Corruption: The Explosive Earth's Perpetual Blasting Cap

A New, Larger Picture of Corruption

MeanMesa has taken aim on specific corruption issues in the past -- plenty of times.  Some have been national and international "nasties," and some have been the bumbling, amateurish catastrophes exposed here in New Mexico.  However, this post, in a way consistent with MeanMesa's questionable humility of scale, is about corruption -- corruption in all forms with all manner of various perpetrators, different histories, different locations and even different mechanisms.

When anyone is still stinging from an encounter with corruption, it is effortlessly easy to lunge directly at that "injustice" or "outrage" -- the engine driving such an emotional response is churning just below the ribs.  This is the immediate perception of unfairness.  We have all been there.

However, each day we may "hear the news about" some distant corruption.  We may agree that the matter reported was, indeed, the result of corruption -- we may even feel an equally distant empathy for the loser, the injured, the denied or whatever other victim.  Doing this, we acknowledge that we, ourselves, would be hard pressed to simply accept what had been imposed on others.

This introduces the point of this post.  When we gaze at the activities of humans on the whole planet, we see that corruption, in a thousand forms, is the incendiary "touch" which transforms otherwise, more or less, passive situations into bloody, hate filled, vengeful episodes of "correction" or destruction.  Regardless of the specific details which "paint the picture," the inevitable resentment and fear springing forth almost immediately become agonizingly durable.

Aggregated -- when considered very, very frankly -- into what appear as a "news worthy" events, the consequences of corruption's impact on the human "record" will continue on even long after the last barricade fire is quenched or the final shells are fired.  Decades or generations after the grass has finally covered all the graves, the bitter, incendiary spark will continue to lurk, patiently waiting to intervene in the affairs of men -- again.

It might be tempting to simply sigh, delegating the matter to a hackneyed slide into irrelevance, dolefully remarking "it's just human nature" in hopes of restoring one's artificial peace of mind as quickly as possible.  Well, it is human nature -- both with respect to those perpetrating corruption and those responding to its pain.

This didn't just show up suddenly when the sun set yesterday evening.  Let's have a look at some of the recent mischief corruption has injected into our world, and, even more importantly, let's dare to think of a means to end it.  Everywhere.  For good.

Amazingly, while we -- as a species of homo sapiens -- haven't spent much time pondering such solutions,  MeanMesa's stoicism isn't great enough to resign ourselves and passively accept our condition as a continuing, miserable, unchangeable inevitability.

A Couple of Quick Definitions

We should pause to define a couple of useful items and a couple of useful processes.  First, we can turn to WIKI for an over view. [Visit the entire WIKI article here. ]

Corruption

In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement. Government, or 'political', corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain.

The word corrupt when used as an adjective literally means "utterly broken." The word was first used by Aristotle and later by Cicero who added the terms bribe and abandonment of good habits. According to Morris, corruption is described as the illegitimate use of public power to benefit a private interest.

WIKI continues with a description of what are termed "scales of corruption."

Scales of corruption

Corruption can occur on different scales. There is corruption that occurs as small favours between a small number of people (petty corruption), corruption that affects the government on a large scale (grand corruption), and corruption that is so prevalent that it is part of the every day structure of society, including corruption as one of the symptoms of organized crime (systemic corruption).

Petty corruption occurs at a smaller scale and within established social frameworks and governing norms. Examples include the exchange of small improper gifts or use of personal connections to obtain favors. This form of corruption is particularly common in developing countries and where public servants are significantly underpaid.

Grand corruption is defined as corruption occurring at the highest levels of government in a way that requires significant subversion of the political, legal and economic systems. Such corruption is commonly found in countries with authoritarian or dictatorial governments but also in those without adequate policing of corruption.

The government system in many countries is divided into the legislative, executive and judiciary branches in an attempt to provide independent services that are less prone to corruption due to their independence.

Systemic corruption (or endemic corruption) is corruption which is primarily due to the weaknesses of an organization or process. It can be contrasted with individual officials or agents who act corruptly within the system.

Factors which encourage systemic corruption include conflicting incentives, discretionary powers; monopolistic powers; lack of transparency; low pay; and a culture of impunity. Specific acts of corruption include "bribery, extortion, and embezzlement" in a system where "corruption becomes the rule rather than the exception." Scholars distinguish between centralized and decentralized systemic corruption, depending on which level of state or government corruption takes place; in countries such as the Post-Soviet states both types occur.

For ease in this discussion MeanMesa will also propose two additional new terms.  First, the word "corrupt," itself, is typically an adjective -- a corrupt politician, a corrupt government, a corrupt judge, corrupt practices, and so on. So, rather than repeatedly drag a specifying noun into the discussion, let's just settle on the newly invented term: "corrupter."  With that convenience in hand, it won't really matter much what the precise role or action the "corrupting" influence might have occupied or taken.

Second, in just the same vein we have all manner of a similar variety of victims which correspond to specific types of corruption.  So, rather than constantly needing to articulate all these variations, let's settle on the second newly invented term: "corruptee."  A "corruptee" is anyone who would, in a more normal situation have done fairly well, but in a "corrupt" situation has suffered because of the corruption.

More likely an innocently looking closed door

Finally, it will clearly be important to establish a few guidelines about just what is and what isn't "corruption."  In this case MeanMesa will retreat to the conveniently undefined, hence, tried and true proposition that there really is a possible, "primitive platform" of, for lack of a better term, "values" which calibrate the state of "non-corruption" in a workable way.

When there is "corruption," these "reasonable expectations" are not fulfilled, but worse, these "reasonable expectations" become an existential null set -- without hope of realization.  Ever -- at least so long as the conditions sustained by the corruption continue.

When there is no "corruption," these "reasonable expectations" are "roughly, occasionally, more or less, or -- even in a grumpy, grumbling manner, at least sort of" satisfied.  We can immediately careen into all sorts of imponderables about the common sense "legitimacy" of those "reasonable expectations," and even a pretty unsettling debate about even the meaning of "reasonable."

Happily, for this post at least, we'll walk right by all those complications.  We can quite logically take this step, although it might require a little "loosening" of some of these awkward definitions, by simply looking at what the "corruptees" are doing.  

After all, the precise explanation of calling these folks by that bizarre name relies on the fact that these same folks, with these "reasonable expectations" of theirs, have become "so pissed off" with what they've been getting and how they've been treated that they "stand out" in a way which identifies them amid the folks who are relatively satisfied with what they've gotten and how they've been treated.

Recent Events Seen Through the Lens of Corruption

From the comfort of American living rooms there is the constant temptation to attribute distant violence to such over worn causes as "seeking freedom," "fighting for religious equality" or "resisting some repressive ideology."  All these comforting conclusions might be "roughly" accurate ways to appraise the causes of violence and unrest, but in just about every case, the "tip of the spear" is revealed as the perception of injustices suffered by the "corruptees" enduring the vicissitudes of the particular situation.

Once the blood begins to flow, these other considerations are rapidly lost in the smoke of the strife torn streets. Yet, on American televisions these same simple catch phrases become a delightfully simplifying narcotic which, once introduced, offers a three word, easy to digest and repeat, "complete statement of absolutely everything possibly involved."  Rather than the messy job of "trying to relate" to a father who hasn't seen his children with a full stomach "since the regime took over," [or whatever form the corruptors might take...] these distant, removed observers are obliged to understand only that very handy snippet of the carefully groomed catch phrase.

With this in hand, every one of these now "well informed Americans" is fully equipped to appear at the famous American water fountain to engage a very thoughtful, insightful, up to the minute debate with his office worker peers -- who are also equipped with that convenient catch phrase. Almost none of them has ever spent more than thirty minutes helplessly watching his child's hunger, let alone a month or a year or a lifetime.

Such explanations might emerge in a "news interview" about the "cause" of the strife in those comfortably distant streets, but the specific motivations which transformed "quietly grumbling at home" into an incendiary "this ends here" are the scars of what corruption has inflicted on the flesh -- not insults to ideas. Almost immediately new injustices are typically introduced to quell or suppress this reaction to the old ones.

Once the complicating specifics of modern world conflicts are set aside in search of the role played by the, more or less, "pure corruption" element in each one, the violent pattern emerges.

Iraq, Ukraine, China, India, US, Pakistan, Greece, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Thailand, Turkey, Brazil  -- violence initiated by corruption in these countries and more have appeared recently on US domestic media.  The entire planet seems to be infected with this problem -- it can be viewed in the same light as a plague or epidemic.

A Collection of Fascinating Graphics

MeanMesa has "discovered" an international research organization which calibrates and compares corruption in countries across the globe.  A few of these are presented here. [Note: MeanMesa didn't actually "discover" all this information.  Just a minimum effort researching the topic on GOOGLE delivered these great results.]

The charts (above) were retrieved from various sources, but all of them and more are derived from Transparency International research work.  Importantly, the charts and data present the perception of corruption.

While grinding out the details of the evidence that corruption violates established law, those who suffer see the possibility of relief. Rather than judicial evidence, it is usually the far "lower bar" of casual perception which serves to incite the destructive violence.  Naturally, folks bruised by corruption are interested in verdicts and the like, but the spark which puts these same people on the streets is the perception.

While there remains the prospect of a verdict, the perception remains more or less passive.  When there is no -- or even little -- prospect of a remedy by verdict in the future, we see abundantly less reluctance.

[You can link to the home page of Transparency International - http://www.transparency-usa.org/.  The group's "archive" page links at - http://archive.transparency.org/.  MeanMesa suggests visitors here take a moment to review what the organization is providing.  Anyone wishing to donate a few dollars can do that here - http://www.transparency-usa.org/involved/donate.html ]

A Few "Fleeting" Suggestions for a Solution

Because of the incredible trouble this corruption is inciting all around the planet, it would be positively delightful if, at this point, MeanMesa just "popped up" with a brilliant solution.  Sorry.

However, as "Earth citizens" we can begin to consider just what might be required to permanently decrease this scourge.  Even if we never get anywhere, we'll all possibly feel just a little better about it.

To start we'll need to "generalize" our criteria for deciding what's corruption and what's not.  We realize that the variety of social cultures accommodate the practice in different ways.  Further, the expectation which defines "not corruption" may be equally disparate in its forms.  Tangible elements such as "social contracts" certainly matter, but the specifics which express those contracts and their conditions are the "details" where the "devil" is.

There are plenty of instances where most folks would be quite comfortable with sentences containing "everyone knows" something or other is "right" or "fair."  There is the US where, although gifted with an impressive Constitution, vast mobs of disgruntled citizens are completely comfortable with sentences containing "that's not Constitutional" although they have never actually read the document.  So, is there an axiomatic approach for defining this important concept?

There might be, but that solution is unlikely to be one derived from traditional social processes. Further, if there is, actually, such a solution, we shouldn't expect any part of it to be easy.

Given the wild disparity among the planet's multitudes, that definition can simply not possibly be a hundred thousand pages long and based on some specific economic, judicial or philosophical heritage -- or, for that matter, even some carefully synthesized combination, either.

Instead, in MeanMesa's "dream world" that definition task might be approached from the other end. Perhaps a block of questions -- in some sense universally addressing the "corruption" or "not corruption" definition -- might be resolved in a plebiscite or even a series of them.  Granted, most of this people on this planet have no access to such a plebiscite, and even if they did, there would remain the conflicts of local definitions in litigative matters which crossed borders.

That block of questions might -- possibly. occasionally -- motivate those who are either suffering from corruption or fabricating such insults for whatever other reasons to such a state of, say, bravery that they will finally lay out the details by which they can be satisfied.  Of course, this would only be a beginning, but the world must start somewhere.








unsustainable wealth inequality

After Arab Spring: National Unity Teams

Just a Little About Division in the US

MeanMeasa's casual memory concludes that the really active moves to permanently divide the United States population began around the time that Ronald Reagan was President -- roughly thirty years ago.  His political strategists saw an "opening" to very coarsely divide the "conservatives" from the "liberals" for a rather shabby political advantage.

Of course there are details galore, but this posting is not about historical details of American politics.  Nonetheless, even without the details, a few generalizations may be helpful in understanding the point.  The "political sides" which Reagan's image creation -- and population division --  team went to work producing all those decades back still "resonate" in the background imaging of present day voters.

A few points will explain what is meant here.  These are a few samples of the broadly held, unexamined "background mistaken certainties" created by these fabrications.

Republicans are good at creating economic development policies for the country.

Democrats habitually over spend tax money without accomplishing anything.

Republicans are experts at foreign policy direction for US national interests.

Democrats bungle foreign policy, especially in war fighting.

Republicans are better church members, more righteous and more religious.

Democrats  tend to be moral relativists with weak, sinful or criminal social habits.

Republicans have better "family values" with respect to moral living.

Democrats are generally profligate and more inclined to rely on government assistance.

Any American voter determined to look at the facts in these matters for even a few minutes realizes that these synthetic manufactured "images"  are essentially groundless, in fact, not just groundless, but in many cases these divisive images are almost something that is exactly the opposite of what is real.

Reality has been "bent" to divide the Americans into two groups.

During the onset of this during the Reagan period, the program had to be rather cautious.  At that time vast numbers of Americans of all sorts of varied opinions about matters looked at the beginning of this division program very skeptically.

Of note here: the FOX network was not yet in existence, and the other commercial networks were independently owned and competed with each other for media consumers by being as accurate and credible as possible.  This was the era of news anchors such as the highly respected Walter Kronkite and Jim Lehrer.

The political advantage of constantly extending the division between these two basic groups of voters was recognized instantly.  Since this quiet beginning decades ago, the scheme has become more and more aggressive.  The illicit autocracy of the unelected President George W. Bush saw the division policy reach a terrifying, almost unbelievable frenzy.

The 2012 election in the United States saw the division inflamed even more.  The Republican Presidential candidate Romney frankly embarrassed his party with the incredibly divisive and fabricated campaign he conducted largely with both FOX and now the remainder of the US commercial media in almost total complicity.

We don't want this "historical" part of this post to continue too long, but a few high points -- or low points -- of the campaign illustrate MeanMesa's point here.

The commercial media including both FOX and PBS continually predicted that the race was "neck and neck."  Romney himself was completely convinced on the day of the election that he would win in a landslide.  He had not even prepared a concession speech for when he did, in fact, lose in a landslide.

49% of Republican voters believed that the election had been stolen by ACORN, even though Republican Congressmen had destroyed that voter registration organization two years ago.  

There are many more examples of voter suppression, voter registration "purges," horribly, obviously untrue campaign statements, literally billions of dollars worth of "mystery source" campaign money -- some from Saudi Arabia, some from the Peoples Republic of China, abhorrent interference in our US democracy -- and practically every other kind of election manipulation one could imagine.

The point of all this is simple.  If roughly half the voting population of the United States had not been groomed to believe what was openly said in the Romney campaign statements, this electoral disaster could never have happened.

Five decades ago that "half" of the voters would have looked at Romney's campaign and immediately concluded that they didn't want anything to do with him, not because they disagreed with Republican Party policy, but because they would have been horrified at the obvious untruths which comprised the campaign statements.

This monstrosity of an election became a possibility because Americans were divided.  It was not just that the opinion of these voters which was divided, it was that the basic facts these voters were to employ in making their ballot decisions which had become so divided.

Although the election is over now, the division remains just as strong as ever.  Today, we Americans see our nation, the most prosperous and powerful among nations, essentially paralyzed by the division.  Our Congress cannot act.  Our citizens will not trust each other and, worse, have a dwindling interest in even being trustworthy.

Division in the States of the Arab Spring

Many parts of the Middle East have already transformed themselves in the Arab Spring.  Many more are at work on that transformation at the time of this post.  The comments here are a suggestion -- and a warning -- which both arise from the experience we Americans have had here at home.  Rebuilding a new nation from one which has languished under autocracy for decades presents the absolute  necessity of avoiding this division.

In every occasion when a previous power is replaced by a new power, the first day that follows inevitably reveals a nation with two sides.  At least two side.  In many cases, even more sides have been patiently -- or impatiently -- "waiting in the wings" for the opportunity the new freedom might provide.

In many cases various "out of power" minority groups have been   manipulated to compete with each other while the larger power enjoys the resulting advantage of fewer competitors.  The day after the change in government finds the animosity from these old, synthetic competitions still at full passion.

Just about every faction with the ambition of gaining or securing its own position of influence or domination the day after a nation transforms itself into a democracy will be tempted to incite division where ever possible among its new competitors.  At first, this will seem to be the most effective approach possible, and it's not entirely surprising when this occurs given that this was the strategy of the old autocracy to keep or gain power itself.

The initiators of this nation crippling division can be 

the previous autocracy itself, 

the remnants of political interests still loyal to the old autocracy,

the various political ambitions suddenly set free by that old autocracy's fall,

mere groups of citizens who have been so saturated with unthinking division in the past that they simply continue it from something like psychological inertia 

 or 

"outside interests" who have their own "extra-national" commercial or power ambitions in your new nation. [By "extra-national" we mean "for advantages for themselves, not advantages for your new nation."]

All of these forces will act to divide you along any lines possible for their own ends.  We in America know this, not only because it has been done here, but because we, ourselves, too often simply stood by while we did it others, and perhaps, because we have also stood by while we did it to ourselves.  With respect to your world, we know that our country has a penchant for becoming an "outside interest," and those among us who usually do that sort of thing are usually very worst among our own fellow citizens.

To the new nations of the Arab Spring, MeanMesa suggests strongly that amid the confusion of your changed governments you make it one of the highest priorities to not naively allow such a division to embed itself into your futures. There is nothing about such a development which is innocent, positive or unavoidable.

Watching the television thousands of miles away in New Mexico, it's clear that the forces of division already have their ambitions for your countries, too.

A MeanMesa Suggestion:  National Unity Teams

When the very first "troubles" begin to appear, all those in power respond.  Leaders from opposing sides of issues appear together publicly, embracing one another warmly and lamenting about the violence or intolerance.  These leaders will give speeches encouraging the "separate parts" of the newly freed population to "work together."

"Working together" brought victory.  Don't stop now! (image source)

However, that "work together" admonition may seem a little gaseous.  How exactly will the citizens of your countries "work together?"

Where ever you may be, the environment around you may very well be an exciting one, but it may also be one of fear, jealousy and skepticism.  All the promising impulses to forge a new nation, perhaps a Constitution, perhaps a new government, new laws, new futures and the rest seem to exist in dreams populated by old enemies

The appetite to "get even" may be quite well justified.  The tacit intolerance of those who have opposed you and others during the transformation of your country may have mellowed only as far as "They're okay as long as I don't have to live next to them."

One common "complicator" on the path forward is wealth.  Those "old enemies" may have monopolized opportunities for decades.  Maybe in the first firey days of your new nation the impulse is to simply take back what might have been yours if things had been more fair and free.

All these things must be settled, but they must be settled in ways you can sleep with, in ways you can explain to your children, in ways which can serve as the foundation of your tomorrows.

Returning to the "working together" idea, MeanMesa suggests the following.

National Unity Teams

The men and women in your new country will be working together on all sorts of things which are necessary or which have become possible after the Arab Spring.  In every case there is much which must be built, renovated or simply made the first time for your countries to flourish.

There will be police departments, military units, judges and prosecutors for city courts, sanitation workers, building repair crews -- the list goes on and on forever.  The formation of every one of these "cooperative opportunities" will be unfolding day by day.  It may be rather chaotic, but, after all, you've just now emerged from a successful revolution.

The point here is that these jobs and the teams you will hire to do them must not merely be a continuation of the old dreams of dominance.  These teams must be composed of both the winners and the losers of what has just transpired.

And, importantly, this "mixing" of groups cannot be passively set aside as some sort of inevitable coincidence.  It must be undertaken with eyes wide open in a manner which reflects its great importance for your future.

The "working together" idea becomes not only quite tangible, but also quite doable.  "Working together" is an absolute necessity for a future with a peaceful, at least moderately cooperative, population, a successful nation,an effective government and a flourishing economy -- all common aspirations of everyone on both sides of any current animosity.

Set the goal, and set the goal in no uncertain terms. The unity of the nation comes first.

Every local police force must include all the diverse elements of the local population. Every city maintenance crew must be represented with team members from all the factions, religions and political realms.  The formation of military units needs to include members from the old regime and the new regimes, the religion of the next province and the religion of this one.  Teachers, doctors, politicians, judges, plumbers, truck drivers, painters, and so on, must find themselves "mixed" into a great melting pot of a society with the unifying goal of creating a national state.

At first, it might seem attractive to build teams of members with a single common position either with respect to some things or even with respect to all things, but these will not serve your new democracy well in the long run.  The "mixing" suggested here will result in all sorts of conflicts within these various teams, but that same "mixing" will result in face to face familiarity and possibly even a growing respect for each other.

The "mixing" will frustrate the ambitions of those who dream only of dividing you for their own ends.  The destructive appeal of one citizen considering another fellow citizen as "the other" will gradually fade away when the two come to work every morning, day after day.

The violent calamities which accompanied your revolution will always be memories, but relegate these things to just that -- memories.  There will be exceptions among you.  Fellow citizens who seem unable to forget and move ahead.  There are always such folks who seem unable to "make the leap" no matter the immediate consequences.  They will live static lives filled with suspicion, distrust, and they may even die in the agony of an empty life, still soaked in hate, but this vision of theirs must not dictate the future of your new nation.

Finally, this becomes a personal matter.  As a visitor to MeanMesa from far away, can you, yourself, embrace this difficult but promising proposal?

We Americans offer ourselves and and own present predicament as the compelling example of what must be avoided, however, your revolutions have also inspired us and the rest of the world with a new, unexpected energy.

The Arab Spring revealed new hope.  Now, more "spring" is coming!(image source)

Planting The Arab Spring's Justice Garden

Wouldn't It Be Nice?

It should be relatively easy to conclude that the uprisings of the Arab Spring originated with economic corruption.  It might be just as easy to conclude that the conditions which inspired the moves to freedom would not have occurred in societies enjoying representative democracy.

However, the exact mechanism in a democratic state which would have prevented such conditions is too often left out of the picture.  Of course, autocrats intent on extracting the economic life blood from such a country would hesitate if they had to face an election, but the actual "nuts and bolts" of defending an egalitarian system falls to a judicial system.

The track from the insults and outrages of the Arab dictators to the intentions of the people in the streets is a straight line.  If that line is to be redirected through a new more democratic government, elections alone will not provide the sole incentive to usher in better times.  In fact, given the nature of the past players, elections would not even survive very long without a justice system to defend the process.

So, the daunting task of, more or less, spontaneously generating a democracy is further complicated by the adjacent task of creating a justice system to defend it.  The creation of a modern constitution is, obviously, one of the primary objectives of those who have paid such a great price to reclaim their country.  The creation of a justice system which will function within that new constitutional apparatus may be even more complicated.

Although the countries of Western Europe and the United States are eager to assist in this process, we see some serious obstacles even before the offer is made.  These are the logical products of our past and present records.

1.  Citizens in Arab Spring countries have seen their dictatorial tormentors in the close company of US and Euro "free market businessmen" for far too long.  These "associates" to the autocracies had operated in such countries with a very durable immunity from "business practices" which would have never been allowed in their states of origin.

What passed as a local justice system in these "overseas markets" amounted to little more than a few very beholding toadies with judicial titles, and in no time at all, the local citizens found themselves utterly without recourse of any kind.  In fact, these old Arab autocracies exhibited little hesitation in the further employment of violent, brutal retribution to ordinary citizens who might foolishly seek "their day in court."

2.  Just as piquant a caution derived from the observations of the failing judicial systems in the very states who were now so altruistic in their willingness to "export justice" to the new democracies, especially the case with the United States.  Although distant and foreign, the new citizens of the Arab Spring states were not only careful observers of possible examples for their own new system but also very discerning about questionable judicial mechanisms which were too similar to the farces they had just deposed.

Finally, Addressing "Wouldn't It Be Nice"

To get things off "on the right foot," (open in a new tab) execute the following You Tube link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i44RDU7_3o&feature=related

Now, with the Beach Boys joyously advertising their teen age optimism in the background, we can continue.

Wouldn't it be nice if the United States could offer some direct, effective counsel to these new democracies as they endeavored to set up their justice systems?

What MeanMesa envisions here might be described as the antithesis to the long running Institute of Fascism we call the School of the Americas.  Now, this little jewel is no longer called by this title because of serious reputation for human rights problems.  It is now called the The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC or WHINSEC).  It was established years ago to train at least temporarily loyal military enforcers for South and Central American dictators. (more here - WIKI)

Ironically, the mission of WHISC turns out to be horribly similar to exactly what the new citizens of the Arab Spring states hated most in the conduct of their old governments.

However, the new, antithetical form of this would be an institution with a mission highly relevant to the immediate needs of the Arab Spring states.  Quite aside from the political specifics of each case, a fundamental, general component of the dissatisfaction can be traced to those in the local judicial who were bare faced cronies at the beginning of their careers or sold out at some opportune moment along the way.

Understandably, as each instance of this series of revolutions -- after reaching critical mass -- slows to face the task of legitimate rule, the deficiency of the current state of the legal system will emerge almost immediately.  Again ironically, the fate of the captured ex-dictators and their erstwhile minions may present the first hard evidence of this.

The irony arises when these old thugs begin to demand a "fair trial," hoping desperately that the "new version of a fair trial" is not too similar to their "old version of a fair trial."

The Justice School of the Hemispheres

We can use the term "hemispheres" quite comfortably, if for no other reason, because the destructive, anti-democratic products of the School of the Americas and institutions similar to it have cursed victim countries well beyond the boundaries of Central and South America.  The nations of the Arab Spring have not been excluded, and their citizens know it.

So, if you find yourself unexpectedly burdened with handling the details of your country's journey to its new democracy, the prospect of enlisting some judicial appointments may prove daunting.  Wouldn't it be nice to recruit a few honorable new judicial appointments and send them away to learn all about it in the United States?

That educational service would not be non-controversial, either.  Not only the most sought after ideal aspects of the local justice system but also the sometimes unfamiliar responsibility of being objective in the rule of law would be necessary parts of the curriculum.  In any event, the graduates of such an institution must be prepared to return to their home countries bearing the cloak of a real judicial rather than another well paid hack serving only the dictator.

Building Legitimate Justice Systems

As we consider this aspect of what confronts both the United States as a "reparative" challenge and what confronts the new nations of the Arab Spring as a "first time" challenge, we see that Americans have an advantage.  Here, we have a cultural memory of a US justice system which, at one point in the past, seemed to function.

This idea of cultural memory is an important one.  For example, MeanMesa presumes to have an eye to current US economic events somewhat more resolved than younger folk because of the memory of participating in the incredibly more successful US economy and culture before the Reagan years.  Yet, we still have to ask ourselves if we remember a pre-Reagan justice system which functioned notably better than the current train wreck.

In the new nations of the Arab Spring, the population has no particular memory of a functional justice system, of police who might actually aid a complainant, of judges who made decisions based on settled law or powerful oligarchs who showed any "reluctance" when it came to snow barrelling over what was passing as the law whenever it was convenient or profitable.

Two Arab Spring examples of this are in the domestic "news" right now.  In Egypt, quite aside from all the oligarchic looting Mubarak enjoyed for decades, the issue at his trial is his complicity in the murders of Egyptian citizens.  In Syria, the clear stumbling block in Assad's intransigence is based on fear of the same outcome.

Further, in both cases the dilapidated state of the local justice system is horribly suspect whether it is the shattered remnants of what was there before or the extremely shaky infancy of what has replaced it.  The first of the two states presently describes the current condition of the domestic system.

There is a "tipping point" which emerges in a failed justice system, and it is starkly reflected in its credibility.  Once reached, the complaints stop, expectations plummet, interest lags and trust becomes a "ghost of the past."  The cloud of un-prosecuted domestic examples run the gambit: war crimes, corruption, insider trading, war profiteering,  influence peddling and political dirty tricks galore, all frosted, finally, with insults such as the Citizen United decision.

At one time -- perhaps in better days -- citizens' voices would have publicly and reasonably demanded convictions.  Now, stoic, disheartened citizens purposefully make themselves "too busy" to even be bothered by the absence of hearings and investigation.  So much for the crime fighting "G-Men" of the country's more believable justice systems of the past.

We see this state of affairs in contemporary American justice, and the citizens of the Arab Spring see it as one which began much earlier.  The same questions arise in both places. When did we begin our national habit of tolerating such things?  When will we end it?

This is a chilling similarity when we compare it to the conditions which inspired the Arab Spring, and that chill is not missed by the US domestic equivalent of the oligarchs who now find themselves in the dock in Arab courts.  Bad behavior either has consequences or it doesn't.  Reviewing history, MeanMesa suspects it almost always does have such consequences in the long haul.

Because wealth inequality is, ultimately, a consistent measure of "justice inequality," we can return to the chart of American wealth presented in MeanMesa's last posting. (An American Oligarch Watches the Arab Spring)

 

Wealth Inequality - Does It Also Measure "Justice Inequality?" (chart source)

When we strip away all the labels concerning wealth and replace them with corresponding labels measuring "justice equality," we see the chilling similarity.  Although direct examples of the US justice system simply "turning over" liquid cash based on this inequality are still infrequent, direct examples of widely varied "degrees of accountability" are not.

Naturally, when accountability falls prey to unequal justice, the possibilities for rapacious business practices which should have, otherwise, carried with them swift and powerful justice have become far more attractive.  The examples are like the topics of nightmares for American -- and Arab Spring -- oligarchs: the cost of criminal defense, the artificial limits of damages in class actions, the price of procuring judicial remedy beyond the possible resources of complainants.

Justice, No Longer An American Export

Returning to our "Wouldn't It Be Nice?" idea, the citizens of the new Arab Spring states probably already know more than enough about current American Justice to view graduates of such an institute as promising, much less even acceptable.  It seems that they know more about the failing American system than we do.

Their "oceans didn't protect them" from the US system.

The basic concept of an Institute might still be attractive to those in the new nations faced with constructing a justice system from scratch, but the ideals taught there will not be anything remotely similar to what one might find in practice here.

Such an Institute, if even possible, would offer a valuable educational opportunity to us just as it would to them.

An American Oligarch Watches the Arab Spring

When American Idealism Becomes Too Complicated

and Too Expensive

Recently, even the otherwise corporately saturated PBS NewsHour has dared to comment on the extreme state of domestic wealth inequality.  A few others in the commercial media have also, apparently, received authorization to mention the story, even if only in passing. 

"Received authorization?"  Yes.  There is very little reason to presume that the well paid "news" industry would have wandered into such an incendiary topic solely on their own initiative.  The oligarchs in charge have understood that the story will be most manageable if delicately "touched on" before the "reporting focus" moves back to more soporific "news" and relentless propaganda.

In America, things like this happen when the "elephant in the living room" misses the "cat box."

One early victim of the nearly completed, domestic wealth redistribution is seen in the American justice system.  It's not surprising that oligarchs regard the subversion and domination of the traditional "rule of law" idea to be foundational for the remainder of their scheme.  For this posting, MeanMesa wants to consider this not with any sort of lamentation comparing it to the "good old days" here so much as one comparing it to what is happening abroad, in this case, the Arab Spring.

Once "boiled down to the bones," domestic wealth redistribution to the top percentiles enjoys -- at least in the corporate media -- a uniquely different "label" than its Arab Spring counterpart.  Importantly, that difference seems to be primarily one of sophistication.  Domestic wealth redistribution, hosted by the now dysfunctional justice system, can be masqueraded as not only legal, but reassuringly consistent with very poorly defined, unexamined economic and political ideals.

In the countries of the Arab Spring, the meat handed "redistribution" of vast wealth to the old crony driven oligarchies had been blatantly corrupt.  The powerful became rich while everyone else simply endured it.  Only a few fleeting, superficial efforts were made to imply that the process was, somehow, consistent with minor complications such as local, "theoretical" Constitutions or traditional, national, cultural ideals.

Before the Arab Spring in these Arab states, a casual interview with a man on the streets would have produced a quiet, yet firmly stoic depiction of state of the local system as "just one of those things that we have to live with" or else.  Few of the locals would have bothered to consider them "legal" or "not legal" because such judgements would have meant very little.  On the other hand, the "or else" part could be quite violent, immediate and compelling.

Economic systems prior to the uprisings were, simply put, corrupt, and everyone knew it.  In lucid moments of honesty, neither the "captive population" nor the prospering oligarchs would have disputed this conclusion.  Further, the same "captive population" would have wasted not a single minute imagining that the "local justice system," for obvious reasons, was ever going to do anything whatsoever to ever rectify the situation, that is, level the playing field.

Prior to the Arab Spring, "national justice systems" were primarily charged with maintaining the both the incessant wealth extraction and the passivity and suppression of the "extractees" for the benefit of the "extractors."  Here in the US, although the outcome was direly similar, the process was more complex because it had to be more or less "legal" all along the way.

"Breaking the Camel's Back" - It Can't Happen Here

Set conveniently -- although also suspiciously -- aside from the "main list" of causes which are reported to have initiated the Arab Spring, raw, savage, economic corruption played an inescapably large part in triggering the uprising.  Americans found the alternative explanations of ideology, politics and culture more palatable than sheer corruption, but MeanMesa has to conclude that "hungry bellies" were the factor which finally tipped the scale from calm to change.

The decades of wealth extraction had simply left the populations so stressed that while these other, more intellectual forms of torment offered equally intellectual explanations, the "trigger finger" sat firmly on what could appear on the dinner table.  There seemed to be plenty to go around, but it was clearly not "going around."  It was. specifically, not going around to the people on the streets.

Domestically, along with the decrepit Arab oligarchic thugs, our US oligarchs were also drawing a few troubled breaths of their own -- apparently enough to authorize a re-framed domestic news reporting in an unquestionably, yet understandably, suspicious way.  Their own historical extraction schemes had created a domestic wealth inequality far too comparable to the ones which had instigated the Arab Spring so they authorized the media to report on the matter, but, just a little.

The US "Land of Opportunity" - Think of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria (chart source)

One important point is that the outrages represented in the chart above could have only been made possible with a sufficient "cover" from the US justice system.  Of course, all sorts of "looting schemes" and political machinations were directly involved, but all through the course of the scheme's execution, judicial challenges had to be subverted for its success.

At this point, the "Bottom 90%" noted in the chart of US population and the corresponding "Bottom 90%" in the countries of the Arab Spring are sharing the same "life jacket."  Somewhat reassuringly, the respective "Top 1%" and "Next Richest 9%" of both the US and the countries of the Arab Spring are also sharing the "same life jacket," even though for both of them, these traditional "life jackets""not particularly buoyant" gold, and jewels.

Both parties -- that is, both those at the top and at the bottom -- of the US "condition" have seen the violent, bloody remedy unfolding in the Arab countries, and, no matter how hard one tries to avoid it, sooner or later the similarities begin to map themselves into the domestic frame.

What has previously been "unthinkable" has begun to be "thinkable."

The wealth of the thuggish dictators who have fallen in the Arab Spring enjoyed -- even so recently as a week before they were dragged from their palaces -- a passive image of acceptability and legitimacy for their purloined riches.  In the domestic case we find a strikingly similar situation.

There may be a few carefully orchestrated lamentations about the rapacious wealth redistribution in the United States, but underlying such stories is the lingering presumption that either "nothing can be done" or that "these oligarchs deserve to keep what they have."  That is, although the situation is deplorable, it must be corrected by precisely the same deplorable system which made it possible in the first place.

This idea has at least as much merit as Syrian dictator Assad's most recent promises for "reform."

The Syrian case is a good example.  So far, while relaxing on his journey to oblivion, Assad has not been caught in a moment of sincere terror which led him to rip out the gold plated faucets in his private coach and hurl them to the starving masses trying to stop his train.  His intransigent oligarchic counterparts in the US have taken an equally self-destructive decision.

Oh, What An Unexpected Difference

a Week Can Make

The weeks just keep on coming -- both in sunny pre-Arab Spring spots such as Syria and in the United States as well.  The troubling questions now sprout like dandelions in the pumpkin patch.

Can the wealth of the United States be, once again, redistributed -- this time downward -- in time to avoid our own Arab Spring?  Is there a point where the parties simply quit negotiating in favor of far more direct action?

Right away we're back to the "unthinkable" versus "thinkable" solution sets.

MeanMesa intends to continue postings on this subject until "all the bases are covered."  History clearly has no intention of simply stopping before new text books must be written.