We can end corruption in a generation

There was a long article in The Economist last week about the technology behind Bitcoin. I have to confess I barely understood a word of the description of how the technology works. In essence, it uses an incorruptible permanent readable record for a transaction.

What was interesting in the article was its discussion of other uses for the technology. The claim was that this fairly simple technology could transform things like land registries and similar public services, rendering them transparent and cheap. And hence ended the potential for corruption.

The next round of UN development goals has recently been published. As far as I am aware, nothing is included about corruption, but it may be that a good single goal for the next twenty years might be to end corruption. With technology it may just be feasible, and its positive effect on humanity would be enormous.

I’ve been blessed with a life probably as free from corruption as anyone’s could ever have been. I’ve been coerced into paying minor bribes at border checkpoints. I’ve been scammed a couple of times. But most people in the world live with a degree of systemic corruption.

I’ve seen it in some of the places I’ve worked and I have seen how it drains the spirit of everyone it touches. I’ve tried to coach people to follow good commercial practices like guarding every dollar, and seen the blank looks on their faces, as they consider how such values are violated daily by those in authority over them. It hurts in the heart. You take it home. You lose faith in humanity and in yourself.

I wonder what a global corruption index would look like. We can track diseases and preventable deaths and infant mortality and see great improvements over recent generations. What about corruption? What gets measured gets fixed, say management gurus. While there are some useful league tables, I am not sure anything comprehensive really exists.

Just in the last couple of weeks, I have read of many chilling examples. I read an article about life in Eritrea (why do not hear more about this broken country?), and in Iraq. The VW scandal rumbles on – not corruption in the strictest sense, but I choose to define it very widely. Politicians pandering to lobbyists and defending perks like carried interest are corrupt by my definition. We have the never-ending disgrace that is FIFA, and cheating in athletics. Most depressing of all comes the scandals about Vatican finances. How can any priest promote positive values when represented by such a cesspit?

Therein lies part of the issue with corruption. It is closely linked to power; indeed, it can easily be defined as the abuse of power. If even the Vatican is riddled with it, then which powerful bodies are likely to be free of it? Anything military or any dictatorship is likely to be equally corrupt, as supported by evidence through the centuries, and over-powerful corporate boards likewise.

So we can start by challenge excessive deference. Yesterday was veteran’s day in the US, and a day of reflection around Europe too. I have full respect for the military, but the excessive deference it receives in many countries is surely an invitation to corruption. There are heroes in the military, but just as many working in care homes or rehab centres. Who are the greater heroes, the ones who bombed the Kunduz hospital or the MSF workers inside it?

I was watching ESPN yesterday, and heard LeBron James speaking: “It is what you guys do that makes it possible for guys like me to do what we do”. Oh yes? So without the military, there would be no basketball? I don’t accept that. Surely we would all be much better off if we made sure such jobs were paid properly (which in most places I think they are, considering pensions and perks) and then hold them in a less deferential light? At least in the US you are unlikely to be stopped by a military or police patrol and required to pay a bribe – unless you meet them in Iraq or happen to be black perhaps?

Because corruption in linked to power might explain why there is not more concerted international effort to fight it. Even groups like the Gates foundation rely on access and donations. Fighting diseases makes us reach for our wallets and host governments will not get in the way. For corruption it would be different story.

I have seen some heroic attempts. The current Aquino administration in the Philippines is making a valiant effort. The only place I have seen corruption all but eliminated in Sweden. In that land there exists a beneficial alignment of forces: a collectivist public attitude; ample technology; and intense transparency of all public financial matters.

The technology point comes back to The Economist and Bitcoin. A good article the Guardian last week argued that technology was a wonderful opportunity for humanity, and could be even better if humanity found a way to set its agenda. Currently, what gets developed and implemented is driven by power, nation states and commercial interests. The military can guide its drones with ever-greater precision, and Silicon Valley can tempt us with ever smarter entertainment. But any advance against corruption comes as a bi-product not a purpose. Power does not want it and consumers will not pay for it.

The transparency point carries a dilemma. Do we want transparency or privacy? That trade off prevents a lot of technological advance that could help to fight corruption. Sweden has had a national identity card system for twenty-five years and it links most aspects of life, and close a cashless economy. Further, anyone’s tax accounts can be made available to anyone else. When I first lived there, I found it weird that citizens had been prepared to surrender so much privacy – but I came to see the system as sound, and the results in terms of eliminating corruption are impressive, as is the nation’s performance on a whole range of other indicators.

The last people who want to lose privacy are the powerful elites, so always be careful when you hear passionate arguments defending the right to privacy. These arguments carry merit, but they come with expensive trade offs attached.

I do believe modern technology has the potential to destroy almost all corruption within one generation, if only humanity set that out as a goal and demanded steps towards achieving it. The economic and social benefits would be enormous – indeed we might look back on the current period as the age of corruption.

The enablers are mainly technological and eminently attainable. The blockers relate to power – of elites and nation states benefitting narrowly from the corrupt status quo. Deference and unaccountability are the enemies of progress. Most elites are corrupt, though many are not aware of it and don’t practice it knowingly. And a protection of privacy is a powerful argument used by the corrupt elites to prevent progress.