The Arlington Way: A Collaborative Method

            The Arlington Way, is essentially a method of decision making that creates a process in which city residents are able to actively participate by giving their input on certain policies, and development plans. The overall process is collaborative and allows for input from various parties to be included in the overall decision making.

               

             While the Arlington Way seems to be an attractive method of preventing corruption it seems that it too is also not immune to human faults. The first issue with the Arlington Way is that there is not one set definition for it. The idea of it is to be able to involve people from civil society within Arlington. It composed of an elaborate system of advisory commissions and committees to tap into the talent that is within Arlington. Essentially is a way for local government to have a more collaborative process with the local community.

While this seems to be how the Arlington local government has chosen to make many of its decisions, it seemed to have fell into criticism. Citing those allowed to participate in the Arlington Way are influential individuals within the  city of Arlington.          

   

          The problem faced isn't that the process itself is flawed, but the sense that while the process is utilized and concerned residents are able to give their input through this democratic process. The County Board does not put into account the input from the process when making decisions on important issues. This disregard of the input gathered from the process as recently brought into question if the Arlington Way is no longer an effective tool for local governance. The Arlington Way may be a possible example of how to stimulate active participation in local governance and  work towards preventing corruption. (Arlington Way) 

Insecurity Instead of Hope: Corruption Case in Iraqi Society

After the downfall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraqi people embraced big hope for future.  They must have dreamed their life without the dictator’s oppression, but with democratic freedom.  However, this hope failed realized.  Instead, people are suffering with unstable and insecure situation all over the nation.  In these abnormal years without proper government function, the only way which saves them in the society is corruption.

              Nowadays, corruption is everywhere at every level of society.  Just after the fall of Baghdad, political leaders shortly started to collect as much money as they could in order to compete in the harsh struggles for power among tons of various parties.  This socially infected to the life of Iraqi citizens, causing difficulty to obtain basic necessities and medical cares without bribery.  People can only find foods, waters and oil at black markets.  Getting administrative jobs is required to pay.  Moreover, currency inflation has struck people’s life, especially the poor who are overwhelmed to pay enough even for protecting their life.  According to UN’s survey (2013), “the prevalence of bribery among Iraqi citizens who had at least one contact with a public office was 11.6 per cent in a twelve-month period.”  Also, in terms of the frequency of bribery, the average reaches almost “one bribe every three months” per briber.

Coonjohn (2012) examines three factors which cause corruption in Iraq: Socio-religious, Psycho-social, and economic factors.  He explains Socio-religious factor as the mixture of contradictory thought of Islam and traditional Bedouin behavior.  The former sees corruption with castigation while the latter partly admires as brave behavior taking the risk.  In this way, the sense of admiration to corruption allows politicians to excuse.  Also, as psycho-social factor is concerned, people losing their hope gradually have increased anxiety of their life with strong desire of basic necessities.  However, since there was nothing they could obtain with normal procedure, paying extra money was the only choice to survive.  At last, economic factor is caused by lack of Iraqi national banking system which is affected by “disreputable elements”.

The invasion of Iraq by the coalition of U.S. and U.K. has still been seen with doubt if it was right.  However, it must be true that the coalition states had misunderstood how much the Republic of Iraq is complicated, which blocks Iraq’s peaceful post-conflict process.  More than anything, it is the poor class who suffers the most and is oppressed by unseen power of corruption and political struggles.  The control of corruption is an urgent issue for the achievement of stability and security in Iraq.

References

Coonjohn, J. (2012). Corruption in Post-Conflict Environments: An Iraqi Case Study. Retrieved from http://www.kcdme.com/Corruption%20in%20Post-Conflict%20Environments%2002.02.2012.pdf

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2013). Corruption and Integrity Challenges in the Public Sector of Iraq: An evidence-based study. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/publications/2013_Report_on_Corruption_and_Integrity_Iraq.pdf

Ghanim, W. (2013). Currency class war: damaged dinar notes result in bribery, injustice. Retrieved from http://www.niqash.org/articles/?id=3244

The People Have Spoken| Malawi’s Fight Against Corruption

            Whether it’s the Western investors, the protestors in Malawi, or President Joyce Banda’s own accord, there is a new waive of anticorruption sentiment within Malawi. This past week Banda removed a large portion of her cabinet from office due to speculations of embezzlement, and fraud. Members within Banda’s cabinet were caught with millions of Kwacha hidden in their homes.

President Joyce Banda

            Upon removing her cabinet members, Banda set up an investigation committee of police and government officials to seek out other forms of corruption. She has been pressured by recent protests in the capitol city of Lilongwe asking for the punishment of these government officials. Protests erupted this summer when Malawians were outraged by high fuel and food prices, and more importantly the increasingly authoritarian government. In the case of Malawi, citizens view the direction of government as being more authoritarian, and thus associated with an increase of corrupt methods.

            Recent developments within the government prove that Malawi citizens were in fact justified in their worries. With again the current cabinet members facing embezzlement and fraud charges, Malawians hit the streets. This time protestors went directly to Capitol Hill outside the Vice President Khumbo Kachali’s quarters. He spent the past three weeks answering to the accusations, and trying to assure the citizens that they were taking all steps necessary to rectify the situation.

            What is to come for Malawi after months of protests, corruption, and an opaque government? Many blogs written by Malawian intellectuals argue that President Banda herself is to blame for this recent scandal. They point out that she never claimed her assets publically, continued to hire corrupt personal, and only persecutes them after scandals erupt. There is high discontent with president Banda within Malawi, but her efforts to crack down on corruption are applauded in the West. I feel that unless Banda herself takes a more transparent role, the protests will not end, and neither will the distrust with government officials. Malawi has a long history of corruption, but citizens reached a breaking point this summer with allegations of rampant corruption. The people of Malawi have finally spoken, and corruption is their target. 

Mensalão Scandal: A Panel on Brasilian Corruption

           

   On October 4, 2013 a panel was held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center of Scholars. The panel discussed the Mensalão trial in Brasil. On the panel: Oscar Vihena, Peter Messitte, Marcelo Costenaro Cavali and Mathew Taylor. The trial is the largest on political corruption in Brasil's history. As this case involves 25 high profile public officials in Brasil's parliament. The case itself has lasted for nearly nine to ten years, and is not close to a definitive conclusion. While everyone involved has been convicted; 12 of the convicted are having their  cases reviewed. Creating controversy and scrutiny of Brasil's legal system.

          Oscar Vihena was the first speaker on the panel. While he was speaking he made a few points regarding the nature of this case. Brasil's Supreme Court takes criminal cases involving high profile and ranking officials in Brasil. The Supreme court makes public decisions since 1994, which are usually televised for the public to follow. Peter Messitte emphasizes the difference between the judicial system in Brasil in relation to the United States. He compares the two Supreme courts where in the US  the Supreme court does not make public decisions and does not have jurisdiction over criminal cases therefore do not have trials regarding criminal cases. Marcelo Costenaro Cavali mentioned that the result of the case does not matter much due to corruption within the criminal justice system itself. Mathew Taylor from there explains how the Mensalão trial is the exception to the rule in Brasil. Mentioning the fact that in the last 10 years of the case less than 6 percent of the accused have been convicted. Brasil still faces Issues of transparency and accountability. Also due to the statute of limitation laws  often many cases regarding corruption have not been addressed. The question of media's role on the case,  was discussed, but there was not enough time to dissect the issue.

                With all of this information where does this leave Brasil's populace? Keeping in mind with our overarching question this case in Brasil became high profile due to the increase of media use. Noticing that throughout the panel there was controversy surrounding the televising of high profile cases in the criminal justice system. Media itself can play a role in these cases. In the Mensalão corruption scandal media's role in informing the public in Brasil has created a space in civil society where citizens are now aware of the actions of their elected officials. Corruption is not new to Brasilian politics and so understanding the media's role as a catalyst for the public to speak out against it is crucial. It is crucial for Brasil's continued economic growth and future policy reform. This can be seen today with anti-corruption protests; the public is actively becoming more involved and vocal about policy reform in Brasil.

‘Lobbying’ in U.S. Congress

Syria's Fate in the Hands of the Military Industrial Complex

Authors: Corruption Group

On September 4, 2013 Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7 in favor of the use of military force in Syria. Those that voted in favor of the use of military force in Syria have reportedly received significant funding from the defense industry.  Senators that voted 'yes' received 83 percent more funding than Senators that voted 'no' on the issue. The role of contributions to elected officials has  to an increase of the public's distrust towards current US leadership.

The significance of such a vote is not only important because this is the first time since World War II that a president of the United States has deferred to Congressional decision regarding military intervention, but also due to the unique nature of how money currently influences and undermines the democratic process in the United States. Lobbying within the United States is a legal practice, and has long often blurred the lines between legitimate contributions and graft. The implications that elected officials' decisions are influence by those with the deeper pocketbooks should sound alarms.

            Academics, and the general public alike have tried to draw the connections between lobbying and flat out bribery. Numerous pieces have been written on whether or not Lobbying is just a fancy payment plan for legislation, or a legitimate democratic process. A recent piece in Forbes magazine attempted to draw this correlation, writer Michael Maiello writes, “Con men, swindlers and cheaters pay bribes. Sophisticates hire lobbyists because lobbyists get better, more lasting results while only rarely landing in the slammer. We know intuitively that bribery and lobbying are related, and there are reams of academic papers that try to draw the line between legitimate issue advocacy and corruption”.

            This again brings our attention to the Foreign Relations Committees recent vote in favor of military action. Why is it that the 10 members who were in favor are the same ones benefiting directly from the military industry? It’s as if no one remembers Eisenhower’s daunting warnings of the Military Industrial Complex; or maybe no one cares. When something that is deemed morally wrong like bribery is legalized it loses its shock factor. According to International Business Times Jon McCain received 176,300 dollars from the defense lobby, and so it doesn’t raise questions that he’d vote in favor of military action, with no hesitation.

            From the first day of his presidency in 2009, President Barack Obama began to restrain lobbyism.  His endeavor is slightly working out: according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the annual lobbying amount has decreased from 3.50 billion dollars in 2009 to 3.31 billion in 2012, as well as the number of lobbyists from to 13,797 to 12,407.  Classified by issues, defense has the fifth biggest clients with 1,135.  Yet, lobbyism itself is being significantly influential for congressional decisions. 

Fortunately or not, the disputed vote resulted in vain since the United States’ reached deal with Russia’s proposition that Syria will allow to move its chemical weapons.  However, the situation in Syria has not been improved yet at all.  As once having set foot in it, the senators involved have their responsibility to ameliorate Syrian turbulence.  If not, the moral side of legitimate contribution is possibly misused and never seen in the light, which should not be ignored.

Works Cited

"Corruption, American Style." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.

"The Daily Caller." The Daily Caller. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2013.

"Defense Industry Gave Lavishly to Senators Who Supported Syria Strike | The Raw Story." Defense Industry Gave Lavishly to Senators Who Supported Syria Strike | The Raw Story. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2013.

Kravets, David. "Senators Authorizing Syria Strike Got More Defense Cash Than Lawmakers Voting No." Wired.com. WIRED, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.

"Lobbying Database." Opensecrets RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.

Mahaptra, Lisa. "US Senators Who Voted Yes To Military Action In Syria Get More Cash From Defense Lobby [Chart]." International Business Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2013.

"Obama's First Day: Pay Freeze, Lobbying Rules." Msnbc.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.

Silver, Josh. "Syria: Pro-War Senators Took 83% More Money From Military Industry." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 18 Sept. 2013.