This is like the : Does the end justify the means? If a leader is a known corrupt one, but strengthen the country, Physically and economically, will it justify the leader? He/She took a large amount of resources, both lives and money but for the cause of Nation-building and competiveness in the Global Arena, will it justify their actions? On the other hand, a leader is honest, does not steal/kill for the sake of being a model leader, but the country is sinking into recession and depression, would it still be good choice? Just to make it simple: You pay him a huge amount of money for him to efficiently do his job. Like a bribe. or You pay him the just amount but he just do it without any real effort and takes longer to complete.
Can't we have a compromise where the citizens don't suffer? I mean, either one doesn't sound incredibly good. I can find examples of 'corrupt but effective' (hint hint, USSR). But I don't know of an honest and ineffective leader. Eeehhhh, I'd rather not die for some belief I have or for not doing something so I'd go with the later.
Generally, the problem with corruption is that it inhibits effective leadership. Unless he shows heavy bias toward his benefactors (which happens a lot in modern politics anyway) or something, then a corrupt leader that excels at his job is fine, right? Well, as long as the citizens don't suffer, as Nat said. You need to clarify what you mean by "taking lives for the cause of nation-building". I also think your simplification is a bit off. If a leader doesn't put the effort in to do his job well, can he be considered honest? After all, he'd just be squandering his position, and for the sake of what? On the other hand, if we consider bribes to simply be a higher salary, isn't it typical to pay competent workers more?
You all know my view already, corrupt is ok as long as they are doing an excellent job. By excellent job I mean, EXCELLENT. That means the people don't suffer(USSR). Something like the UK but without all the political correctness would be perfect, let our PM make those decisions that need making.
Interestingly, Obama somewhat qualifies. Thing is, his inefficiency is directly due to the efforts of lobbyists at work in both the Republican and Democratic parties, so that's inefficient and corrupt leadership on another level of government. Anyway, considering that effective democratic government is "reflecting the voice of the people", it can be argued that corruption inherently precludes effective governmental processes, at least when applied to a democratic model of society. I'd prefer the latter. Inefficiency is notoriously easy to spot, so they'd likely be voted out after their term has ended, and due to their honesty not attempt to make a permanent play for power.
Of course, that's assuming that the ideal, pure democracy exists. In the real world, as I said, bias towards benefactors is all too common. Just look at KRudd's mining supertax and see where that got him.
I don't like putting Obama on the highlights cause I know why he became president. They say: Anybody is better than the previous president. But i think i saw here or on google a picture of " Missed me yet" picture of Bush. I bet our previous leader will also do that. Or the question: What will the former president would have done in this situation? The US and the Philippines are no different on the situation of leadership. Both say they came from a bad administration and the new administration is being blamed.
I hear he's being considered for cabinet though. Anyway yeah, all democracies are flawed. The amount of corruption in any given democracy seems to be inversely proportional to governmental efficiency, lower limit being where there's no initiative being taken and upper limit being at the point where it becomes more of an dictatorship.
We (from the Philippines) had such a government once. It was during Ramon Magsaysay's term in office. He was the only President in this country who actually opened the doors of Malacañang to his populace. You could actually walk into his office & ask for whatever form of help you need & he'll help you out on the spot if your cause is indeed very urgent. @Damanali: I know P-Noy isn't doing a great job... yet, but let's not take this botched hostage taking incident the one & only reason for impeaching the guy. As for the choices you asked, I rather have a very corrupt Dick~tator like Ferdinand Marcos be in charge because during his term our economy was stable & the prices of goods were at reasonable prices, sure he went overboard by declaring Martial Law & cutting freedom of speech but that was a fine price to pay in my opinion for economic stability
Well, part of it was that he was (obviously) favored by the media and portrayed as a new change, which indeed he was (the first African-American president of the U.S.A.) and another part is that the media did NOT favor McCain, and showed his views to be pretty much like a "Bush II" The real problem with preident Obama, in my opinion, is that EVERYONE expected him to fix EVERYTHING as soon as he got into the office, as if he were some kinda black jesus. There was a lot of Republican (and sometimes even democratic) opposition when he tried to pass his laws, and it took a lot longer. Again, why did it take longer? He didn't know as many people as past parties, his views of "change" weren't favored by a lot of politicians, and from what I hear on political news just about daily is that republicans have pretty much united for the sole purpose of stopping and repealing Obama's Passed laws and preventing future ones. Probably the most recent example is from Jan Brewer's infamous and "unprepared" speech; "We have pushed back HARD against the federal government. We have filed suit against Obama health care" (notice she refers to it directly as OBAMA health care, and not just the health care reform bill) Now, I know that my views are flawed, as are those of all people, so feel free to explain my faults in description of describe the situation in your own way.
It's like putting a band-aid on the stump of a freshly amputated limb. Welp, they say Mussolini had the trains running on time...
Isn't that just a case of people being too demanding, therefore somehow forcing the president to rush or change his "plans"?
A demanding job needs to expect demanding results. And demanding results needs demanding compensation. If a good job is not well compensated, they tend to make way to be well compensated. In politics, i think that what cause corruption. And that is why I ask my question. I want to learn if that is correct.
