Autocratic leadership has to do with leadership style and traits. In the leadership literature there has rarely been identified that corruption is related to a special style, although the literature is not illustrative. Morality is a parameter in leadership and elected leaders usually fair well. So non-elected leaders might have this trait.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Jurney & readers,

It may reasonably be held that corruption is a typical means for the establishment and continuation of autocratic rule. Its a matter of "the unifying power of public plunder" --to use a traditional phrase. Surely, the corruption involved in autocracy or authoritarian rule may be either economic or political or both.

The rule of law will generally tend to undercut autocracy insofar as laws depend on "the consent of the governed;" and insofar as any supposed "lawful autocracy," subverts democratic accountability, this may be viewed as a general mode of political methods and means facilitating corrupt practices. For example, extensive, partisan gerrymandering which subverts public representation and democratic accountability (the politicians select their voters, instead of the other way around) is a mode of political practice which may easily facilitate corruption --with or without autocracy.

One would expect any supposed "lawful autocracy" to involve extensive means designed or functioning to avoid democratic accountability. Especially if it represents itself as a democratic government, such means render it corrupt. Notice, however, that the those at the top, with supposed "clean hands," may seek to avoid the appearance of involvement in the corruption which actually exists and on which the system depends.

H.G. Callaway

Corruption from an autocratic point of view is defined as the abuse of public office for private gains which may have wide ranging negative consequences such as social inequality, poverty, and low economic development. Notably, it undermines the principles of fairness and equity by destroying the integrity of the government . Current studies show that autocratic governance breeds bureaucratic corruption which grows in exchange for the political loyalty of the general population.

Unfortunately, corruption is characteristic of any kind of state government. Autocracy or dictatorship is no exception. Before, I believed, that corruption is characteristic of a non-democratic ruling style. Having lived in two countries (one was European, the second is North American), I became convinced that corruption is everywhere. It has a different character, but it exists.

Is it any wonder if monetary relations are the basis of any society? Therefore, everyone sells what he can. The official - his resources, which he should controls; this is corruption. There are actually two restraints - morality and fear. Fear just works better in authocracy states.

I expect that in liberal societies the next step will be the legalization of corruption (as well as prostitution and drug dealership little bit before), let they pay taxes ...

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Gorshkov & readers,

It is true that corruption exists everywhere--as you have it. But not to the same extent and degree. A chief question is whether, in any given country or locality, it is possible for ordinary people to believe that life without participating in corrupt practices is possible. That is one test of the extent of corruption.

Where this remains possible it is the corrupt people who live in fear of exposure.

Lesson: Do no acquiesce in corruption. (It is not that this is without costs.)

H.G. Callaway

I think us, for isnt true to milad adminstration sugest in more coise without corruption isnt fear and all people exposure in community democrated in this remains @H.G. Callaway word is the corrupt people who live in central country in analysis people's success.

Corruption certainly gets the structural support in autocracy, but it also survives well in democratic regimes. A study found democracy has no visible effect in reducing corruption:

Article Does democracy reduce corruption?

For a comprehensive theoretical discussion on democracy and corruption, I strongly recommend this article:

Article What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ghosh & readers,

Warren's paper looks quite interesting. I took notice, in particular, of the following passage in the abstract:

Corruption in a democracy, I argue, involves duplicitous violations of the democratic norm of inclusion. Such a conception encompasses the standard conception while complementing it with attention to the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion within democratic politics.

---End quotation

See:

Article What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?

This is clearly a theme which deserves some development.

H.G. Callaway

Yes, it is such a lovely piece. In fact, I like reading Warren's work, certainly one of the finest political theorists in our times. His every works leaves a frsh feeling, offering a lot of food for [email protected]. Callaway

Corruption can exist in any type of political regime. However, in a sound democracy, it is easier to fight with it, thanks to the public control (including free media), various institutional arrangements, independence of courts, political culture, and the rule of law. Regarding the 'lawful autocrat' issue, it is the leader with the legitimacy. Legitimacy is one of the key notions of political science and is inseparably linked to ideas such as the state, power, citizens, rights, and obligations, etc. Definitions continue to be the subject of much debate, but I will confine myself here to the one proposed by Bertrand Badie. In his view, “legitimacy may be defined as the formula by which individuals accept power and consider their obedience as a just commitment” (Badie, Sociology of Legitimacy, 2001). When rulers wield the power they have no right to wield, it is said that they exert power without legitimacy. Legitimacy concerns the relation between citizens, or subjects, and the state authority or, as e.g. in Sub-Saharan Africa, the local traditional authority. Above all, it involves such basic issues as the subjects’ or citizens’ submission to, or compliance with, the decisions made by the authorities and the right of the state or traditional authority to limit the subjects’ or citizens’ freedom. The authorities in today’s democratic states draw their legitimacy from the will of the electorate as expressed through elections. Nonetheless, even in such a seemingly ideal state of affairs, legitimacy is at times a subject of discussion. Seymour Martin Lipset (Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics, 1983) says in this context that legitimacy is evaluative and considers that people of a state recognize a political system as legitimate or not “according to the way in which its values fit with theirs.” Thus, for example, when in a democratic state a candidate we support is elected to office we automatically recognize that candidate as having legitimacy. If the same elections are won by a candidate whom we do not trust or support, we may question that person’s legitimacy, especially if he or she was elected in conditions of low voter turnout. But, for example, in the states of post-colonial Africa, the problem of legitimacy is much more complicated than in the Western world. In the case of many post-colonial African states, traditional authority, which is connected with the faith of the ruled in the sanctity of the traditional order and in the power of the ruler, exists on the local level side by side with the legal national authority (which is based on election, appointment, or other means). In many African states, numerous different pre-colonial systems of power – such as kingships, sultanates or chieftaincies – which have a traditional legitimacy often confirmed in colonial and post-colonial times, have survived till our day.

In a financialized capitalism the central nucleus of corruption ends in money laundering and capital flight. That is the evident reality in Latin America. I live in the Triple Frontier (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay) where that can be clearly seen. To the extent that large private companies colonize governments, the greater the corruption in volume. If this alliance between large companies and government achieves consolidated domination, the appearance of democratic formality can be maintained. If it is more strongly questioned, the authoritarian features become more evident, as can be seen today in Brazil. Corruption will always be linked to violence against the population, sometimes more hidden or sometimes m