democracy and corruption

Democracy is only understood as a form of organization, which is narrow! It is more a kind of learning, a means of seeking truth, and a means of preventing corruption. The whole process of democracy is the means to realize people's power and happiness!

People believe that there are many reasons for corruption, such as the level of economic development, system problems, power concentration, personal quality and moral level, supervision mechanism and so on.

The reason why things rot is undoubtedly due to conditions such as lack of sunlight and darkness. Human corruption is caused by lack of sunlight, privacy or concealment for the same reason, and has no necessary relationship with the level of economic development. Otherwise, backward primitive communism would not exist. The essence of power concentration is a kind of exercise of power by a small number of people or individuals, that is, the exercise of power is not open and lacks sunlight. Supervising from another angle is also to expose power to the sun. Personal quality and moral level, this is also sunshine power in disguise.

Democracy, which is often talked about by everyone, is a kind of supervision, whether it is majority democracy or minority democracy, or it allows everyone to understand the operation process of the object. Democracy is not only respect for everyone's rights, but also a process of jointly exploring the truth, at least the truth, and a process of jointly understanding things or objects and achieving goals. As for power, the power of democracy is the power of sunshine.

The process of human historical development is a process of civilization improvement. Democracy, the way of operation and organization, is exactly the means to promote civilization. However, due to the existence of different interest groups or different classes and strata, including different people's cognitive and moral levels are inconsistent, the power of sunshine is often misinterpreted, or used, or it is purely absent from the sunshine of power! Instead, it became a private tool, which led to varying degrees of corruption! Social reality and truth have become a fog. The development of democracy is consistent with the development of the spirit of the times. Different times and systems, democracy itself is a kind of sunshine with limitations. Although there are unsatisfactory ones, it is sunshine after all. Therefore, power with democracy is much less corrupt than power without democracy !

Corruption is basically all related to power, and the fight against corruption undoubtedly starts with power. The essence of power is to serve the people, and it is operated by people. If you want the sunshine, it is undoubtedly the sunshine of power on the one hand, and the sunshine of people with power on the other. Only by expanding and liberating the sunshine of the two, can corruption be minimized as much as possible. This is the substantive anti-corruption, the love for the people and the protection of officials themselves. These two are further discussed below.

Sunshine and democratization of power itself. In a certain historical period, there are ethnic differences and contradictions, and even contradictions between the enemy and ourselves. It is impossible to run everything in the sun, which will inevitably lead to the concealment of power and the corresponding period of limitation. Based on this, we should clearly define the scope of such powers to ensure the operation of social politics and economy. But the vast majority of things can be operated by sunshine, and should be dealt with by the power of sunshine. Such as democracy, supervision and so on.

The sources of people who use power should be broadened. Civil servants are a common occupation, and officials should not all be civil servants, and even civil servants should not be officials. However, the reality is that officials are civil servants, and civil servants have a 95% or even higher probability of being officials. In other words, civil servants have basically become the only channel for officials, and the essence has been cultivating a bureaucratic group that should not be bureaucrats for a long time. Officials should be a gathering of people from all walks of life, whether you are in education or business, whether you are a courier or a doctor, as long as you meet a set basic condition, you should have the right to apply for officials , Participate in social management. Thereby weakening the officials themselves, weakening the idea of official standard, thereby strengthening the service function of democracy, and practicing the substantive, rather than formalized, democracy of the whole process. This is conducive to anti-corruption and anti-corruption, and is conducive to serving the people.

One of the purposes of the communists is to serve the people wholeheartedly. Only when her managers come from all walks of life of the people, rather than from within a long-established bureaucratic team, can they break the bureaucracy. Of course, this alone is not enough. Not only should there be a corresponding system, but there should also be a corresponding vanguard to lead and generate a corresponding spirit of the times. On this basis, we will gradually crack down on corruption, so as to better serve the people and revive China!

In short, democracy in a certain era is limited sunshine, but democracy in the whole process is not only the expansion of quantity, but also the improvement of quality. In this way, when technology advances to a certain level, people's power can be better exerted, better and faster Improve people's happiness!

Definition of "corruption"

The study of any social phenomenon must be based on a clear definition of its concepts. For the concept of "corruption", different scholars have made various definitions from different angles. Generally speaking, they can be classified into three categories:

(1) Public office-centric definitions that view corrupt practices as a breach of the norms of public office;

(2) market-centric definitions, which summarize corruption in terms of economic gain;

(3) Public interest-centered definitions, which attribute corruption to the encroachment of public interests.

Of these, Joseph Nye's definition centered on public office is the most frequently cited definition. Nye argues that "(corruption) is an act that deviates from the norms and obligations of a public role because of consideration of private (family, closely related private group) interests in terms of money and social status; or in violation of certain rules for personal gain. These Behaviors include bribery (the use of compensation to change the judgment of a responsible person), nepotism (granting patronage for special relationships rather than talents and virtues), and public misappropriation (illegal appropriation of public resources for private use).” This article will also use Nye's definition.

The relationship between country size and political corruption

Asia is one of the regions with severe corruption in the world, but Singapore and Hong Kong have become models of global anti-corruption governance with relatively high scores in the corruption perception index. Domestic voices for learning from the experience of Singapore and Hong Kong are also considerable. However, the successful experience of Singapore and Hong Kong, due to its particularity (the extremely small size of the city), cannot provide a general guiding significance for the governance of corruption in major countries.

Specifically, the anti-corruption measures in Hong Kong and Singapore are actually not innovative compared with other Western "clean and clean countries" such as Canada, Australia, and the Nordic countries. Their anti-corruption measures mainly lie in three aspects:

Establish powerful anti-corruption agencies, generally appointed by the top leader, and only accountable to the top leader, and not under the command and jurisdiction of anyone, such as the Corruption and Corruption Bureau in Singapore and the Independent Commission Against Corruption in Hong Kong;

a sophisticated anti-corruption legal system;

Strict civil service system.

Objectively speaking, the top countries in the global corruption perception index rankings are basically small countries. Due to their small size and small population, these countries are basically in the model of a large society and a small government. The bureaucratic system structure is relatively simple, so objectively they lack The soil that produces large-scale corruption; even in countries with large land areas like Australia and Canada, due to the vast land and sparse population, the establishment of government agencies is actually relatively simple. As a big country with a large land area, a dense population and a developed economy, China is not comparable to these countries, but it is more comparable to a populous country with a similarly developed bureaucracy. Because, due to the large land area and large population, the country will inevitably need a more complex, huge bureaucratic system and more public officials to manage. According to the basic principle that the more complex a system is, the more likely it will cause problems, complex Bureaucracies are inherently more challenged by corruption. Among the top ten countries with the largest population in the world, only the United States and Japan rank high in the Corruption Perceptions Index, and other countries are facing serious corruption problems. Among them, countries with a large territory such as India rank 85th. Brazil ranks 69th, Mexico ranks 103rd, Indonesia ranks 107th, and Russia ranks 136th. The impact of country size on corruption can be seen. In fact, the United States and Japan are also facing their own corruption problems, only due to the particularity of their political systems and political cultures and the objective flaws in the "corruption perception index" (the global corruption perception index released by Transparency International every year is measured by entrepreneurs, risk Analysts and the general public are the subjects of the survey. According to their experiences and feelings, countries are scored from 10 to 0. The higher the score, the lower the corruption level. The influence of the special political culture of the country where the country is located, so some substantive corruption is likely to be ignored), making the domestic corruption problem less prominent and obvious, and this is what the next part of this article will mainly discuss.

Comparative Politics: Corruption in Great Powers

There is a general misunderstanding about the relationship between corruption and democratic politics, that is, democratic countries are less prone to political corruption, and democratic systems are effective measures to limit corruption. In fact, as discussed in the previous section, for large countries with large populations and complex bureaucratic systems, corruption is inevitable even in democratic countries. Typical examples are the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Although the United States, the banner of political democracy in the world, and Japan, the most successful democratic country in Asia, have always been at the forefront of the global corruption perception index rankings, in fact, due to its special domestic political system and political cultural traditions, although the indicators are "corrupt" There are few phenomena in the two countries, but substantial "corruption" phenomena are not uncommon and have had a profound impact on domestic political operations and political life. The observation of these neglected characteristic corruption phenomena is helpful for a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of corruption phenomena and China's corruption problems, so this part will introduce the corruption problems in the United States, Japan, and South Korea, which is similar to Japan and analysis, and finally compare it with Germany, which has a well-developed bureaucracy but a low level of corruption.

Unique Political Culture: Lobbying Political Corruption

As the captain of the democratic world, the United States has always used its regularly elected government, detailed laws, sound judicial system, and developed news media as reasons to limit official behavior, control corruption, and promote non-democratic countries. However, the exposure of Hillary Clinton’s series of political scandals before the current U.S. election, and the revelation of Abramoff’s lobbying corruption case in early 2006 all show that the United States is actually facing serious and substantive political corruption problems. . Lobbying is essentially a transaction and reciprocal behavior among congressmen, government bureaucrats and interest groups. With the development of capitalist economy, money and sex enter the political process under the cover of lobbying and cause political corruption. The main manifestation of lobbying corruption is that interest groups provide convenience, enjoyment or funding to politicians through lobbyists in exchange for politicians' attention and preference in legislation. In this process, the lobbyist and the lobbied colluded with each other, looked for legal flaws and even ignored the law, and used each other for their own self-interest.

Due to the political legitimacy obtained by the US lobbying industry in accordance with the Constitution, the corruption phenomenon caused by lobbying does not appear in the name of "corruption", but is observed and recognized as a special political phenomenon in the United States. Although lobbying itself is legal, the essence of lobbying activities—that various interest groups gain unbalanced advantages through improper means in political operations—is a real act of corruption. Therefore, it is interesting that although the political culture of lobbying in the United States has a long history and deep roots, and there are criticisms of its negative impact on the political order, it has never become a corrupt behavior that has been severely criticized and resisted by the whole society. The phenomenon of the influence of special political and cultural traditions on the cognition of corruption is instructive for us to understand the phenomenon of corruption in China.

Structural Corruption: Clean Bureaucracy and Politician Corruption

In Asia, Japan and South Korea, which are successful examples of post-war democratic transformation in the United States, have relatively less political corruption and cleaner bureaucracies than China, and the global corruption perception index seems to confirm this view. But in fact, similar to the United States, the unique political systems and political traditions of the two countries have produced characteristic structural corruption problems, and have had a serious negative impact on their domestic political equality.

In general, the coexistence of relative integrity of civil servants and corruption of politicians is the most important feature of structural corruption in Japan and South Korea. On the surface, with the advancement of modernization, the traditional authoritarian political systems of Japan and South Korea have gradually transformed into a democratic modern bureaucratic system. After the political transformation, the country’s crackdown on corruption has gradually been institutionalized, and bureaucratic corruption has been effectively controlled; but another On the one hand, the problem of political corruption has gradually become prominent. In South Korea, which is in the process of transition, bribery corruption and money politics have become prominent, and political rent-seeking behavior has become a profound social problem. Institutions donate money, while politicians give preferential treatment and favor to enterprises in economic activities. In South Korea, many presidents have been accused of corruption by themselves or their relatives. For example, Roh Moo-hyun raised more than 654 million US dollars during his tenure, of which 367 million came from 35 chaebols; The fall of the Park Geun-hye government and nationwide protests have highlighted South Korea's corruption problem.

Structural corruption in Japan is manifested in that, on the one hand, the incidence of corruption in middle and low-level bureaucracies is relatively low, and bureaucratic corruption is firmly controlled within an institutionalized framework; Behaviors generally occur at high political levels. In Japanese history, there have been many incidents of politicians accepting bribes and taking advantage of their positions for personal gain and fraud. The political impact of the cabinet. In general. In Japan, the problems caused by individual officials' dereliction of duty or illegal behavior are not serious, but the cooperation model between the government and large enterprises in Japan has become a universal and decisive important content in economic, political, and social life. A government-enterprise political corruption network, even if a high-ranking official or a person in charge of the enterprise falls from the network, it will still not affect the effectiveness of the entire corruption network. This network has made political corruption in Japan stable and continuous. Japan's unique "down to earth" system is the embodiment of this characteristic mode of government-business cooperation. Under the "down to earth system", retired officials can use their identities, experience and influence to obtain higher-level positions and salaries in private companies as a guarantee of economic life after retirement; Use the network and influence of former officials to obtain special sources from relevant departments, and coordinate when necessary through the familiar relations of government departments. This kind of characteristic social rules, as a kind of substantive political corruption, is not defined as corrupt behavior in real life, but is regarded as an unwritten political unspoken rule and The country's characteristic political activities are therefore excluded from the notoriety of "corruption".

The issue of structural corruption in Japan and South Korea raises a profound and interesting thought, that is, the difference between bureaucratic corruption and politician corruption. We found that in the context of democratic politics, bureaucratic corruption of civil servants in the bureaucratic system has received great attention and containment. It can be said that under a sound democratic system, the probability of bureaucratic corruption will be greatly reduced; but as for The situation is different when politicians are corrupt. Although no one is willing or daring to publicly support politicians’ “cooperation” with other social groups before and after elections, it is not corruption but a reasonable and legal social contract. Corruption in transactions will be regarded as an unavoidable behavior in political activities under a democratic system, and thus be "forgiven" and actively "ignored" to a certain extent. However, in non-democratic countries, since the modern bureaucratic system that separates public officials from politicians has not yet been established, politician-type corruption and bureaucratic corruption are both concerned and criticized. In this situation, the observed probability of corruption is naturally This is one of the objective but often overlooked important reasons why democracies appear to have less corruption.

The lack of transnational cooperation mechanism and the problem of corruption supervision

China is also one of the democracies with a relatively developed bureaucratic system. The social and political structure of "big government" has a long historical tradition, but the corruption problem in Germany is not serious, and large-scale corruption is relatively rare. Therefore, this brings up such an interesting question, why is the corruption problem in Germany, which is also a democratic country with a well-developed bureaucracy, more effectively solved? This is also an important reason why I bring Germany into the discussion. An explanation of this issue helps us better understand the possible means of effectively addressing corruption in great powers. In general, one of the important ways for Germany to effectively limit corruption comes from the EU's effective corruption control cooperation mechanism.

Specifically, on the one hand, the European Commission adopted the Convention on the Protection of Financial Interests of the European Community and the Convention on the Prevention of Bribery of Officials of the European Community and Officials of EU Member States in 1996 and 1997 respectively. These two treaties unanimously require member states to modify the targets of bribery crimes in their domestic criminal laws, extending from the original officials of their own countries to officials of the European Community and EU member states. In 1998, Germany adopted the special criminal law "EU Anti-Corruption Act" to incorporate the above-mentioned conventions into the domestic criminal law system; Strasbourg, France, whose purpose is to improve the ability of member states to fight corruption, promote and monitor the implementation of European Council anti-corruption standards by dynamic mutual assessment and peer pressure. On the one hand, it aims to help member states to discover the shortcomings of their domestic anti-corruption policies, and on the other hand, it aims to promote the reform of domestic anti-corruption legislation, judiciary and system of member states through such measures.

The international cooperation mechanism of the EU's anti-corruption policy has formed an effective balance and restriction interaction mechanism from the supervision and supervision of the supranational political institutions to the national institutions and the reverse supervision and supervision of the supranational institutions from the national institutions, further crowding out This creates a space for corruption to occur, and this mechanism cannot be obtained by a single national system and domestic political institutions. This makes it difficult to eliminate corruption in countries with developed bureaucratic systems. It can only be limited as much as possible and difficult to obtain. solve.

Global corruption levels will remain stagnant in 2022 for the 11th consecutive year, with 95% of countries making little progress in the fight against corruption, according to a new report by anti-corruption group Transparency International.

The group's annual Corruption Perceptions Index, released on Tuesday, ranks 180 countries and territories by measuring how corrupt the public sector is, with a score of zero indicating a highly corrupt government and a score of 100 indicating a very clean government.

Here are the key takeaways from the report:

Denmark scored the highest with 90 points, followed by Finland and New Zealand with 87 points.

Somalia scored the lowest at 12, followed by other conflict zones, including Syria and South Sudan, at 13.

Corruption indices for the UK (73) and Qatar (58) hit record lows.

Corruption levels have risen in 31 countries.

Corruption levels declined in 25 countries.

Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest average score of 32.

Western Europe maintained the highest average score at 66.

While Western Europe and the European Union still scored high, Transparency International noted that corruption levels had not improved as governments scrambled to deal with the invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis.

In the region, Hungary still has the lowest score at 42, where the EU froze funds last year, citing Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's failure to tackle corruption and protect human rights.

The Americas saw the largest increase in corruption levels last year, although the regional average remained at 43. Cuba (45th), Guatemala (24th) and Nicaragua (19th) all hit record lows, while Honduras (23rd) and Haiti (17th) have fallen sharply since 2017. Transparency International notes that economic stagnation coupled with rising levels of corruption has a growing affinity for authoritarianism.

The U.S. (2021) score has improved by two points since 69, but remains low compared to its score under the Obama administration.

Corruption levels improved the most in Afghanistan - improving its score by 2021 - despite corruption in the Afghan government that saw the Taliban take over in 2020.

The UK was one of the biggest losers on the index, falling 73 points to <>. While it's difficult to pinpoint the exact factors behind the decline, experts say political turmoil and a battered economy have tarnished the country's reputation as a stable democratic institution.

民主与腐败

主仅仅理解为组织形式，这是狭隘的！它更是一种学习，一种探求真理的手段，也是防止腐败的一种手段。全过程民主正是人民权力与幸福的实现手段！

人们认为腐败产生有许多原因，如经济发展水平，制度问题，权力集中，个人素质与道德水平，监督机制等等。

物之所以腐，无疑是没见阳光，多阴暗等条件。人之腐败，同样的原因，缺乏阳光，多私密或隐匿造成，与经济发展水平没必然联系，否则，落后的原始共产主义就不存在。权力集中本质看是一种少数人或个人行使权力，也即权力运行不公开，缺乏阳光。监督换个角度也是把权力在阳光下晒一晒。个人素质与道德水平，这也是变相的阳光权力。

大家常谈的民主，无论多数人民主还是少数人的民主都或是一种监督，或是让大家都明白对象运行过程，这也是阳光操作，明明白白的操作，过程结果都明白。民主不仅是对大家的权利尊重，也是共同探索真理，至少是真象的过程，也是对事物或对象过程共同明白，达何目标的过程。针对权力，民主的权力就是阳光的权力。

人类历史发展的过程是一个文明提升的过程，民主这种运行组织方式，正是推进文明的手段。但由于不同利益集团或不同阶级与阶层的存在，包按不同人的认知与道德水平不一致，阳光的权力常常或被曲解，或被利用，或纯粹不在权的阳光性！反而成了私人的工具，所以也导致了不同程度的腐败！社会真象与真理成了个迷雾。民主发展与时代精神发展一致，不同时代与制度，民主本身是一种有局限性的阳光，虽有不尽人意的，毕竟是阳光，因此有民主的权力比没民主的权力少了许多腐败成份！

腐败基本上全部与权力相关，要反腐无疑首先得从权力着手。权力本质是用来办事为人民服务的，其本身又是人在运行，欲其阳光，无疑一方面是权力的阳光，另一方面是权力人的阳光。只有扩大与解放这二者的阳光性，那么，腐败才尽可能的缩小，这才是实质性的反腐败，才是对人民的爱护与官员本身的保护。下面分别进一步对这二者论述。

权力本身的阳光化与民主化。在一定历史时期，存在民族差别与矛盾，甚至有敌我矛盾，不可能什么事情都阳光运行，这必然导致权力的隐匿性与对应事所时效期。我们当根据此作明确界定，这类事权的范围，确保社会政治经济运行。但绝大多数事均是可以阳光运行，当以阳光权力对之。如民主制、监督制等。

对使用权力之人的来源应该广泛化，公务员是一种普通职业，而官员不应该都是公务员，甚至公务员就不应该是官员。然而现实却是官员是公务员，公务员百分之九十五甚至更高概率是官员。换句话，公务员成了基本上是官员的唯一渠道，本质长期在培养一支不该是官僚的官僚集团。官员应该是各行各业的人的汇聚，无论你是教育，还是企业，无论你是快递员，还是医生，…………,只要在满足一个设定的基础条件上，均应该有权利应聘官员，参与社会管理。从而弱化官员本身，弱化官本位思想，从而强化民主的服务功能，实践全过程民主的实质化，而不是形式化。这才有利于防腐拒腐，才有利于为人民服务。

共产党人的宗旨之一是全心全意为人民服务，只有她的管理者来之于人民的各行各业，而不是由一支长期固化的官僚队伍内部产生的人，才可能打破官僚。当然，仅此也是不够的，不仅有相对应制度，也当有对应的先锋队引领，产生对应的时代精神，在此基础上，逐步破解腐败，从而更好为人民服务，复兴中华！

总之，一定时代民主是有局限的阳光，但全过程的民主，不仅是数量的扩大，也是质的提升，这样，才能在技术进步到一定程度时，更好发挥人的力量，更好更快提升人民幸福！

“腐败”的定义

对于任何社会现象的研究必须基于对其概念的清楚定义。对于“腐败”的概念，不同学者从不同角度做出了各种各样的定义，总体来说，可以将它们归纳为三类：

（1）以公共职位为中心的定义，它们将腐败行为视为对公职规范的背弃；

（2）以市场为中心的定义，它们从经济收益的角度概括了腐败现象；

（3）以公共利益为中心的定义，它们将腐败归之于对公共利益的蚕食。

其中约瑟夫·奈以公共职位为中心的定义是最经常被引用的定义。奈认为“（腐败）是一种因为考虑私人（家庭、关系密切的私人团体）金钱和社会地位的利益而偏离一个公共角色的规范和义务的行为；或者违背某些规则而以权谋私的行为。这些行为包括贿赂（使用报酬改变一个责任人的判断）、裙带关系（因特殊的关系而不是才能和品德而给与庇护）和霸占公共财产（因私人用途非法占用公共资源）。”本文也将采用奈的定义。

国家体量与政治腐败的关系

亚洲是世界上腐败现象比较严重的地区之一，但新加坡、香港在其中却以较高的清廉指数评分成为全球反腐治理的典范，国内关于借鉴新加坡、香港经验的呼声也颇为可观。但新加坡、香港的成功经验以其特殊性（作为城市的极小的体量），无法为大国治理腐败提供普遍性的指导意义。

具体来说，实际上香港、新加坡的反腐措施与其他西方“清廉国家”如加拿大、澳大利亚、北欧国家等相比，并无任何创新之处，其治理腐败主要在于三个方面：

设立权力极大的反腐败机构，一般由最高领导人任命，只对最高领导人负责，此外不受任何人的指挥和管辖，比如新加坡的贪污腐败局和香港的廉政公署；
严密的反腐败法律体系；
严格的公务员制度。

客观上，在全球清廉指数排行榜上排名前列的国家基本都是小国，这些国家由于幅员较小、人口较少，基本处于大社会、小政府的模式，官僚制度架构较为简单，因此客观上缺乏产生大规模腐败的土壤；即使像澳大利亚、加拿大这样国土面积较大的国家，由于地广人稀，政府机构的设置实际也较为简单。中国作为地广人稠且经济发达的大国，与这些国家缺乏可比性，而与同样官僚制度发达的人口大国才更具可比性。因为，由于国土面积广大且人口众多，国家势必需要更为复杂、庞大的官僚系统以及更多的公职人员进行管理，根据一个系统越复杂、其产生问题的可能性越大的基本原理，复杂的官僚系统在先天上就面临腐败的更严峻的挑战。在全球人口数量排在前十的国家中，只有美国和日本清廉指数排名较高，其他的国家都面临着严重的腐败问题，其中同时兼具幅员广阔特质的国家如印度排在第85位，巴西第69位，墨西哥第103位，印度尼西亚107位，俄罗斯136位，国家体量对于腐败现象的产生的影响可见一斑。实际上，美国和日本也面临着各自的腐败问题，只是由于其政治体制、政治文化的特殊性以及“清廉指数”的客观缺陷（透明国际每年发布的全球清廉指数的衡量标准以企业家、风险分析家、一般民众为调查对象，据他们的经验和感觉对各国进行由10到0的评分，得分越高，表示腐败程度越低，因此这种评价带有一定的主观性并受到被调查者所在国家的特殊政治文化的影响，因此某些实质上的腐败很可能被忽视），使得其国内的腐败问题不那么突出、显著，而这也是本文在下一部分将主要展开讨论的内容。

比较政治：大国的腐败问题

对腐败与民主政治的关系普遍存在一种错误认知，即民主国家更不容易产生政治腐败、民主体制是限制腐败的有效措施。实际上，正如上一部分论述的，对于人口众多、官僚体制复杂的大国来说，即使是民主国家，也难免腐败问题的发生，比较典型的例子是美国、日本和韩国。虽然作为世界政治民主旗帜的美国和亚洲最成功的民主国家的日本在全球清廉指数排行上一直名列前沿，但实际上由于其国内特殊的政治体制和政治文化传统，虽然指标上的“腐败”现象在两国出现较少，但实质的“腐败”现象并不在少数而且对国内的政治运作和政治生活产生了深刻影响。对于这些遭到忽视的特色腐败现象的观察有助于对腐败现象及中国的腐败问题的更深刻更全面的理解，因此这一部分将对美国、日本以及与日本情况相似的韩国的腐败问题进行介绍和分析，最后与官僚体制发达但腐败水平较低的德国做一比较。

独特政治文化：游说型政治腐败

作为民主世界的船长，美国一直以其定期更换的民选政府、详尽的法律规定、健全的司法体系和发达的新闻媒体作为解释限制官员行为、控制腐败现象的原因并向非民主国家宣传。但近到本届美国大选前希拉里一系列政治丑闻的曝光、远到2006年初被揭露的阿布拉莫夫（Abramoff）游说腐败案都表明，美国实际上也面临着严重的实质的政治腐败问题。游说活动实质上是一种在国会议员、政府官僚和利益集团之间的交易和互惠行为，随着资本主义经济的发展，金钱和性借助游说的掩护进入政治过程并造成政治腐败。游说腐败的主要表现，就是利益集团通过说客向政客提供便利、享受或者资助，来换取政客在立法方面的关照和偏向。在这一过程中，说客与被游说者相互勾结，寻找法律缺陷甚至直接置法律于不顾，为了各自的私利相互利用。

由于美国游说行业根据宪法所获得的政治合法性，使得游说产生的腐败现象不以“腐败”的名义出现，而作为美国特殊的政治现象被观察和认知。游说本身虽是合法的，但游说活动的实质——各种利益集团在政治运作中通过不当手段获得失衡优势则是实实在在的腐败行为。因此，有趣的是，虽然美国的游说政治文化源远流长、根深蒂固，社会上也存在着对其对政治秩序产生负面影响的批评，但始终未成为遭到全社会严厉批判和抵制的腐败行为，这种特殊的政治文化传统对腐败的认知的影响的现象，对于我们理解中国的腐败现象具有启发性。

结构性腐败：官僚清廉与政客腐败

在亚洲，虽然感官上，作为美国战后民主改造的成功典范的日本和韩国相较于中国来说，政治腐败问题相对较少，官僚更为清廉，全球清廉指数似乎也证实了这一看法。但实际上，与美国类似，两国特色的政治制度和政治传统产生了特色的结构性腐败问题，并对其国内的政治平等产生了严重的负面影响。

总的来说，公务员的相对廉洁和政治家们的腐败共存，是日本和韩国的结构性腐败的最重要的特点。表面上，随着现代化的推进，日韩的传统威权政治体制逐步向民主的现代官僚体制转变，在政治转型之后，国家对腐败问题的打击逐步制度化，官僚腐败受到有效的控制；但另一方面，政治腐败问题逐步凸现。处于转型过程中的韩国，收买型腐败、金钱政治开始凸显，政治寻租行为成为深刻的社会问题，其主要表现为家族企业向政治领袖、其党派或者是他们所青睐的“基金会”和慈善机构捐款，而政治家们则在经济活动中给予企业以优惠和照顾。在韩国，多位总统都曾因自身或者亲属的腐败行为受到指控，例如，卢武铉在任期间共募集到超过 6.54亿美元，其中有3.67亿来自于35个财阀；而最近崔顺实腐败案及其带来的朴槿惠政府的下野和遍及全国的抗议行为更加突出地体现了韩国的腐败问题。

日本的结构性腐败表现为，一方面中低层官僚机构中腐败的发生率比较低，官僚的腐败行为被牢牢控制在制度化的框架内；另一方面，各类寻租、政治献金等腐败行为在政治高层普遍发生，在日本历史上曾发生过多起政治家收受贿赂和利用职务之便营私舞弊的读职事件，例如洛克希德事件与田中角荣政府的垮台、KSD事件对森喜朗内阁造成的政治冲击。总的来说。在日本，官员个别的渎职或违法行为产生的问题并不严重，但政府与大企业之间的在日本的合作模式在经济、政治、社会生活中成为普遍性和决定性的重要内容，它形成了一个政府-企业的政治腐败网络，即使这个网络中有高官或者企业负责人落马，也依然不会影响到整个腐败网的效能，这张网络使得日本的政治腐败有了稳定的延续性。日本极具特色的“下凡”制度就是这一特色的政商合作模式的体现。在“下凡制度”下，退职官员可以利用自己的身份、经历和影响力在私人公司获得较高层的职位和薪金以作为退休后的经济生活保障；对于民间机构或大公司来说，则可以通过利用退职官员的关系网和影响力从有关部门获取特别的消息来源，还可以通过政府部门的熟稔关系在必要时从事协调工作。这种特色的社会规则作为一种实质上的政治腐败却并未在实际生活中被定义为腐败行为，而是类似于美国的游说制度一样，被看成是一种不成文的政治潜规则和国家的特色政治活动而因此被排除出“腐败”的恶名之下。

日韩的结构性腐败问题提出了一个深刻而有趣的思考，即官僚腐败与政客腐败的区别。我们发现，在民主政治语境下，科层体系中的公务人员的官僚型腐败受到极大的关注和遏制，可以说在健全的民主体制下，官僚型腐败发生的概率会大大降低；但至于政客腐败，情况则有所不同，虽然没人愿意或敢于公开支持政客在竞选前后与其他社会团体的“合作”行为不是腐败、是合理合法的社会契约行为，但往往这种实质上的权钱交易的腐败现象会认为是民主体制下的政治活动中难以避免的行为而由此得到一定程度上的“宽宥”和积极的“忽略”。但在非民主国家，由于尚未建立公务人员与政客分开的现代官僚科层制度，政客型的腐败和官僚性的腐败被共同关注和批评，在这种状况下，被观察到的腐败发生概率自然是大大提高了，这也是民主国家为何看起来腐败发生更少的客观的却往往被忽视的重要原因之一。

跨国合作机制的缺失与腐败监管难题

德国也是官僚体系较为发达的民主国家之一，“大政府”的社会政治结构有着悠久的历史传统，但德国的腐败问题并不严重，大规模的腐败比较罕见。因此这就会产生这样一个有趣的问题，为何同为官僚体系发达的民主国家，德国的腐败问题得到了比较有效的解决？这也是我将德国引入讨论的重要原因。对这一问题的解释有助于我们更好的了解有效解决大国腐败的可能手段。总的来说，德国对腐败的有效限制的其中一个重要途径来源于欧盟的有效的腐败控制合作机制。

具体来说，一方面，欧盟委员会分别于1996年、1997年通过了《欧共体金融利益保障公约》《遏制贿赂欧共体官员与欧盟成员国官员公约》。这两个条约一致要求成员国修改国内刑法中贿赂犯罪的行为对象，从原来的本国官员拓展至欧共体、欧盟成员国官员。1998年，德国通过制定特别刑法《欧盟反腐败法案》将上述公约纳入国内刑法体系；另一方面，欧洲理事会于1999年特别成立了反腐败监督机构“反腐败国家集团”，该机构设在法国斯特拉斯堡，其宗旨在于提高各成员国打击腐败的能力，通过动态的相互评估和同行压力促进和监督各成员国执行欧洲理事会反腐败标准。这一方面旨在帮助成员国发现其国内反腐败政策之缺陷，另一方面意在通过这样的措施推动各成员国国内反腐败立法、司法和制度方面的改革。

欧盟反腐败政策的国际合作机制形成了从超国家的政治机构的对国家机构的监察、监督和从国家机构的对超国家机构的反向监察与监督的有效的平衡、制约互动机制，进一步挤占了腐败发生的空间，而这种机制是单一的国家体系和国内政治机构所无法得到的，这就使得官僚体系发达的国家的腐败问题消而难灭、只能尽可能限制而难以真正的得到解决。

根据反腐败组织《透明国际》的一份新报告，2022年全球腐败水平连续第11年处于停滞状态，95%的国家在反腐败斗争方面几乎没有进展。

该组织周二发布的年度腐败感知指数通过衡量公共部门腐败程度对180个国家和地区进行排名，得分为0表示政府高度腐败，得分为100表示政府非常廉洁。

以下是报告中的主要内容：

丹麦得分最高，为90分，紧随其后的是芬兰和新西兰，为87分。
索马里得分最低，为12分，其次是其他冲突地区，包括叙利亚和南苏丹，为13分。
英国（73）和卡塔尔（58）的腐败指数创下历史新低。
31个国家的腐败程度有所上升。
25个国家的腐败程度有所下降。
撒哈拉以南非洲的平均得分最低，为32分。
西欧保持了最高的平均分，为66分。

虽然西欧和欧盟的得分仍然很高，但透明国际指出，随着各国政府争先恐后地应对入侵乌克兰和随后的能源危机，腐败水平并没有改善。

在该地区，匈牙利的得分仍然最低，为42分，欧盟去年冻结了资金，理由是总理维克多·欧尔班未能解决腐败和保护人权问题。

去年，美洲的腐败水平增幅最大，尽管该地区平均水平仍为43。古巴（第45位）、危地马拉（第24位）和尼加拉瓜（第19位）的排名均创下历史新低，而洪都拉斯（第23位）和海地（第17位）的排名自2017年以来大幅下降。透明国际指出，经济停滞加上腐败水平上升对威权主义的日益亲和力。

自69年以来，美国（2021）的得分提高了两分，但与奥巴马政府时期的得分相比仍然较低。

阿富汗的腐败水平改善最大——得分提高了 2021 分——尽管阿富汗政府的腐败使塔利班在2020年接管了政权。

英国是该指数下滑幅度最大的国家之一，下跌73点至<>点。虽然很难确定下降的具体因素，但专家指出，政治动荡和经济遭受重创玷污了该国作为稳定民主机构的声誉。

搜索此博客

Voice of China