The first issue was: is corruption within the EU processes a political or a management (judicial) issue? Is burglary a political issue? What about when the target of the burglary is an office of the Democratic party in the Watergate hotel? Is tax evasion a political issue? What about when the accused is called Yukos? Murder? The deaths of 16 children in Dunblane forced many changes to British legislation, but was the shooting a political issue?

Crimes can have political implications. Crimes can be committed by politicians. Crimes can trigger politicians to change the law or the political process. This does not make them political crimes or political issues, they simply have political consequences. Similarly, corruption is a crime and should be managed as such and its fallout may then be political and dealt with accordingly. However, to confuse the two can only lead to injustice with those responsible being treated subjectively, the political system, rather than objectively, the judicial system. Or, to put it another way, when politics is confused with law people either get away with murder (e.g. My Lai, Zahra Kazemi) or are unjustly punished (many political prisoners worldwide.)

The second and third questions we are debating are, if anything, far more frightening than mere injustice and both for very much the same reasons so I’ll lump them together. The questions are: do any fundamental differences exist between (a) two religions, or (b) individuals from different groups. My personal conviction is that the answers are a very definite NO and NO, and for that I am grateful as any other answer would be awful. Why? Because, difference implies the possibility of superiority and I cannot think of any excuse for bloodshed used more often than a claimed fundamental superiority of either one religion over another, or the members of one group over another.

Of course, not liking the implications of an answer is not a good reason for rejecting it, so to answer Bob’s points:

If people are, indeed, literally homogenous, it would not be possible to distinguish between them in terms of features, finger prints or DNA…
We know too that susceptibility to [] sickle-cell anaemia, differs markedly between different races

No. If all people are similarly endowed with “unique” fingerprints and DNA they are “homogenous” within the meaning of the word. All people receive their basic genes from their ancestors which gives many interesting effects depending on local conditions, inbreeding etc. We don’t need sickle-cell to tell us that, just look at one another: black, white, tall, short, blond brunette – all inherited within breeding groups. But, is there really a fundamental difference between people from different groups?

I find the proposition that religions don’t matter utterly extraordinary…
The question was whether there was any real difference between catholic and protestant religions in the context of secular affairs such as corruption – not whether religions “matter”. There is no doubt that the histories of the two religions vary enormously and that this has shaped the relationships between the various churches, governments and the public at large. To begin with, the catholic church had a 1200 year head start and is consequently much larger, richer and more powerful, its influence, both positive and negative, more pronounced. However, this is not as far as I can tell a religious factor, rather a historical one. So one must be careful to compare the religions and not the histories?

Bob’s favorite example is Galileo: the catholic church tried to suppress the ideas it didn’t like whereas, across the water in protestant England Newton was given a free hand to explore ideas; ergo the catholic religion is different to the protestant. Really?

Galileo effectively worked for the catholic church, they paid for his equipment and he worked alongside a number of Jesuits. When he came up with ideas that contradicted and threatened his employer’s “legitimate” interests, the church squashed them. Wouldn’t happen today, would it? Say, in the tobacco industry? Newton (3 generations later), however, was a researcher at an independant University, a very religious man himself, an “extremist” protestant (Unitarian) but he kept quiet because it was against University rules. He discovered a number of things contradicting the church’s – catholic and protestant – view of the world and managed to reconcile these things in his own mind so didn’t care. The government of the day was a parlimentary democracy and not religiously oriented. And, all this proves…what? Apples & oranges.

However, give the protestant church some of the power exercised by the catholic church in Galileo’s time, say control over the science syllabus in US schools, and what happens? Suddenly, scientific theory is suppressed and an extremist interpretation of the bible dominates once more. Tell me again that fundamental difference between the catholic and protestant religions…

Thanks for the encouragement. For various reasons, I had to start taking more than a passing interest in political corruption several years ago and so began to dig out and follow relating news reports. Believe me, it is a high risk interest – my PC has been repeatedly hacked. I’ve a long but relentlessly boring personal tale to tell about dealing with hacking and worse.

The messages above relate to the EU Constitution in several ways even if that is not always explicit. For one thing, the EU Constitution will extend EU competences over national governments – in economic policy, for example – and from the perspective of ordinary voters, EU decisions are inescapably more remote.

The blame game of buck passing will increase and so will the scope for embedding corruption when the EU Commission has not so far credibly demonstrated its competence in dealing with corruption or in installing systems to deter it. A dependable accounting system with audit trails is a fairly basic requirement for any large organisation and the Commission doesn’t even have that. How many more years will it take to get one?

I find the proposition that religions don’t matter utterly extraordinary in a European perspective when different religions very evidently espouse divergent values. We need only look back on the consequences of the religious wars in European history, such as the Thirty Years war, which was finally brought an end with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. That Treaty established the principle that the internal affairs of a nation state were the sole prerogative of its sovereign ruler, which has remained the working principle in international affairs since – until recently.

Ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia and the despotism of Saddam’s regime in Iraq have brought into question the principle established by the Treaty of Westphalia, as will the EU Constitution in respect of EU member states. The European Court of Justice will be left dealing with contested claims over the boundaries of EU competences: will EU competence over coordination of economic policy, as conferred by the Constitution, supercede national autonomy in respect of taxation and social security, one of Blair’s red lines?

Some in Europe have been pressing that the new Constitution should somehow endorse Europe’s Christian heritage. For the present, the secularist view has prevailed that the constitution should define a right of freedom of worship but without a presumption favouring any particular religion and that is my preference too. Others may not agree but reviving historic controversies between religions is the last thing we need. I mean, the catholic church only finally decided to fully exonerate Galileo in 1992, only twelve years ago – I checked the date.

“Which says absolutely nothing about whether susceptibility to corruption differs between races or any other groups – which is our context and the context of the post’s use of the word ‘homogenous’.”

We have the challenging problem of explaining why distributed parts of the world now have flourising market economies while other parts don’t – such as South America and Africa. Differences in social cultures, dominant religions, political systems, natural resource endowments and climate are all potential candidates as contributing factors.

“Not necessarily as we are discussing corruption in the context of a sentence beginning: ‘As for Galileo…’”

The crucial point is that the catholic church stopped Galileo from publishing his work on the solar system while Newton was not prevented by ecclesiastical authorities in England from pursuing and publishing his research into theories of motion and gravity. Significant historic consequences flowed from that difference.

“No, it isn’t, when our context is the difference between the two religions’ affect on corruption and extremist protestant churches do very similar things.”

Quite – the protestant churches were disputatious, not monolithic. Theological and philosophical pluralism, at least within wide boundaries, was permissible and practised, which perhaps helps to explain why Descartes (1596-1650) found it expedient to live most of his adult life in the Netherlands, rather than in France, his country of birth and upbringing. It also helps to explain what happened to the Huguenots. By comparison with events in France in 1572, 9-11 was a relatively minor incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenot

“In other words, I am saying that while the politicians identify corruption as illegal, the place to deal with it is in the judicial system not the political system. And, if the judicial system is broken, then the answer is to fix it, not to move the problem to somewhere it doesn’t belong.”

Even were I to accept that as a starting point, it would usually fall to politicians to fix broken judicial systems and they may not be disposed to do that for self-serving reasons.
There are also open questions about policing, investigations and bringing cases to trial. To all appearances, politicians in many places are very astute about protecting institutional arrangements which enable them to continue to garner personal wealth at the expense of electorates. Passing responsibility for policing political corruption off to the judicial system is a convenient get-out. Judging by the sample of reports on political corruption in Europe I posted above, existing institutional arrangements have not been working satisfactorily:

“Three of the European commission’s most senior officials were yesterday implicated in the biggest fraud scandal to rock the EU executive in years when they were accused of siphoning off millions of euros into secret Luxembourg bank accounts ‘over a long period of time’.” – from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,995142,00.html

Perhaps of special interest is the line in that news report: ” . . he [Commissioner Kinnock] admitted that the EU executive had first been made aware of the allegations in 1997.” And we also know that it has taken the EU Commission five years to refer one of the resigning Commissioners from March 1999 to the European Court of Justice. Hardly expeditious progress in either case.

Last year, the European Court of Auditors qualified its approval of EU Commission accounts for NINE years in succession. The only observable outcome from the perspective of the wider public has been the victimisation of Marta Andreasen, the Commission’s chief accountant from 2001 until she was suspended:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/2293519.stm http://www.heatonharris.org.uk/martabriefing.html

No difference there either.

…susceptibility to [ ] sickle-cell anaemia, differs markedly between different races
Which says absolutely nothing about whether susceptibility to corruption differs between races or any other groups – which is our context and the context of the post’s use of the word “homogenous”.

…Max Weber’s [ ] thesis [on capitalism] would be false…
Not necessarily as we are discussing corruption in the context of a sentence beginning: “As for Galileo…”

The censorship and detention of Galileo by the catholic church in the early 17th century is especially relevant…
No, it isn’t, when our context is the difference between the two religions’ affect on corruption and extremist protestant churches do very similar things.

Are you really saying that politicians should do nothing when one of their own is implicated in corrupt practices [ ] if a professional colleague breaches [ ] codes of professional ethics?
Actually, I said only that it wasn’t a political issue however, corruption in the context of this thread is a crime and this supercedes any professional ethics implications.

In other words, I am saying that while the politicians identify corruption as illegal, the place to deal with it is in the judicial system not the political system. And, if the judicial system is broken, then the answer is to fix it, not to move the problem to somewhere it doesn’t belong.

We are evidently very far apart.

“people are homogenous”

If people are, indeed, literally homogenous, it would not be possible to distinguish between them in terms of features, finger prints or DNA, let alone systematic behaviour differences or in their sentiments, beliefs and customs. During the last few years, much genetic research has gone into distinguishing, for example, the incidence of distant Viking ancestry among residents in different parts of Britain, which would not be feasible if people are entirely homogenous in respect of their DNA: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/bloodofthevikings/genetics_results_01.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/wales/2076470.stm

We know too that susceptibility to various human ailments, such as sickle-cell anaemia, differs markedly between different races: http://www.sicklecellsociety.org/education/sicklecell.htm

On the basis of the scientific evidence, I am only able to conclude that your claim is false.

“Difference between catholicism and protestantism (the original subject) is still nil as far as I can see.”

In which case, Max Weber’s (and RH Tawney’s) thesis that protestantism was more conducive to the rise of capitalism and industrialisation than catholicism would be false when there is much to commend it on the basis of the historic evidence. We have, for example, to explain why industrialisation was pioneered in Britain in the course of what has been dubbed the industrial revolution. We also need to probe why almost all newly industrialising countries in the last half century are concentrated in south-east Asia, rather than in, say, South America.

The censorship and detention of Galileo by the catholic church in the early 17th century is especially relevant. That sent out a clear message to anyone disposed to research the causes of movements of planets in the solar system. Newton, later that same century, would have encountered similar barriers in the development of his theoretical work on the laws of motion and gravity had catholicism prevailed in England.

“I don’t see corruption by a politician as a political issue per se, anymore than a crime commited by a policeman is a policing issue, or one by a doctor is a medical issue.”

Even more curious. Are you really saying that politicians should do nothing when one of their own is implicated in corrupt practices in the course of his/her activities as a politician, that the police should do nothing if police are implicated in corruption, and the medical profession – or lawyers – should do nothing if a professional colleague breaches their respective codes of professional ethics? I greatly doubt the police, medical doctors or lawyers would agree.

Your examples show how different religious regimes create different societies. This has never been in dispute and the original question tried to exclude this: “Not [...] how their actions based on [religious] beliefs are different…” Swap all the people of the world around at birth and nothing would change – people are homogenous – the regimes they are nurtured in are not, and so societies vary.

“As for Galileo…” Exactly what I said, no?. I also pointed out that protestant extremists are using exactly the same logic today. Difference between catholicism and protestantism (the original subject) is still nil as far as I can see.

Our original subject was the relationship between religion and corruption within the EU. You maintain there is one and I am yet to be convinced.

“But [process failures account for corruption examples] can be said indiscriminately of every and any flawed decision or practice of government for whatever reason.”

My admitedly simple view of the way government administrations work is:

1. What are the goals? – political issue
2. What is the process to achieve the goals? – a management issue with input from politicians wearing management hats to get passed…
3. Implement the process as law? – political issue
4. Is the process working as it should? – managerial issue – answer “no”, fix it
5. Are the goals as stated being achieved? – managerial issue – answer “no”, redesign & reimplement the process, may require changing the law for procedural, not political, reasons
6. Reviewing the results, were our original goals what we really want? – political issue – start again from beginning

So, I disagree that every government failure is a process failure. Failures at step 1, 3 & 6 are political failures. However, your earlier examples were step 2, 4 & 5 failures, managerial process failures.

“What we need to worry about in Europe especially is the like of these news reports, of which only the last relates to bureaucrats.”

I don’t see corruption by a politician as a political issue per se, anymore than a crime commited by a policeman is a policing issue, or one by a doctor is a medical issue. Redress for the crime may, like a bad policeman, doctor or priest, have a abuse of trust component but that’s a different issue.

A politician’s corruption is only a political issue if you want the corruption law for politicians to be different to the law for everybody else, such as bureaucrats. This is the case for some sitting heads of state in Europe who are immune from corruption charges while in office. But, not, as far as I am aware, the case for any other EU politicians.

“Perhaps you can give an example of how people from one religion are different to those of another, or of no religion at all.”

Anthropology studies abound with acounts of distinctively different customs and practices of different social groups both within and across religions. At the most basic level, there are polygamous and polyandrous societies. Some tribes and cultures have a practice of suitors paying a bride price while, in others, brides come with dowries. A recent news report:

“THEY like to think they do a good job protecting women’s rights and fighting paedophilia. Canadians would not be so smug if they knew of the dirty little secret in the Creston Valley, in south-eastern British Columbia. For half a century, a hotbed of polygamy has quietly flourished there in a commune called Bountiful. It is run by a breakaway sect of the Mormon Church, in successful defiance of the law.

“Bountiful is no secret to local people, some of whom enjoy its business. Nor is it to the province’s police and social workers. It is known to British Columbia’s top law-enforcement officer, the attorney-general. His office was first made aware of concerns about Bountiful more than a decade ago. But the provincial government has felt constrained by an untested legal opinion that Canada’s law banning polygamy was unconstitutional. . . ” – from: http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2907136

The population of India includes 200 to 300 million Muslims but practising Hindus would face daunting problems living in Pakistan.

Max Weber surely believed protestantism fostered different social values from catholicism or he would not have argued his thesis that protestantism was more conducive to the rise of capitalism and industrialisation.

“As for Galileo . . ”

From Microsoft Encarta: “Early in 1616 Copernican books were subjected to censorship by the Roman Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books, after the Jesuit cardinal Robert Bellarmine had instructed Galileo that he must no longer hold or defend the opinion that the Earth moves.”

“All of your examples indicate a process failure.”

But that can be said indiscriminately of every and any flawed decision or practice of government for whatever reason. What we need to worry about in Europe especially is the like of these news reports, of which only the last relates to bureaucrats:

“The former Secretary General of Nato, Willy Claes has been given a three-year suspended jail sentence after being found guilty of corruption by Belgium’s highest court. Mr Claes was one of 12 defendants standing trial over allegations that two defence firms paid millions of dollars in bribes during the 1980s to secure Belgian Government contracts.” – from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/241342.stm

“Former Prime Minister Alain Juppe resigned from the presidency of France’s ruling party Friday, paving the way for a succession battle at the head of President Jacques Chirac’s powerful political organization. Juppe, one of Chirac’s closest allies, was convicted earlier this year in a corruption case and had agreed to step down from the leadership of the Union for a Popular Movement.” – from: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/16/yuppe.resigns.ap/

“Craxi, Bettino (Benedetto) Italian socialist politician, leader of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) 1976-93, prime minister 1983-87. In 1993 he was one of many politicians suspected of involvement in Italy?s corruption network; in 1994 he was sentenced in absentia to eight and a half years in prison for accepting bribes, and in 1995 he received a further four-year sentence for corruption. In April 1996, with other former ministers, he was found guilty of further corruption charges, and received a prison sentence of eight years and three months, but avoided imprisonment by living in self-imposed exile in Tunisia.” – from: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0018909.html

“The European Union was thrown into turmoil on Tuesday [16 March 1999] after the entire 20-member executive commission stepped down in light of a scathing independent report accusing the powerful body of ignoring cronyism and financial irregularities.” – from: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9903/16/eu.commission.01/

“BRUSSELS [9 July 2003] The European Commission has come clean and admitted the huge extent of fraud in its statistical office, Eurostat. . . ” – from: http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=12040

OK. I can live with driving transparency being top of the agenda – as long as there is an agenda.

However, pragmatically, an initiative to get the issue further up the agendas of full-coverage parties may be more successful than a new party. Though, I do admit the incentive (reward) for those doing the encouraging is hard to see.

“…do you know a more appropiate site to discuss this topic than aFoE?”

Not at all. But, we are off-topic, and its only polite to apologise before hi-jacking somebody else’s site & thread

Bob

“People are not homogenous across religions…”

Perhaps you can give an example of how people from one religion are different to those of another, or of no religion at all. Not how their beliefs are different, or how their actions based on those beliefs are different, but how the people themselves and their moral fibre are different.

Of course, people lie to get and keep personal advantage or benefit in religion, and also in politics, business, science and every other walk of life. It is an a-religious trait.

I’m still confused about the contention that either protestantism or catholicism or any other religion can be more- or less- prone to corruption, however I will take your homework recommendations (unpick Weber and review Huguenots’ history) and I’ll let you know if I come to the same conclusions that you have. No promises on timescales. As for Galileo, wasn’t he persecuted by catholic fundamentalists who preferred their interpretation of the Bible to looking out of the window? Pretty much the same preference that protestant creationist school agendas have today?

Corruption as a management or a political problem…

All of your examples indicate a process failure. A discrepacy / potential crime is suspected and has not been addressed adaquately. That is the prosecutor’s (or equivalent’s) job – a managerial position not a political position.

“its a profound mistake to suggest that better management of bureaucracies is all that is required to prevent or, at least, contain, corruption from flourishing.”

It works for corruption within national environments. It also works for fraud, theft, discrimination, assault etc. etc. within the EU. What is so special about corruption with the EU’s political and bureaucratic systems?

Preventing corruption, apart from the legal stick and better, more transparent processes, is difficult. Pay everybody enough they don’t need to cheat? Only hire uncorruptables? Don’t give anybody any authority? Making it a political problem will not bring answers either.

BTW Can you imagine what a can-of-worms we’d have if politics was directly involved in handling corruption. A YUKOS every day!