Controlling Political Corruption
Name
Date
SOC 375 Social Control
Institutional Affiliation
Controlling Political Corruption
Social control is the use of laws, norms, societal structures, and rules to regulate the behavior of humans. A society cannot function without a generally agreed upon and imposed social order that makes it possible for everyday lives and division of labor. The absence of social control will only lead to confusion and chaos. There are two types of social control: formal and informal. Formal social controls are enforced by agencies of the states or federal government like the police or military. The family members, teachers, colleagues, caregivers, peers, and coaches, on the other hand, enforce informal social controls through the use of rewards and punishments. Corruption is the unlawful conduct of securing a benefit for oneself or another through means such as extortion, bribery, embezzlement, and the misuse of inside information (Gardiner, 2017). It is a behavioral consequence of greed and power, which occur due to an inadequacy of social control. In past years, various countries have implemented regulatory and legal reforms to eliminate corruption. However, these regulations are often undermined and exploited, such as in America, by politicians.
Corruption has existed since time immemorial, and it still permeates all societal levels in almost every country in the world. Corruption in America is present in the three branches of the government, judiciary, legislative and executive, but is most common in the legislative and government branch. Scandals and corruption have long been regular and conspicuous features of the government and American politics. In the nineteen and early twentieth centuries, there were the oil, land, and railroad scandals, whereas congressional, presidential, and electoral scandals riddled the late twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, no rules were regulating political conduct, and what may now be considered as conspicuously corrupt was ordinary political dealings (Heywood, 1997). Recently, these unethical behaviors are getting into the limelight more often, with companies using it to gain undue influence in the changing of regulations and government policies. Eventually, political corruption fuels widespread disappointment with the political process, thus threatening to undermine democracy and the social contract.
A survey by Transparency International revealed that forty-four percent of Americans perceive those in the Office of the President as the most corrupt (Transparency International, 2017). Political corruption occurs when politicians are elected and during the formulation of public policies. Corruption during the electoral process can include electoral fraud, cheating in campaigns, and buying of votes. Corruption in the policy formulation process is conducted by the executive and legislative branches and include unlawful political financing. These types of corruption can have adverse consequences. For example, electoral corruption may lead to social unrest and violence, eroding the trust of the people in the entire political process as well as leading to the unfair distribution of power. Corruption during the policymaking process undermines the ruling system and leads to the emergence of politicians more interested in personal gains than meeting the needs of the public.
Due to the adverse effects of political corruption, it is thus essential that we curb it now before the situation exacerbated and lead to the American’s total lack of faith in the government. Eliminating political corruption will require the implementation of both informal and formal social control methods (Gardiner, 2017). The informal method includes the mobilization of the public. This can take place through educational campaigns, advocacy campaigns, and investigations. Social actors of the society, such as newspapers, social movements, and religious leaders, should take the initiative of changing the perspective of the public on their influence on political processes, hence their contribution to the elimination of political corruption. These social actors can conduct investigations on corrupt politicians to bring them to the light of the public, which will then demand the politician to be held accountable.
The formal social controls include modifying the existing laws, especially the anti-corruption laws, and extend others. For example, campaign funds needed are usually significant, and individuals campaigning may not be able to come up with the money solely. Therefore, most candidates seek funds from private sectors who have interests in policy outcomes hence try to gain a direct influence (Gokcekus & Sonan, 2017). Therefore, there should be a law that prohibits private financing of campaigns. Public funding of campaigns should be the allowed alternative. If approved, there should be a limit to the private funds received from a single source. This will also make politicians focus more on issues than fundraising.
The law on transparency should be extended to all political processes. For example, during the electoral process, campaign sources and finance figures should be made available to the public. More transparency should also be in political spending. There should real-time information readily available to the public on political spending by public companies and every level of influence, such as in political campaigns. Exchanges between lobbyists or corporations personnel and elected government officials should be made public. This will complement the informal control in making the public more empowered to fight political corruption.
External enforcement mechanisms such as audit institutions and electoral observers should also be strengthened. When audit companies conduct public examinations of political behavior, independently, the incentive to take part in political corruption will be reduced. These mechanisms will not only ensure that politicians are always disciplined but increase the chances of legal actions taken against corrupt politicians. During the public examinations, laws that protect those who reveal information about political misconduct by the government as well as its contractors
should be implemented.
To get ahead of political corruption, we need to incorporate several strategies that mainly focus on giving more power to the public and changing present anti-corruption laws to make them more useful. Such plans include implementing both formal and informal social controls such as social mobilization, enforcement strategies, rule-changing strategies, and transparency strategies. Although not as prevalent as in other countries, we must weed out the political corruption that is slowly rising based on the increasing cases and the widespread conflict of interest.
References
Gardiner, J. (2017). Defining corruption. In Political Corruption (pp. 25-40). Routledge.
Gokcekus, O., & Sonan, S. (2017). Political contributions and corruption in the United States. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 20(4), 360-372.
Heywood, P. (1997). Political corruption: Problems and perspectives. Political studies, 45(3), 417-435.
Transparency International. Corruption in the USA: The difference a year makes. www.transparency.org.https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_in_the_usa_the_difference_a_year_makes. Published 2020. Accessed April 11, 2020.