In terms of governance, Trump will make USA flawed again
The term “corruption” is less clear than most people think. When I was doing research for my doctoral thesis in India, it struck me that many people I interviewed did not share my understanding. To me, corruption meant “the abuse of public office for private gains”. In the eyes of many Indians, however, “corrupt” basically meant “unfair”, and the word was not necessarily related to public office or any illegitimate use of power.
For example, some Indians would consider government spending on a minority community corrupt simply because they did not belong to the community concerned. In their eyes, it was unfair, so they used the word “corrupt”. It did not matter that such government spending was in line with the law and even mandated by the law.
I found it striking that this blurred notion of corruption typically went along with a poor understanding of the different branches of government. People who tended to see corruption everywhere also felt that “the” government was controlling everything, but they could not clarify whether they meant the regional state government or the national government. To them, the government was a monolithic block, made up of crooks that were all somehow involved in overarching shady networks. The division of powers between the judicial and the administrative branches of government did not matter to them. They believed that someone at the top was taking arbitrary decisions at whim, and unless they agreed with those decision, they called them “corrupt”.
Most of the Indians who saw things this way had not enjoyed much education, but some actually had graduated from university. This unrefined understanding of political affairs gave rise to excessive conspiracy theories.
My point is that one needs to understand the checks and balances that a democracy depends on. Otherwise it is impossible to see whether a government agency is fulfilling its duties properly or abusing its powers. The distinction between illegitimate and legitimate action is very important.
Not every government decision that a citizen may deem unfair is actually “corrupt”. In political life, different people have different interests, and even in a democracy, some interests prevail over others. If that results from correct procedures and reflects the popular will as expressed in elections, that is not “corruption”. As government policies and state-run programmes result from complex processes of decision-making, moreover, they will never be perfect. They achieve goals to some extent, but not entirely. Democracy requires compromise, and the separation of powers serves such compromise.
It is most irritating, therefore, that the future president of the USA seems fond of the idea that the head of state can boss everyone around with a mere tweet or two. It is equally irritating that he does not seem to understand that complex policies require complex trade-offs. During the campaign he promised to replace his predecessor’s health-care reform with something cheaper and better, but he never explained how he would provide more services for less money. He simply pretended that the strongman at the top can order things to happen as it pleases him.
An oligarchic kleptocracy can be run by an autocratic leader who gives orders. A dynamic market-economy, however, is more complex. To thrive, a competition-based system needs abstract laws that apply to everyone, not short-term interventions by the boss at the top.
Trump’s idea of leadership looks pre-democratic. Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that the future president of the USA basically uses “corruption” and related terms in the unrefined way masses of uneducated Indians did 20 years ago. What serves him is fine, what bothers him is “corrupt”.
Before the event, he claimed the election was rigged, so he would only accept the result if he won. After winning enough states to become president in spite of getting almost 3 million fewer votes than his opponent, he suddenly spoke of the “genius” of the electoral college. Four years earlier, when he briefly believed that Barack Obama had prevailed over Mitt Romney in spite of losing the popular vote, he had called for a "revolution" on twitter. Ever since he had kept insisting that whoever won the popular vote should become president. When he noticed that his success depended on the electoral college, he changed his mind.
His stance is entirely opportunistic. Moreover, self-congratulatory disregard for 3 million voters is undemocratic. This is how autocrats operate. Trump does not sound like an elected leader who has great respect for the institutions of democracy.
Let’s return to the core meaning of corruption. To prevent the abuse of public office for private gains one needs to understand both the duties of office and an office holder’s business interests. The more the lines are blurred, the greater the scope for abusive action becomes.
Accordingly, it is third-worldish that Trump’s party is refusing to deal with their leader’s many conflicts of interest. One prominent Republican, Newt Gingrich, even argues that the USA should change its ethics system because the old rules cannot apply to a great businessman. Trump himself, and some of his followers, have suggested that rich people cannot be corrupt, because they don’t need any more money. This idea is bizarre – especially when expressed by people who normally say that the profit motive drives economies. If the desire for more money ceases at some point of wealth, why do they always want to cut the taxes the rich must pay? And how would crony capitalism be possible without corruption? Does it matter at all that Republicans like to blame foreign countries for crony capitalism?
It is impossible for the public to understand all of Trump’s business interests since – against well-established democratic conventions – he did not publish his tax returns. According to a constitutional clause, moreover, the president of the USA may not accept any money from foreign governments. For all we know, he will breach this rule the moment he is sworn in because of his many foreign investments. In November, he promised to hold a press conference to explain how he would step back from his business to avoid conflicts of interest. He cancelled the event in mid-December and has not offered any detailed information on the matter since. (Update on 12 January 2017: He did discuss the matter at a press conference two days ago, but he offered no re-assuring information. The Financial Time's assessment is summed up in the headline "Donald Trump’s abject failure on conflicts of interest".) To people familiar with developing countries, his grandstanding looks most familiar.
During the campaign, Republicans kept threatening they would impeach Hillary Clinton, should she win. They kept suggesting she was corrupt. One example they gave was that, as secretary of state, she once met Mohammed Yunus of the Grameen Bank, a Nobel laureate, who is involved with her husband’s charitable Clinton Foundation.
Now they are keeping quiet about Trump’s much more blatant conflicts of interest. They seem to feel it is okay for a profit-driven hotel that is owned by the president-elect to sell tickets for a New Years party, promising the president-elect will be there. Not does it bother them that the building permission for a new Trump Tower in Buenos Aires came about shortly after the president-elect had a telephone conversation with Argentina’s President Mauricio Macri. Such coincidences raise suspicions - not only in Latin America.
It fits the picture that the Republicans in the House of Representatives tried to abolish the independent agency that is keeping a check on them early this week. They backtracked after feeling an angry backlash from the public. The big question now is just how much the public of the USA will accept developing-country governance in the next four years.
I won’t discuss all of Trump’s obvious conflicts of interest here. There are many more. If you are interested in the issue, check out hat New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has to say on the matter.