If a political party could structurally and permanently ‘proof’ itself against corruption, would it have a selective advantage or disadvantage in the political ecosystem? An interesting question, if considering democracy from an evolutionary perspective.

9 responses

  1. This system? Severe disadvantage. The outcome of any contest of representational democracy under capitalism is necessarily dictated by financial dynamics. Opting out of “corruption” means opting out of winning.

  2. I would say that this is one issue that makes me question if non-participatuon is the best option? If winning means that you must do something that you probably aren’t willing to do, then why participate?

  3. @seishonagon I was imaging a party that somehow made it impossible for its elected representatives to be, act, or become corrupted. Perhaps a hyper transparency model of some kind? I appreciate it’s a thought experiment only.

  4. Hey Eric, I was thinking the same thing at first. But then I wondered, ‘If so many citizens are so angry and fed up with corruption, maybe the thing that you assume would make you uncompetitive might be the thing that lets you win?’

  5. Hey Mike. makes me wonder what the political equivalent is to ‘Odysseus and the sirens’? If the pressure towards corruption is apparently and historically so high, how do you tie yourself to a mast to stay the course without becoming lured away?

  6. It’s a question of whether the fed uppedness is a stronger motivator than the influence of the propaganda machine money can buy you. Given our advertising-saturated psyches, I’m doubtful any critical mass wouldn’t be taken in by a charismatic faux-anti-corruption “saviour” (see Trump). If it were possible, it’d require a mass shift in ontology and/or a radically different political-economic framework.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *