Government Corruption: Powerless Or Powerful?

There is a belief that corruption springs from the actions of the powerful. It is they who control government, and therefor they that determine to whom’s benefit it will function. The powerless in this narrative cannot be responsible for governmental corruption, as their lack of power leaves them devoid of guilt as well as agency. It is the contrary that is in fact true. Being powerless can be far more corrupting than being powerful, primarily because by not having power citizens are lulled into an apathetic cycle. This is a significant issue because if the powerless abstain from participation in politics they cede responsibility and opportunity entirely to those who already hold the reigns of society. Only by holding themselves as well as the mighty accountable can the powerless exert control over the world.

In a democratic system the actions of government should be performed with the consent of the people. As Hamilton stated by Hamilton at the New York Ratifying Convention, “In free republics…the will of the people makes the essential principle of the government; and the laws which control the community, receive their tone and spirit

from the public wishes.” Ultimately all government must exist with the consent of the people. Even the mightiest of despots can only exert direct authority over a limited space, relying on the actions of followers to carry out their will. If the mass of the people refuse to follow a directive, it is virtually impossible for it to succeed. Without the consent of the people, the government has no control.
The past provides instructive cases of this phenomena.

The Soviet Union serves as an extreme example of how the lack of responsibility by the people allows corruption to arise. According to Shiraev, Shlapentokh, and Carroll in The Soviet Union: Internal and External Perspectives on Soviet Society, the Soviet government made decisions with virtually no thought towards public beliefs or welfare. The early Soviets did not command support from the bulk of the population, but the apathy and cynicism of the average Russian allowed them to seize control of their society. The public had ample opportunity to prevent the loss of their agency, but failed to act. The fault of governmental corruption rests not entirely on the citizens, but when they fail to maintain an active voice in a democratic system the ultimate responsibility is

theirs.
The scope of this issue is not limited to the present, or only to autocratic regimes. Within the United States this apathetic cycle can be seen in our politics, our commitment to the future, and our popular culture. David Simon’s “The Wire” famously chronicles the cycle of cynicism and corruption underlying America’s urban decay of the last four decades. Simon demonstrates the link between a disconnected public, venal politicians, and hopeless results.
In conclusion, while the common misconception is that only the powerful are corrupt, a lack of responsibility and action by the powerless only furthers this corruption. Looking to the past provides countless examples of this dispiriting ouroboros, but it also gives hope for the future. The United States was created by an active public in opposition to a disconnected and unaccountable government. The actions of the many were able to overcome the entrenched power and privilege of the few. This is why it is necessary for the powerless to maintain an active voice in politics. While the powerful may bring greater initial advantages to bear, in a democratic society the ultimate arbiter of power is always the people, who can only be powerless by their own consent.