Faith Incorruptible
Peter Dyrud Monday, 10 December 2007
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
—James Madison, The Federalist #51
By "auxiliary precautions" James Madison was famously referring to the U.S. Constitution's elaborate and then-novel system of checks and balances. Since people—and perhaps especially people who hold political power—are not angels, government must be structured in such a way as to divide power and thus limit its abuse. It is, as Madison said, the "policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives."
History has borne out the wisdom of Madison's argument. But is coercive control the end of the story? What about those "better motives" and the concept of individual self-control? More specifically, can corruption of power be stemmed purely through institutional and procedural measures, without attention to matters of personal integrity and virtue among government officials?
The ongoing problem of official corruption worldwide suggests that it cannot. Despite top-level crackdowns, anti-corruption institutions, monetary incentives, and other attempts to purge the most corrupt regimes, each country's relative trustworthiness in Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index rarely changes much from year to year. Innumerable acts of corruption are committed daily by public officials around the world—from customs officials extracting bribes to bureaucrats financing personal vacations with tax dollars to politicians appointing judges who agree to rule in their favor.
The persistence and pervasiveness of corruption reflects poorly not only on politics but arguably also on faith communities, since many corrupt officials claim to be devout believers. Consider the example of Ahmed Sani Yerima, governor of Nigeria's Zamfara State, who introduced strict Sharia law while maintaining a history of bribery and taking kickbacks from military officers. Consider also the infamous case of Ferdinand Marcos, Roman Catholic convert and president of the Philippines who was forced from office after overseeing hundreds of extrajudicial killings and robbing the country of billions of dollars. Indeed, while faith communities do not bear full responsibility for an individual's opportunism, they can fill a widely respected role as their nation's conscience by more proactively fighting government corruption.
Officials with corrupt motives have proven remarkably creative in finding ways to circumvent procedural safeguards. Effective means of resisting corruption must therefore exist not only at an institutional level but also at a personal level, self-motivated as well as externally imposed. In contrast to external controls like legal punishments or economic rewards, which can foster temporary improvement, internal controls motivated by faith cause lasting changes in individuals and may bring lasting reform within a system when they are passed on to future leaders.
In the book How People Change (Harper, 1975), prominent psychologist Allen Wheelis explains the way permanent changes in behavior are linked with changes in attitude. Wheelis acknowledges that positive and negative reinforcements can shape behavior, but he demonstrates that old habits typically return as soon as the external reinforcements are removed unless the individual also experiences an internal shift in beliefs.
Within this important sphere of personal ethics and self-motivation, religion can perform a potent role in countering corruption. Religion is often a person's most deeply-held belief, stronger even than political views, and therefore it may prove the most instrumental in changing attitudes. The power of religious belief has potential to fight corruption in adherent government leaders. For example, King Abdullah II of Jordan explained his decision to commission an Anti-Corruption Institution on the basis of Islamic faith. In his letter to Prime Minister Adnan Badran in 2005 he cited the Quran's teachings on integrity in Surat al-Hujurat: 6: "O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done." This letter provides a strong counterpoint to the cases of Yerima and Marcos, whose outward projection of piety had little influence on their personal behavior.
Recognizing the potential of personal ethics and faith in preventing corruption, religious communities should be prepared to use influence over government officials who are members of their community. Faith communities often hold considerable sway over political leaders within their group. Even if the leader does not feel a strong connection with his coreligionists, he rarely wishes to alienate them.
Faith communities also have a vested interest in influencing prominent members because public perception of a religion is shaped largely by the actions of participating political leaders. For example, though Christianity's image has been tainted throughout history by acts such as the Spanish Inquisition, it has been somewhat redeemed by William Wilberforce's campaign against the slave trade, both undertaken in the name of God.
With these motivations, religious communities should formulate methods of influence grounded in their scriptures and informed by history, creatively utilizing a variety of tools. First, religious groups should hold adhering government officials responsible for obeying the moral teachings of their faith. In some contexts, religious communities should publicly challenge the leader's behavior and the way it reflects the moral teachings of his/her faith tradition. Leaders invoking religion with proper motives may accept the challenge as an opportunity to demonstrate the depth of their belief.
In this public inquiry, religious communities should not be afraid to draw from religious texts that the official claims to follow. Most major faith traditions discourage corruption and selfish gain. Judaism's Ten Commandments contain exhortations against such things as misleading speech, theft, and bribery. The method of public inquiry can take the form of admonishment when necessary, though communities must take care to model the values they espouse. Catholic priests in Zimbabwe are now speaking out against Robert Mugabe's abuses and may be the country's only foreseeable hope for change. Such courage is motivated by a deep, personal faith.
Second, each religious tradition should use its own accountability system and encourage government officials from its tradition to participate in this system. One source of an accountability structure for the Christian faith comes from Hebrews 10:24-25, "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together..." This system gives Christians permission to acknowledge and address moral failures with one another in a confidential relationship that could stop questionable behavior before it escalates into corruption. Religious leaders should encourage political leaders to welcome such transparency, noting that their efforts may prevent public humiliation.
The leaders of some communities also willingly submit to boards of overseers or elders, depending on the structure, with the authority to remove them; this allowed the congregation of Colorado Springs' New Life Church to survive crisis when allegations of sexual immorality by Pastor Ted Haggard surfaced. Within two days of the initial shock, the board of overseers had completed its investigation and Haggard had willingly stepped down. If bureaucracies were this efficient and officials were willing to face the consequences with repentance developed by faith when confronted with obviously corrupt behavior, corruption would be more benign.
Third, they should provide forums for nonpartisan discussion of moral issues as they bear on corruption and preventing corruption. One example of this open discussion is a long history of debate in Muslim circles about the difference between a gift and a bribe, as Franz Rosenthal describes in "Gifts and Bribes: The Muslim View" (1964). Some issues are not black and white matters, but keeping moral issues in the spotlight is a constant reminder to leaders that they are not above the law. For example, ambiguities are introduced when widespread corruption leads governments to lower wages, which in turn makes it difficult for low-level bureaucrats to feed their families.
Such forums can also remind officials that integrity is the only thing they can fully control. Wealth can be reallocated or stolen and even dictators can lose their jobs and lives in violent revolutions, but the corrupt act is always a choice. In fact, integrity should be prized even above loyalty when it comes to protecting dishonest friends, a very difficult concept in some cultures but a familiar one for faiths such as Islam in which loyalty to God is often valued above even loyalty to one's immediate family. Such forums or debates may attract competing political figures who want to expose corruption and may also attract public servants who want to solidify their reputations as moral leaders.
Fourth, religious communities should honor and celebrate government leaders when they resist the temptations to abuse money, fame, and power. It is no wonder that most political leaders develop skewed priorities when they are largely rewarded only for their pragmatism or political success. These commendations may take the form of public praise in the media, individual letters from constituents, or words of encouragement for personal acquaintances. Alternatively, for leaders who are failing in this regard, communities might highlight sacred exhortations such as the Buddha's: "Take small account of might, wealth and fame, for they soon pass and are forgotten."
Fifth, they should more aggressively teach leaders, using practical real-world examples, why acting with integrity is not only morally and spiritually right but in the official's own long-term best interest. This may include positive examples such as Nelson Mandela, South Africa's anti-apartheid activist who was known for his integrity and eventually was elected president. He announced that "Religion is one of the most important forces in the world. Whether you are a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew, or a Hindu, religion is a great force, and it can help one have command of one's own morality, one's own behavior, and one's own attitude" (Christian Science Monitor, 2000). It may even be helpful to remind leaders of the eternal rewards and punishment existing in some form in nearly all religions.
Sixth, when authorities are not receptive, faith communities can use civil disobedience to protest corruption. Gandhi was inspired by Hinduism and other religions in his relentless commitment to confrontation through nonviolence, which may be thought of as an attempt to purify those in power rather than just opposing them. He believed that morality and religion were indelibly tied together: "Man...cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side." Martin Luther King, Jr., used Jesus' exhortation to "turn the other cheek" to maintain the nonviolent nature of the American Civil Rights Movement amidst radical change. Faith can be a source of courage to develop right standards of conduct and address specific misdeeds, and it can also provide a stable moral and emotional frame of reference to keep efforts focused during times of transition.
In the end, religious communities must exercise patience. The naïve belief that moralistic pressure tactics or even religious conversion will immediately eliminate all vice is a recipe for disaster, and the fruits of some efforts may take years to appear. Corrupt governments are ultimately transformed through moral authority and the gradual internalization of values. After all, Ferdinand Marcos was eventually driven into exile largely through the efforts of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines—but this did not happen overnight. Faith manipulated for political purposes can become part of the problem. Even so, religious communities, through public inquiry, accountability systems, discussion forums, celebration of integrity, teaching enlightened self interest, and civil disobedience, have a most effective weapon against corruption. These communities should be able to say, like Martin Luther, "Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God."
[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]