Functional Corruption vs Corrosive Corruption

La Pia (with Dante & Virgil) by Gustave Doré

Corruption has several meanings; however, in this particular article, corruption will only mean: dishonesty and bribery.

Is corruption a moral crime? I used to categorically think so - especially after my frustrating personal experience in Africa - but today I am beginning to be more inclined to say "It depends".
Every year, reports are issued to indicate which nation-member of the EU, of the OECD,  or of the WTO (for instance) is more corrupt or less transparent; but the most uncomfortable truth is that all countries are corrupt in some shape or form.

Corruption is ubiquitous. For example:

  • Certain groups financially contribute to certain causes (that have a high social impact), in order to obtain political gains.
  • Salafi  institutions (included in Saudi Arabia's Foreign Policy strategy, for instance) invest in strategic American industries (e.g. media), donate heavily to American universities (to have researchers and experts under their control) and make sure that the PR industry keeps hiring people - through millionaire PR contracts; to be able to guarantee that Saudi Arabia won't be devoured in the arena of public opinion and, that the Ummah's susceptibilities won't be hurt in the West.
  • Certain Islamic Republics contribute to many European foundations, universities and other organisations; to make sure their proxies won't be banned or blacklisted as Terrorist Groups - for instance.
  • Some politicians have been known for receiving incentives to make the wheel of the system turn in favour of certain organisations (that end up generating thousands of jobs, developing the borough and, thus, being a crucial element to the local economy).

When corruption is constructive (i.e. a win-win sort of situation; when it leads to the creation of jobs, of quality infrastructures; to investment in education, R&D and arts; to the development of local economies [thus, taking the burden off the government's budget] etc) it is called Functional Corruption; something that we, as a society, are usually more than willing to accept since the people benefit from it.

Functional corruption presents a dilemma though: by widely accepting it, we have no regard for the political consequences that stem from it - id est, falling prey to groups/nations with questionable agendas. Yet without it the wheel of establishment may get stuck.

When corruption is destructive (i.e. a win-lose sort of situation; when a small group gets rich at the expense of the people, in general, who will not have jobs; who will starve; whose infrastructure is either non-existent or of poor quality; who either get a brainwashing education or do not get any at all; who view R&D as a foreign frivolousness; who are brainwashed into considering art as a distraction, etc etc) it is called Corrosive Corruption; something that we are not so willing to accept because the people are humiliated and destroyed by it. This sort of corruption is undoubtedly a moral crime.

The examples of Corrosive Corruption are rife; but I would like to invite you to observe our society and look about for the subliminal effects of Functional Corruption...

"All institutions are prone to corruption and to the vices of their members." -- Morris West


  1. India is the mother of all corrupt countries. It is in our psyche to be corrupt. We start by bribing our gods for favours and that becomes a habit, and once we become gods, read politicos and bureaucrats, we see nothing wrong in taking bribes. I personally do not mind giving a bribe but would kick butt if I was harassed to give. The weak cannot kick butt and they are harassed. But it is like the Athenians in Antigone, who agree with Creon before him but disagree in private.

    1. Hi Rummy :D!

      "We start by bribing our gods for favours and that becomes a habit, and once we become gods, read politicos and bureaucrats, we see nothing wrong in taking bribes"

      LOL LOL I so hear you...*nodding*...

      That is the problem I had in Africa: I was harassed to give (even if very subtly) and it would drive me crazy (especially when it was the police doing it) *nodding*.

      Indeed, indeed...

      Rummy, thank you ever so much for your outstanding comment :D. Always a pleasure.


  2. Max, it's me "Fed Up Reader". Yeah, the Saudis are spreading money around to buy friendship, if you know what I mean, and then call it soft power or something like that. And they are not the only ones! Why didn't Bosnia expel the Iranian spies? Why isn't Europe blacklisting Hizballah? Why do we see American experts trying to convince us that the Tsarnaev brothers are self-radicalized? Yeah, that's right: Muslim money!
    Corruption is a cancer!!!

    1. Hi Adam :D!

      I loved your profile: you are a hoot, man *nodding*. So, Google coerced you, eh?

      Actually, spreading money around to influence political behaviours is part of Hard Power. However, hosting certain cultural events in the Arabic Gulf (with western actors, producers etc) is soft power; know what I mean?

      Nevertheless, you ask very important questions. I have also noticed that insistence upon trying to convince us that the Boston Bombing Boys are self-radicalised...when they are not. But oh well...

      Adam, thank you so much for your comment :D. Hope to see you here more often.


  3. Corruption is corruption no matter what and it's totally unacceptable, period! Those being cool with it are as corrupt as those that corrupt no matter the circumstances no matter the end result!

    1. Celia, Celia, Celia, I was waiting for you! As always so linear, so white or black for you. Are you calling all of us corrupt or just Max and Rummuser?

    2. Hi Celia :D!

      I used to think that too.
      Thank you for sharing your opinion with us, love :D.


  4. Europe has to stop accepting Islamic bribes, in any form or shape, and they need to start calling things for their proper names, don't they now? See if you recognise this words:

    "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you." - Today, 14:20, South East London (Islamic terrorist chopped a bloke on the middle of the street, in broad daylight for heavens sake!

    1. Hi Anonymous :D!

      I would agree that they will never stop fighting against us as long as we continue to be soft, or ambiguous, on terror.

      What happened in London yesterday was terrible *nodding*. I am never shocked, but yesterday I was...

      Anonymous, thank you so much for your input :D.


  5. Olá Max,

    Functional corruption reminds me of the Mayor of Oeiras (Mayor Isaltino case); have you heard of it?
    It is true that there are a lot of business in the political stage and corruption is a result of it. It works most of the times but it is still shameful! It corrupts the democratic spirit!

    The message you send in this post is very important: the Saudi tentacles are everywhere and European politicians are just subserviently taking it! I wish they would stop being afraid of not being politically correct and take a real stand against these dangerous people.
    I am sorry, Max, for sounding like a bigot but I am simply shocked by today's events - I am still shaking!


    1. Oi Celeste :D!

      Yes, I have heard of Mayor Isaltino: he has done a wonderful job in his town. I love Oeiras (it is such a gorgeous place). I am not sure he is corrupt although he did fail to report his Swiss bank accounts (a politician cannot do that).

      True. Yes, I could say that you do sound like a bigot but just a tiny bit ;). You are entitled to be shocked; I was shocked myself yesterday: dreadful, dreadful news! *nodding*

      Celeste, I hope you are calmer today and thank you so much for your comment :D.


  6. You have read my mind Max, I completely agree with your thoughts and the two modes pf corruption. One that is for the nations cause, which is for the larger good of the society as a whole and one that is for personal cause out of sheer greed. But there is a catch 22 here between the giver and the taker. From the giver's point of view more often than not it will be for a cause which has larger significance and sometimes also for personal gains, but it is mostly the taker, whose point of view will be purely be seen as for personal greed and is we see the world as a whole and the transparency index it is more often than not that the under-developed or the developing countries which are more prone or susceptible to be the 'Takers' and the developed countries more often than not 'Givers'. To me only if the 'bribe' would have reached a larger mass or towards the cause of a society rather than a few pockets, I think it would have been a much better way out.

    1. Hi Kalyan :D!

      We are on the same page on this one then *bowing*.

      I am inclined to agree with you on your Taker/Giver theory; you made a good case.

      K, thank you ever so much for your awesome comment. I hope people drink your words. :D



Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers