What's with this trend of people blaming things on 'culture'. It's just a way of pushing a problem to an abstract hole. Culture is very fluid and changes very quickly. Is it African to wear jeans? To visit nightclubs? It was not, but now in many parts of the continent, it is.
The guy a few comments away on this thread was complaining about the corruption in India. Is that the culture too? When I was in China, the people would complain about the corruption in the government. Is that the culture too? Is it only the richest countries in the world that have the culture to avoid corruption?
What you're saying is this:
- Richest countries in the world like in Europe and the U.S accept corruption less
- Poorest countries in the world accept corruption more
And from that, you are drawing a causal relationship, when a correlation relationship seems to be a lot more likely.
There is no inherent African tendency towards corruption. Since you live in Africa, go to a village, or some other non-urban and traditional area, and see how much corruption there is there. You'll find that there will be almost none.
I think you're defining culture too narrowly. It's not just about wearing jeans or visiting nightclubs, it's about a shared perspective around religion, community interaction, concepts like freedom and responsibility and traditions. That kind of culture runs deep, very deep, which is part of the reason (for example) Pakistani immigrants are finding it so difficult to assimilate into the UK. They wear jeans, go to nightclubs and all the rest, but find it very difficult to break those cultural ties and perceptions.
And yes, I'd argue that the same cultural flaws that make corruption acceptable in Africa are visible in Asian societies like India and China, though they are far less severe. Perhaps one could argue that they have a far more recent history of prolonged totalitarianism than the US or Western Europe; that with all the years of kings and Rajs, followed by colonialism (Mao's Communist Party in the case of China) and then socialist dictators there just has not yet been time to shift cultures enough.
And I'm frequently in rural villages and settlements, yet the same cultural bias in favour of poor governance and corruption are just as visible there. Village chiefs and the heads of important families are allowed the most outrageous excesses simply by virtue of their rank and there is little anger when money gets skimmed off the top of funds coming from the outside, even when earmarked for development. I can't quite understand it.
So yes, I do regard culture in some parts of the world as being a causal factor towards their countries' poor economic performance. I think economic success in this world requires a certain outlook on self interest, the shared good and work and that without that a country helps cause its own poverty. But I have no idea how to change it.
You're wrong, but I don't want to argue anymore. If you think that Africans have a genetic or cultural disposition towards corruption, then that is your opinion, and I'm not going to try to change it. I disagree completely, but trying to prove someone on the internet wrong is something I'd rather not spend my time on.
It's not a genetic disposition to corruption but a tolerance developed through overexposure. When most cops are corrupt there is less outrage over one corrupt cop because that is normal. People learn to accept what is all around them. Part of culture is what is tolerated and what isn't. It's a Catch-22.
The same thing can happen in the United States. Louisiana has a history of corruption mostly dating back to Huey Long but present before his term as governor (I grew up in Louisiana). Most voters accept it. It is assumed in every election that all the candidates are crooks. William Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 dollars in bribes in his freezer, will continue to be reelected partly because voters don't expect better from other politicians. Alaska is different. It is a younger state with a less entrenched culture of corruption. Ted Stevens who was far more popular than William Jefferson lost a close race due to his convictions on corruption charges.
There's is also a feedback effect when it becomes so entrenched that everyone has participated in it. It's one thing to pay a bribe to a cop to avoid trouble. It's another to seek out someone to put a stamp on something so that you do ABC. When corruption is the system, most people reach that point. A large number of (basically decent) people also reach the point where they are actually accepting black money. That would definitely accelorate tolerance.
Not genetic, but cultural. The latter is fluid, though not as quick to change as you believe. Nevertheless, I think that African ideas, attitudes and cultures are changing for the better and I do have some optimism for the continent's future.
Still, I agree that there's not much point in continuing this. We're both arguing from the perspectives obtained from personal observation, so chances are this wouldn't have gone anywhere useful in any case. But thanks for the discussion.
> If you think that Africans have a genetic or cultural disposition towards corruption, then that is your opinion, and I'm not going to try to change it. I disagree completely
What else do you call it when a large proportion of a society broadly engage in and accept a practice?
I think it's fine if you don't like calling it a "cultural disposition", but you have to call it something. For some reason this practice is entrenched there (or do you disagree with even that?) and it's a major obstacle to progress in eliminating poverty. If we can't even refer to it using some terms to describe it, how can we deal with it?
I think we are hitting semantics here. Seems obvious to me that 'a genetic or cultural disposition' that is being opposed in the comment you quote is referring to an 'a priori' disposition: a deeply engrained cultural element that isn't going to be changed by a few generations of poverty, prosperity or political instability.
I think the reason it is being so vehemently opposed (by what seems like a large minority here) should be obvious. It's fairly obvious that cultural elements are involved. The fact that people take & give bribes is a display of culture. But people from places where corruption is less rampant & the conditions for culture are less then ideal, are dismissing this as a genetic disposition or cultural equivalent of 'genetic disposition'. That's a smug sort of a conclusion to come to.
Sure there are cultures that would be more resistant to corruption. But that is probably dwarfed relatively to other factors. Certain colonial practices for example, layed foundations for corruption - especially in certain parts of Africa. There is no reason to assume that Americans would be more resistant to corruption simply because it is now a functioning country.
Actually, the fact that we have a layered government (local, state, and federal) makes its more resistant to corruption. During the vietnam war, a federal investigation of New York's Drug Enforcement Squad eventually landed 2/3rds of the force in front of a grand jury.
Corruption at the local level? Make it a state case.
Corruption at the state level? Make it a federal case.
Corruption at the federal level?
this is where it gets tricky. Ideally another "branch" of government is supposed to serve as a check or balance against the others, this is not always the case.
The main reason for the difficulties of Pakistanis to integrate into english society is that it is obvious for others that they are frpm Pakistan(or India) even if they have changed culturally.
A person from the countryside of northern Sweden may be as culturally different as the Pakistani on arrival but after he has adjusted his culture and accent it's impossible to tell that he is not british.
I don't think there's an African tendency towards corruption or a European tendency towards a lack thereof. Neither of those continents has a homogenous cultural (nor socio-economic) landscape.
But I do think there are cultures which tolerate more corruption than others. For instance, Italy, despite being a wealthy European country, tolerates much more than, say, Belgium. My Sicilian friends have indicated that this is because the government in Sicily, for instance, was long seen as not having a public mandate and constantly shifting allegiances while the mafia was a constant, much more predictable entity: "cosa nostra".
I would venture that corruption as such is as much a function of the view of the government as legitimate over a period of multiple generations as economic conditions. And Africa's modern history of imperial and home grown despots hasn't done well to legitimize the rule of law.
The guy a few comments away on this thread was complaining about the corruption in India. Is that the culture too? When I was in China, the people would complain about the corruption in the government. Is that the culture too? Is it only the richest countries in the world that have the culture to avoid corruption?
What you're saying is this:
- Richest countries in the world like in Europe and the U.S accept corruption less
- Poorest countries in the world accept corruption more
And from that, you are drawing a causal relationship, when a correlation relationship seems to be a lot more likely.
There is no inherent African tendency towards corruption. Since you live in Africa, go to a village, or some other non-urban and traditional area, and see how much corruption there is there. You'll find that there will be almost none.