Continuing the discussion on the story of the clan and how corruption impacts society, those impacts can be economic or social in nature, but they are often a mixture of both because the two phenomena are deeply connected. This is why challenging corruption leads to social development and economic enhancements. When corruption is used to promote in-group wealth while simultaneously suppressing social participation, it creates a compounding harm that naturally affects the broader society. Time will answer that question....
 |
| (Illustrative) Corruption can actually be traced and successfully challenged with knowledge. Having better management of complaints that can give information for improvement and protecting whistleblowers is important. Those that don't have a reason they don't. |
However, their definition of “local” had nothing to do with people who had lived there for generations, nor with genuine community belonging. Instead, it was rooted in deeply embedded perceptions of superiority over others. Racial, religious, political and social perceptions determined "local". This mindset enabled exclusion, domination, and abuse under the guise of authority. It was going on for years and victims, whistleblowers, concerned officials were simply forced silent and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Eventually, the clan court was exposed because the evidence against them became overwhelming. They placed witnesses on target lists, ran through moral red lights, and neglected the fundamental societal protections earned over generations of struggles. They fabricated intentional stories against the victims, permitted people including clan officers to become aggressive and potentionally violent. They issued threats. They endangered children. They manipulated the elderly. They mistreated good people. They operated without any meaningful checks or balances within the system. None of this happened by accident—it was systematic and deliberate.
At the same time, if we are willing to recognize what is wrong, we must also recognize what is right. The vast majority—80%, 90%, even 99%—of officers and officials do the right thing. They act with honor and nobility. They are our heros who helped to start the process of reversing the wrongdoing (In our story it will be reversed and corrected as the obligation to protect future victims is more than the obligation to protect hate networks or corruption.) We want to recruit more diverse people into these roles and see them succeed, because most of them are fundamentally good people committed to public service.
However, the problem arises when the bad actors are allowed to continue their behavior without correction. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, illegal serach and seisure, and lots of other fundamental rights were thrown away. When misconduct goes unaddressed, it creates a fundamental breakdown. These actions violate human and civil rights and misuse taxpayer resources for grotesque and criminal purposes. There is a difference between the purpose of law and how it is applied by highly socialized practitioners. Thus, philosophy can help you find the true north.
Such behavior rarely exists in isolation. In this story, corruption was also found in other areas, and some of the same actors faced consequences elsewhere—often receiving sweetheart deals when caught. Other victims have expressed their concern only to be ignored and witnesss and whistleblowers silenced through coordinated harm thereby allowing the network to continue. This tells us that the patterns are known and that similar forms of corruption have been challenged by others within and outside those networks.
As we become aware in this thought experiment of a court defaulting on justice, we also become aware of the risks involved. These situations often begin with small initial failures that, if left uncorrected, evolve into larger and more entrenched defaults. History shows that once systems reach this stage, meaningful correction becomes far more difficult. This is why multiple opportunities to correct were often ignored because it is easiest to put it on the victims (by intent). It creates much broader long term risks that could have been avoided if leadership had a higher moral conscious.
The good news is that the vast majority of people still believe in doing what is right. Many are willing to think critically about these issues. Most importantly, this story is meant as a learning tool. You do not have to agree with it. You can discard it, change its elements, or reinterpret it entirely. If it saves just one more victim, or helps the next targets overcome neglect of duty, then it has done its job. Maybe its in this example or maybe it is somewhere else.
The sole purpose of the story is to encourage thoughtful reflection on institutional integrity—on what it takes to preserve rights, protect future generations, honor past sacrifices, and continue the cause of freedom. It is not meant to provide a definitive conclusion, but rather to prompt you to reach your own. Honor that which is doing well and correct that which is dysfunctional. Be knowledgeable of the current trust levels in the polls and elect people who have a commitment beyond party and to the success of the nation. Be kind and peaceful and share your expectations of what you think would be most helpful for society.
If you believe these failures do not exist, that is acceptable. If you believe they do exist and that institutional trust erodes when they are ignored, that is also acceptable. What matters is being purposeful in your thinking. And if you see room for improvement, then the responsibility lies in electing and placing people in positions who can strengthen these systems—not undermine them, not weaken them, but improve them—so that it becomes easier to hold bad actors accountable while protecting the rights of those who do the right thing.
Since this story is for learning purposes one might want to see what some of the experts say and what their studies reveal. Learning is not always agreement so make your own decisions.
