campaigns funded by PACs.
Phrases of interest: "Conflict of interest". "Shame". It is wild how people still vote for corrupted politicians, which is almost all of them. My parents are the prototype. If you take money from corporate-funded interests, you still have a conflict of interest, even if you aren't caught acting in the favor of those corporations.
The bar they set is incredibly high unless it involves a politician they don’t support, then a rumor is enough for them to go “yeah I knew it.”
My understanding of US/America/even-other-parts-of-world is that they weren't always like this but slowly turned into something where instead of voting for the better candidate, you are voting for a slightly less worse candidate and that opens up a can of worms because you just have to be or you have to somehow present yourself as a slightly lesser bad option to the masses (well the masses who vote anyway)
Another tactic I have seen is just proposing that we will do something that no-one thinks is possible or should be possible because they don't make sense and its a "joke" but you plant the seeds in terms of jokes which they later capitalize upon on.
Things happen slowly then all of a sudden and then they become norm. It's the silence that we have during it happening slowly that speaks the loudest.
A few percent of people just kinda blow in the wind and might on a lark join in with a presidential candidate to "have a little fun" and those people are who make the difference in competitive elections.
people who only vote in the general election, and maybe the primaries have choosen their party and then potitions based on the party.
I was active in the Green Party (twisting people's arms to run for local office) in the early 2000s and think about voting Green in each presidential election but it's been a while because I don't particularly like Jill Stein and think if you're hard on CO2 you should be easy on Uranium.
Edit: this article is an example of a circular research. Create a narrative branding target entities - in this case countries - with a positive or negative characteristic. For some reason the Scandinavians revel in this.
Another example of compromised organisations are the various US govt funded "think tanks" which publish annual reports which are then used to classify whoever they want with whatever they want. Which then the US regime uses as a pretext for unprovoked attacks.
The West is an example of systemic corruption at the highest levels, surpassed only their citizens collective ignorance and hypocrisy.
The west is just a shorthand for countries within the global north that are part of the international liberal order. This is all well established terminology, including "western imperialism" and "western hegemony". Its not our fault you are hearing these words for the very first time.