When fighting corruption becomes corrupt

Transparency, accountability, oversight, and anti-corruption have become some of the most commonly used terms in populist politics and in advocacy programs promoting the rule of law and a state of rights. Yet many of these terms lose their meaning due to rhetorical excess, slogan-driven discourse, and the instrumental use of the law as a tool for settling scores with political or professional rivals. In this way, ambiguity spreads throughout public life, and ideologies of reform replace genuine reform.

Corruption stems from the abuse of power and the construction of networks of influence. Some populist forms of anti-corruption consist of politicians attacking one another, smearing rivals, and reopening files out of vengeance rather than concern for public funds. The rush to draft legislation and create a national anti-corruption authority may also fall into the category of misleading people into believing change is happening.

A culture of anti-corruption requires neither defamation nor reopening files, but rather a focus on the impact of corruption on consumers, beneficiaries of public services, and citizens in their daily lives. Those who seek to promote transparency and accountability should highlight the effects of a tender for purchasing spoiled medicine on consumers, beneficiaries, and people’s everyday lives. Behind the rhetoric of anti-corruption, the judiciary itself is often pulled into networks of influence and collusion with those seeking revenge against a rival.

The case of Carlos Ghosn is illustrative in this context. Is the judiciary acting as a judiciary, or colluding with rivals who reopen files to satisfy resentment and revenge? Naturally, the media must uphold the presumption of innocence in all cases. But the Ghosn case raises the issue of reopening files within webs of influence and interests. There is fear that citizens and democracy-minded individuals may be victims of deception and complicit in such networks.

Authoritarian regimes routinely reopen files against opponents,  the same opponents these regimes had previously placed in privileged positions for personal gain, conditioned on absolute loyalty. Violations, abuses, and thefts are recorded daily in anticipation of reopening files should these individuals deviate from obedience, following the principle: “Commit wrongdoing so you can be controlled.” Those who reopen files, competing to appear as protectors of public funds, the rule of law, transparency, and accountability, often aim to satisfy resentment and punish a collaborator who has stopped submitting. Of course, every public official must understand they are subject to oversight and remain vigilant against any misconduct.

Fouad Boutros once recounted a statement made to him by a senior Syrian official: “You are like crystal!” When Boutros asked what this meant, the official replied: “We could not find a single mistake in your record.” Why was this discovery important? It served as a basis for accusation, coercion, and blackmail. Even the most exemplary public employee can be subjected to revenge, coercion, or removal through the reopening of files, by documenting trivial procedural details, much like La Fontaine’s “The Plague” (La peste), where the donkey is accused simply for eating grass. Many of history’s “accused,” especially Jesus, were condemned for reasons fabricated by those in power and by ill-intentioned rivals.

Here lies the core dilemma of justice. Justice is not revenge. Good faith is a legal standard and a foundation for exercising any right. It is dangerous to assume that those who reopen files are necessarily defenders of the public interest. In such cases, the judiciary loses its judicial nature and becomes an instrument colluding with resentful, corrupt actors at the top, driven by vengeance rather than the pursuit of truth. Blindfolded justice becomes complicit, encouraging a world in which the law is manipulated and stripped of its normative essence.

What we see today, defamation campaigns targeting individuals and institutions, often contradicts the very culture of anti-corruption and undermines trust in institutions. How can a taxpayer be expected to meet their obligations and refrain from evading taxes when a public administration displays its dirty laundry while demanding compliance? It is said that President Fouad Chehab, after uncovering an embezzlement operation involving a senior customs official, insisted on prosecution but rejected any public scandal in order to preserve the institution’s standing and maintain citizens’ trust. Trust in institutions, not necessarily in individuals,is essential, as no institution is defined by a single employee, regardless of their position or misconduct.

But is the basic prerequisite for combating corruption, the separation of powers, actually implemented? When governments function as miniature parliaments, there is no separation of powers, no parliamentary oversight, no accountability, and no opposition outside government. Decision-making becomes impossible in a fragmented group unless based on exchanges of mutual benefit.

Closed files? Files reopened through networks of influence, resentment, and revenge? This is not law, justice, transparency, accountability, or good governance.

Reconciling politics as a struggle over influence, interests, resources, mobilization, and competition with politics as the management of public affairs, res publica, is the product of daily democratic effort. Democracy is not a “system,” since every system without exception contains seeds of its own corruption. Rather, it is a methodology and a set of mechanisms for participation, oversight, accountability, and continuous civic vigilance to rationalize, reform, and humanize politics.

Political and administrative corruption is tied to four factors:

The mechanism of political power and how it is attained and relinquished.

The degree of protection citizens enjoy against political authority and public administration in a rule-of-law state.

The value system of society shaped by historical and cultural accumulations.

Problems within the administration itself and the inefficiency or complacency it produces.

In recent years, under the banner of anti-corruption, the approach has been to multiply regulatory bodies and specialized councils, even though all of these functions rightfully fall under competent ministries and public administrations that should operate effectively without patronage networks.

What is the actual outcome of slogans about anti-corruption, defamation, political score-settling, and statements unaccompanied by concrete daily measures? The corrupt outcome is this: a loss of trust in institutions, all under the guise of good governance and the “state of institutions.”