TED Conversations

Jaime Mogollón Michilot

Economic Student,

This conversation is closed.

How we can fight the corruption in developing nations?

In most of this nation, corruption have an economic and social dimension. What we can do for decrease the corruption. Mr. Mather have an interesting solution. What do you think?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 6 2013: Transparency is one way to prevent corruption.

    Corruption grows best at dark and shady places and where the 'power of decision' is concentrated in just a view individuals.

    By eliminating the growing conditions for corruption, it will therefore decline accordingly.

    Transparency towards the public, 'power of decision' towards the public, the majority of the people. This would be a good start to fight corruption and 'direct democracy' a good choice to get it going.

    • thumb
      Oct 10 2013: Cool idea ... but how can you achieve transparency? The press as the public x-ray machines are controlled by those who benefit from corruption.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: Transparency is an ongoing process and for it to work, it needs certain conditions and criteria.
        Public media plays an important part in this process. When it is controlled, it needs to be freed again, as otherwise it doesn't work.

        Usually media is controlled by a corrupt minority to control the majority in their fashion and therefore it takes longer and is more difficult for the majority to free itself again. Yet there is good news. The old centralized structure of media is shifting. Today, many people are able to access the Internet which enables them to gain independent information and to publish their information. This decentralization is very hart to control by a corrupt minority, which is one of the reason, why some nations censor the Internet. Yet censorship only decelerates freedom, it is incapable to stop it.

        Just don't expect change to happen over night. Unite with others who have already woken or which are beginning to question their media. Share your information, reveal corruption, cast light in shady places. And more importantly, be patient and persistent.

        But if you live in a society in which the majority of the people are corrupt, you may consider to seek a better place, as the chances for change are to low for your lifetime.
        • thumb
          Oct 22 2013: I like your suggestion. However, not all people suffering acutely from the consequences of corruption have the option of moving to a different place. And if we consider that the entire world is corrupt ... how can we get to another planet?
      • thumb
        Oct 22 2013: I know, I think this becomes a question of the lesser of different evils. And I am afraid that our lifetime won't cover the option of another planet as well.
    • Oct 11 2013: I don't think transparency is much of a solution. Look at the US and its surveillance issues; yes, maybe their relationship with some countries has become strained, but nothing serious has happened as a result and they haven't been made to face any serious consequences. Another example is the Zimbabwean government, whose actions are well-known to the world at large but which has yet to be overthrown or even hindered in some way. Those are just two examples, but there are a number in recent history.

      Power of decision toward the public is also no solution. Most of the Arab countries adhere to this idea because it's actually a part of Muslim custom in a sense, yet there is continuous strife in these areas even after there have been uprisings to overthrow corrupt governments.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: Look at the direction of the US surveillance program, actually at any surveillance program serving just a view. That got nothing to do with transparency regarding corruption.

        Does your county has a surveillance program`If yes, try to ask to get the latest data run on the biometric data of the president of your nation. Or of the officer in charge of the police. How likely would it be for you to get this data? Or even for the major of your town, or for your neighbor?

        I would be surprised if this information was given to you, so where is transparency here?
        • Oct 11 2013: I'm sure my country does, but I have a very corrupt government so it wouldn't surprise me. It also wouldn't surprise me if I was told I couldn't get this data, for the same reason.

          Like you say, there is no transparency. But this isn't my point; my point is that once these things are made transparent, once rights have been violated, very little to nothing is done. That is corruption.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: I think our understanding about 'transparency' is different.

        When I ask for more transparency to prevent corruption within a government, I don't ask for surveillance programs, neither for the political representatives, nor for the citizens.

        Surveillance is borne by the wish 'to control' and the wish to control is born by 'fear'. And as we all know, fear has never been a good adviser.

        When I talk about 'transparency', I mean, that the process in which decisions are made is open and its reasons explained, so that it becomes easier to identify faulty explanations and reasons.

        And I don't stop there, I go even further. Corruption only works if the people who make decisions are just a view. And there is doesn't matter if those 'view' have been elected democratically or not. The fact, that they are just view is the risk in itself. So to prevent corruption of a view efficiently, one got to increase the number of the people involved in the final decision.

        An evil minded company may have enough budget to bribe a view politicians, yet what if there were hundreds of them, thousands, even millions? Do you think there was a budged big enough to bribe a whole nation?

        For really small nations, maybe, but not for any average sized one.

        So how do we get hundreds, thousands and millions of politicians? By getting the people directly involved in any, I repeat, ANY, decision in their very own affairs. This does not exclude a representative structure, by no means, yet the representative structure alone can not make any decision. This system is called direct democracy, and would be a good start to fight corruption.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.