Is Ireland suffering from 'small country syndrome'?

MT

Though from Northern Ireland, I couldn't help but notice the number of government/political corruption and church paedophilia scandals etc. that have emerged over the last decade in the Republic. Over the years I've also followed the coverage of bungled decisions and incompetence surrounding lack of planning, delayed infrastructure projects, electronic voting etc. Pondering on these issues the concern has emerged in my mind that the cause of so much dodgy governance could simply lie at the foot of Ireland's small size. With only 4 million people there will only ever be a limited pool of talent to select decision makers from allowing familiar faces to inhabit the corridors of power for much longer than they might otherwise do in a considerably larger nation.

The lack of competition for jobs at the top that this shortage of people results in may well be the cause of so many cosy elites at various levels of authority. Could Ireland's diminutive population be the cause of so much corruption, cronyism and wayward governance? Anyway here's an article from the Scots version of the Sunday Times that suggests Scotland, Ireland and Norway have been plagued with 'small country syndrome'.


It’s small country syndrome

Scotland is suffering from an affliction that strikes places with an all-too-cosy political elite — but it can be treated, says Tim Luckhurst

Festering beneath the catalogue of cronyism that has troubled Scotland since the devolution of power lurks a recurring suspicion. Is the hint of venality unkind cynics perceive in the friendship between Jack McConnell and Kirsty Wark merely the tip of an iceberg of rottenness? Does the appointment, without open competition, of the former Holyrood project director Sarah Davidson to head the executive’s new “tobacco control division” confirm it? Should each of these ostensibly unrelated examples of less-than-entirely-rigorous transparency in public life be considered alongside the acceptance of the highest bid to construct the Holyrood building and the number of Labour supporters running quangos as evidence of endemic corruption? Despite “Lobbygate”, “Villagate”, the Holyrood fiasco and the resignation of Henry McLeish, MSPs and others who depend on the continuing vitality of devolved government for their salaries emit raucous squeals of denial. These are loudest in the immediate vicinity of Bute House. Others play the old game of tagging the phenomenon with a uniquely Scottish name, as if corruption referred to as numptyism is somehow rendered less rancid. But as any therapist would tell them, self-delusion delays recovery as much as denial. Realising the dream that set out to turn cosy, corrupt, corporate Scotland into a clean, dynamic icon of civic democracy requires unflinching honesty.

The lesson has been learnt before in other diminutive fiefdoms. Only last year Norway, a nation of 4.5m, admitted the danger inherent in tiny power elites. Boardrooms, debating chambers, ministries and quangos are stuffed with old classmates. Normal codes of conduct are inadequate because formal chains of communication and scrutiny can be too easily circumnavigated. The Norwegian solution was to appoint a French prosecutor of Norwegian birth, Eva Joly, to explain why it was failing to beat corruption. Joly’s initial response was to call it “small country syndrome”.

The phrase is not new, but understanding what it really means demands more than a knowing nod and the complacent “it’s aye bin” retort so popular with those who benefit. Ireland learnt the very hard way what can happen when power is left unscrutinised and trust demanded, not earned. In 1982, when the playboy Malcolm MacArthur murdered the nurse Bridie Gargan in Phoenix Park, moved on to kill the farmer Donal Dunne and then took refuge in the sumptuous apartment of his old friend, the attorney-general, the nation was outraged. The taoiseach Charles Haughey’s declaration that the incident was “grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented” gave us the word “gubu”, but it did not give Irish voters confidence that their government was clean.

Like Norway, Ireland needed more than warm words of reassurance to begin rebuilding faith in officialdom. So far, powerful tribunals of inquiry have examined the payment of bribes to politicians in the context of planning, party funding and pure self-enrichment. Others have investigated irregularities in industry and healthcare and widespread abuse of children in state-run schools. Equipped with the sort of powers Lord Fraser could only dream about, the Mahon, Flood, Moriarty, Lindsay and Laffoy tribunals have been vital to Ireland’s modernisation. A nation that, 30 years ago, exhibited a governmental ethos reeking of parochialism and stuffed brown envelopes has become not perfect, but infinitely better.

Scotland is travelling in the opposite direction. The code of conduct designed to regulate the behaviour of MSPs has failed to restrict burgeoning expense claims and is powerless to regulate the conduct of ministers. Dr Jim Dyer, the parliamentary standards commissioner, has a narrow range of investigative powers and no capacity to punish those he does find in breach of the code of conduct. In stark imitation of the Westminster system they profess to loathe, MSPs insist on self-regulation. It does not seem to occur to them that Richard Nixon would have served out his second term if impeachment had required the US president’s consent.

It is self-defeating, as recent evidence from Westminster’s committee for standards in public life confirms. Trust in politicians is at an all-time low. According to last year’s Standards in Public Life report, voters say that “party politics is somehow at odds with the need of the country”. Electoral turnout shows alienation at its most intense here in Scotland. The coalition of civic interests that fought throughout the 1980s and 1990s to take power back from the English, Conservative establishment has produced a system of state patronage infested by luminous nepotism. An instinct which, in the 1950s, meant that knowing and being nice to the “cooncillor” was the best way to obtain desirable housing has found luxurious house room in our new, semi- national government.

Yes, Holyrood has a standards committee as well as a standards commissioner, and there is a separate ministerial code of conduct, too. But none of them seems willing to address why friends of people in power are so often invited to make television programmes, chair quangos, manage divisions of government or sit on boards. The letters pages of our newspapers and radio phone-ins are routinely filled by ordinary Scots complaining that opportunity depends on who you know, not what you know, and still the tribunes of our new, pure, über-democracy say it is just a vile perception whipped up by evil journalists determined to destroy devolution and to bring down any public figure who dares to succeed. Believe it. Your first minister says it is true.

Never mind that from Nixon’s Watergate, via Haughey’s Ireland to Madame Joly’s native Norway, journalistic endeavour has precipitated action to investigate and suppress sleaze. Ignore incontrovertible evidence that in London, the same process recently brought down a home secretary despite prime ministerial backing. Journalists are as hated as politicians (yes, Kirsty, even you). There is nothing except freedom to be gained from defending the virtues of a free press. Change requires decisive action by legislators. The 129 who claim that status in Scotland must wake up before they inflict irreversible damage on their own parliament.

Scotland does not exist in a vacuum. The lesson is staring us in the face. Small country syndrome requires ruthless treatment. It is not enough to have the same insurance policies as a large state. Where the talent pool is deep, statutory regulation of sleaze is augmented by the effects of competition.

Politicians work to expose each other’s wrongdoing in the hope of gaining advantage. This dynamic functions within parties as much as between them. It has not created perfection at Westminster, but it does reinforce scrutiny. We may not consider Tony Blair honest, but we know we can rely on Gordon Brown’s supporters to provide evidence if he is not.

Where power is monopolised by a smaller elite, this works less well. The power of patronage combines with unofficial networks of communication to deflect criticism.

Ministers and MSPs who agonise about Scotland’s brain drain while Ireland grows more populous should face reality. The perception of sleaze in devolved Scotland would matter if it were just a perception, but it is more than that. It is a problem that existed throughout the 20th century, but it was given new vitality when devolution allowed the beneficiaries to remove themselves from the searchlight of external scrutiny.

Call it sleaze, cronyism, nepotism or plain corruption; it has already unsettled the settled will of the Scottish people. Experience demonstrates that it must be ruthlessly confronted by independent authority, immune to interference by parliament and executive. The alternative is ever-deepening corruption of the body politic.

simu

Power can be abused and political élites can be created in any country, no matter what the size. Look at the USA!

Poker_Peter

Though from Northern Ireland, I couldn't help but notice the number of government/political corruption and church paedophilia scandals etc. that have emerged over the last decade in the Republic. Over the years I've also followed the coverage of bungled decisions and incompetence surrounding lack of planning, delayed infrastructure projects, electronic voting etc. Pondering on these issues the concern has emerged in my mind that the cause of so much dodgy governance could simply lie at the foot of Ireland's small size. With only 4 million people there will only ever be a limited pool of talent to select decision makers from allowing familiar faces to inhabit the corridors of power for much longer than they might otherwise do in a considerably larger nation.

Or maybe it's just that in Ireland, we investigate our corruption i na far more public and transparent way, hence there is the appearance of greater corruption than their actually is? Italy is certainly more politically corrupt than Ireland, with politicians consorting with the mafia and bribing judges.

Our man in Havana

You only have to look at the tribunals to know that this is a banana republic. Its all who you know and the auld nudge nudge wink wink.

true

Poker_Peter wrote:

Or maybe it's just that in Ireland, we investigate our corruption i na far more public and transparent way, hence there is the appearance of greater corruption than their actually is? Italy is certainly more politically corrupt than Ireland, with politicians consorting with the mafia and bribing judges.

"in a far more public and transparent way" - in Ireland ? How many years was Charlie Haughey in politics and was he not corrupt utill the end of his political life ? Did he not consort with our mafia? As regards bribing judges, we have unfortunately gone one step further in Ireland and seen the mafia handiwork.
We are only the same size population as a decent size city in much of the world, so maybe the initial poster Bond 007 has a point.

MT

Power can be abused and political élites can be created in any country, no matter what the size. Look at the USA!

That may be true, but are they more likely the smaller the country is? Furthermore, Ireland and the US have very different forms of government so that could also be a factor. Having said all that, time and again a perceptions of corruption survey carried out by an independent international organisation – the name has escaped me – has shown Ireland to be more corrupt than the US. However, I think that survey looks more at financial corruption whereas ‘small country syndrome’ refers to something else. Norway may be quite a clean country in terms of ‘money politics’ and bribes paid but as the article says it could still be plagued with other forms of corruption. Cronyism, nepotism and cosy elites are also harmful to good governance and anyway are likely to lead to the more notorious brown envelope culture. And once money for favours sets in you’re on the slippery slope towards a South American kleptocracy.

As the article says, the cause of a greater prevalence of cosy elites in small countries is simply the lack of competition for places at the top. Only a cursory glance at political machinations down the years would have demonstrated this. Just look at how the career of a politician at the top is so much longer in Dublin or Holyrood than in Westminster. The same is most likely the case in industry and the civil service etc. Just ask yourself if in the light of the Martin Cullen controversies – electronic voting, bypassing public tendering for PR contracts – would David Blunkett still be in government if he where an Irish minister? Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes as Ireland lacks both the pool of talent to provide replacements and the cut-throat rivalry that a greater reservoir of gifted politicos might result in.

The question is, ‘what can be done about this problem?’ Ireland can’t simply wish itself a larger population but it can undertake rigorous anti-corruption measures that might diminish the effects of a smaller talent pool/less competition. These are my suggestions:

More women in politics. Think about it, most Irish politicians are only drawn from one half of the population. Make involvement just as accessible to women and you have twice the rivalry. Furthermore, countries like Sweden with nearly 50/50 gender representation in parliament tend to be less corrupt. Maybe its due to the claim that women have a more transparent way of doing things – less room for the secretive nod and a wink culture.

Relaxed libel laws. Self-evident really. If the press had less fear of costly lawsuits they would be emboldened to investigate more. Remember, due in large part to Ireland’s punitive libel laws politicians have shown a far greater tendency to resort to litigation to silence irksome journalists. It’s a rare event when a British government minister sues a paper but quite a frequent occurrence in Ireland. If the press were not so easily tamed would Charlie Haughey have been exposed much sooner? With access to libel laws like Ireland’s Richard Nixon may well have been able to brush Watergate under the carpet.

A tougher freedom of information act. It was a good day for secretive government when this tool of anti-corruption was watered down and made more costly to access. As far as I’m aware the details of every meeting involving the Swedish PM can be read within days by anyone. Think of what a light this might shine on shady deals in Dublin. What did the government discuss with the Catholic church over the issue of an indemnity from compensation? How was benchmarking for public sector workers arrived at? Who said what over the McCabe killers controversy? It would be very interesting to read transcripts of every word Ray Burke ever uttered in office, not to mention of meetings in planning offices up and down the country.

Anyway, I could go on but if your still awake you’ll have got my gist. Ireland can’t rely on competition in the political system to the same extent that they can in England. So other safe-guards have to be so much tougher. Unfortunately, on two, if not three, of the above counts the reverse is the case.

BolBill

Bond-007 wrote:

You only have to look at the tribunals to know that this is a banana republic. Its all who you know and the auld nudge nudge wink wink.

Thank you for that post, you're spot on.
This country compared to other so called developed countries is a joke. Where does all the money go? We are supposed to be living in a country that is developed ok? So why can't I get to work in the morning? Why is the transport system such a joke? Why did the Luas take longer than expected? Why did it go over budget? Why did the designers of the Port Tunnel f**k it up so badly that a f**king truck couldn't get through it? Why is it that when I recently landed in Dublin "airport" (I use that term loosely) I had to walk into the Terminal in the rain and then wait an hour, yes "only" an hour, for my luggage. Why did the government decide to take 10000 jobs from 10000 Civil Servants without even having the decency to tell them before announcing it to the country? Why did a (unrequired) Computerised Voting System cost us 50 Million and not even work?

MT

Here is the survey I referred to in the above post. I should also correct my point about the US and Ireland. For the last two years Ireland has drawn level with America - they're both equally corrupt. A positive to take from this organisation is that Ireland has climbed from the mid 20s to 17 over the last number of years. The country has become less corrupt.



Survey by Transparency International

TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2004

Rank / Country / Mean score / Range of scores from surveys
1 Finland 9,7 9.5 - 9.8
2 New Zealand 9,6 9.4 - 9.6
3 Denmark 9,5 9.3 - 9.7
Iceland 9,5 9.4 - 9.7
5 Singapore 9,3 9.2 - 9.4
6 Sweden 9,2 9.1 - 9.3
7 Switzerland 9,1 8.9 - 9.2
8 Norway 8,9 8.6 - 9.1
9 Australia 8,8 8.4 - 9.1
10 Netherlands 8,7 8.5 - 8.9
11 United Kingdom 8,6 8.4 - 8.8
12 Canada 8,5 8.1 - 8.9
13 Austria 8,4 8.1 - 8.8
Luxembourg 8,4 8.0 - 8.9
15 Germany 8,2 8.0 - 8.5
16 Hong Kong 8,0 7.1 - 8.5
17 Belgium 7,5 7.1 - 8.0
Ireland 7,5 7.2 - 7.9
USA 7,5 6.9 - 8.0
20 Chile 7,4 7.0 - 7.8
21 Barbados 7,3 6.6 - 7.6
22 France 7,1 6.6 - 7.6
Spain 7,1 6.7 - 7.4
24 Japan 6,9 6.2 - 7.4
25 Malta 6,8 5.3 - 8.2
26 Israel 6,4 5.6 - 7.1
27 Portugal 6,3 5.8 - 6.8
28 Uruguay 6,2 5.9 - 6.7
29 Oman 6,1 5.1 - 6.8
United Arab Emirates 6,1 5.1 - 7.1
31 Botswana 6,0 5.3 - 6.8
Estonia 6,0 5.6 - 6.7
Slovenia 6,0 5.6 - 6.6
34 Bahrain 5,8 5.5 - 6.2
35 Taiwan 5,6 5.2 - 6.1
36 Cyprus 5,4 5.0 - 5.8
37 Jordan 5,3 4.6 - 5.9
38 Qatar 5,2 4.6 - 5.6
39 Malaysia 5,0 4.5 - 5.6
Tunisia 5,0 4.5 - 5.6
41 Costa Rica 4,9 4.2 - 5.8
42 Hungary 4,8 4.6 - 5.0
Italy 4,8 4.4 - 5.1
44 Kuwait 4,6 3.8 - 5.3
Lithuania 4,6 4.0 - 5.4
South Africa 4,6 4.2 - 5.0
47 South Korea 4,5 4.0 - 4.9
48 Seychelles 4,4 3.7 - 5.0
49 Greece 4,3 4.0 - 4.8
Suriname 4,3 2.1 - 5.8
51 Czech Republic 4,2 3.7 - 4.9
El Salvador 4,2 3.3 - 5.1
Trinidad and Tobago 4,2 3.6 - 5.2
54 Bulgaria 4,1 3.7 - 4.6
Mauritius 4,1 3.2 - 4.8
Namibia 4,1 3.5 - 4.6
57 Latvia 4,0 3.8 - 4.3
Slovakia 4,0 3.6 - 4.5
59 Brazil 3,9 3.7 - 4.1
60 Belize 3,8 3.4 - 4.1
Colombia 3,8 3.4 - 4.1
62 Cuba 3,7 2.2 - 4.7
Panama 3,7 3.4 - 4.2
64 Ghana 3,6 3.1 - 4.1
Mexico 3,6 3.3 - 3.8
Thailand 3,6 3.3 - 3.9
67 Croatia 3,5 3.3 - 3.8
Peru 3,5 3.3 - 3.7
Poland 3,5 3.1 - 3.9
Sri Lanka 3,5 3.1 - 3.9
71 China 3,4 3.0 - 3.8
Saudi Arabia 3,4 2.7 - 4.0
Syria 3,4 2.8 - 4.1
74 Belarus 3,3 1.9 - 4.8
Gabon 3,3 2.1 - 3.7
Jamaica 3,3 2.8 - 3.7
77 Benin 3,2 2.0 - 4.3
Egypt 3,2 2.7 - 3.8
Mali 3,2 2.2 - 4.2
Morocco 3,2 2.9 - 3.5
Turkey 3,2 2.8 - 3.7
82 Armenia 3,1 2.4 - 3.7
Bosnia and Herzegovina 3,1 2.7 - 3.5
Madagascar 3,1 1.8 - 4.4
85 Mongolia 3,0 2.6 - 3.2
Senegal 3,0 2.5 - 3.5
87 Dominican Republic 2,9 2.4 - 3.3
Iran 2,9 2.2 - 3.4
Romania 2,9 2.5 - 3.4
90 Gambia 2,8 2.2 - 3.4
India 2,8 2.6 - 3.0
Malawi 2,8 2.2 - 3.7
Mozambique 2,8 2.4 - 3.1
Nepal 2,8 1.6 - 3.4
Russia 2,8 2.5 - 3.1
Tanzania 2,8 2.4 - 3.2
97 Algeria 2,7 2.3 - 3.0
Lebanon 2,7 2.1 - 3.2
Macedonia 2,7 2.3 - 3.2
Nicaragua 2,7 2.5 - 3.0
Serbia and Montenegro 2,7 2.3 - 3.0
102 Eritrea 2,6 1.6 - 3.4
Papua New Guinea 2,6 1.9 - 3.4
Philippines 2,6 2.4 - 2.9
Uganda 2,6 2.1 - 3.1
Vietnam 2,6 2.3 - 2.9
Zambia 2,6 2.3 - 2.9
108 Albania 2,5 2.0 - 3.0
Argentina 2,5 2.2 - 2.8
Libya 2,5 1.9 - 3.0
Palestinian Authority 2,5 2.0 - 2.7
112 Ecuador 2,4 2.3 - 2.5
Yemen 2,4 1.9 - 2.9
114 Congo, Republic of 2,3 2.0 - 2.7
Ethiopia 2,3 1.9 - 2.9
Honduras 2,3 2.0 - 2.6
Moldova 2,3 2.0 - 2.8
Sierra Leone 2,3 2.0 - 2.7
Uzbekistan 2,3 2.1 - 2.4
Venezuela 2,3 2.2 - 2.5
Zimbabwe 2,3 1.9 - 2.7
122 Bolivia 2,2 2.1 - 2.3
Guatemala 2,2 2.0 - 2.4
Kazakhstan 2,2 1.8 - 2.7
Kyrgyzstan 2,2 2.0 - 2.5
Niger 2,2 2.0 - 2.5
Sudan 2,2 2.0 - 2.3
Ukraine 2,2 2.0 - 2.4
129 Cameroon 2,1 1.9 - 2.3
Iraq 2,1 1.3 - 2.8
Kenya 2,1 1.9 - 2.4
Pakistan 2,1 1.6 - 2.6
133 Angola 2,0 1.7 - 2.1
Congo, Democratic Republic 2,0 1.5 - 2.2
Cote d´Ivoire 2,0 1.7 - 2.2
Georgia 2,0 1.6 - 2.3
Indonesia 2,0 1.7 - 2.2
Tajikistan 2,0 1.7 - 2.4
Turkmenistan 2,0 1.6 - 2.3
140 Azerbaijan 1,9 1.8 - 2.0
Paraguay 1,9 1.7 - 2.2
142 Chad 1,7 1.1 - 2.3
Myanmar 1,7 1.5 - 2.0
144 Nigeria 1,6 1.4 - 1.8
145 Bangladesh 1,5 1.1 - 1.9
Haiti 1,5 1.2 - 1.9

Explanatory notes
*CPI Score relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and country analysts and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt).
** Confidence range provides a range of possible values of the CPI score. This reflects how a country's score may vary, depending on measurement precision. Nominally, with 5 percent probability the score is above this range and with another 5 percent it is below. However, particularly when only few sources are available an unbiased estimate of the mean coverage probability is lower than the nominal value of 90%.
*** Surveys used refers to the number of surveys that assessed a country's performance. 18 surveys and expert assessments were used and at least 3 were required for a country to be included in the CPI.

MT

As far as I'm aware the above survey deals mainly with financial corruption. IMO 'small country syndrome' is a further problem on top of this that hinders good governance. I doubt that the CPI would have assessed the prevalence of cosy elites and the lack of talented administrators/politicians in a small country.

spanner

well we must be doing something right if the economist magazine says ireland will be the best place to live in for 2005. also we vote in these governments we are making our own beds

MT

well we must be doing something right if the economist magazine says ireland will be the best place to live in for 2005.

I'm not sure, but I believe this was due in part to Ireland's transitional status from a traditional agrarian nation to an advanced rich nation. Qualities from either identities would not have been enough on their own for Ireland to have topped the poll. However, by combining for example strong families - a factor common with poorer nations - and extensive higher education - as in most rich countries - Ireland averaged out ahead of the pack. Its performance in each sphere - third or first world qualities to be blunt - would not have been particularly spectacular on its own. It's just that the combination of the two allowed Ireland to score moderately well across the board. In comparison the UK would have surpassed Ireland in most categories favourable to the rich world eg. healthcare but would have been left trailing by most poor countries in things such as divorce and family stability.

Instead of extremes, Ireland rode out all assessments with a moderate performance.

What needs to be grasped from this is that as Ireland continues its journey from penury to plenty a good quality of life will depend in future on performing well at the things that rich countries do best, ie. healthcare while realising that things like family stability will continue to slide given the inevitable greater personal freedom and liberal attitudes that wealth tends to foster.

This is also instructive for any thoughts on corruption/administrative incompetence. For while it was commendable in many ways that sleaze/dodgy governance didn’t reach the heights they have in other poorer parts when Ireland was equally backward, now that the countries rich it should be compared with the Swedens and Netherlands of this world. In this company Ireland could do with some improvement.

arcadegame2004

Ireland can’t rely on competition in the political system to the same extent that they can in England. So other safe-guards have to be so much tougher. Unfortunately, on two, if not three, of the above counts the reverse is the case.

I find that statement bewildering when you consider that the British Straight Vote electoral system effectively enshrines the 2-party political system that effectively prevents anyone other than Labour or the Conservatives from getting into government, including preventing them getting into a coalition. The British electoral system leaves around 20% of the electorate with NO parliamentary representation, by handing the seat to a candidate who comes first in each constituency (and therefore party) even if that candidate gets a laughably small % of the vote, e.g. Labour winning by-elections when 66% of the electorate in those constituencies vote for the Tories or Liberal Democrats. That seems to me an extremely unfair electoral-system. It also forces people to vote against someone, rather than voting for them e.g. this candidate can't win therefore I must choose the lesser of the evils to stop the Tories etc. getting in. That deprives the electorate of a real choice.

By contrast, even parties or candidates with just 1 or 2% at national level have a shot of winning a seat in the Irish electoral-system , e.g. about 19 Independents. No party has held an overall-majority in the Dail since 1981, and Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have to always rely either on a coalition partner or independents. Yes. A lot of corruption went on during Haughey's time, but remember that the tribunals that have uncovered it were set up by Coalition governments - something unlikely in the extreme to happen if FF were in power alone. For all you or I know, the lack of truly independent tribunals of Inquiry in the UK (does the word Hutton spring to mind?), may be covering up a vast cesspool of corruption, that will remain secret for years to come. That is my own personal opinion, but I doubt it is incorrect.

The idea that you present that somehow small countries are intrinsical corrupt when they govern themselves is totally wrong, and seems to hint, however unintentional perhaps on your part, that it is better for them to remain under their often former imperial rulers. I totally reject that idea.

The Corinthian

Poker_Peter wrote:

Or maybe it's just that in Ireland, we investigate our corruption i na far more public and transparent way, hence there is the appearance of greater corruption than their actually is? Italy is certainly more politically corrupt than Ireland, with politicians consorting with the mafia and bribing judges.

What dreadful rubbish. Is memory so short that people have forgotten the Tangentopoli trials of the early nineties? In Italy numerous politicians and officials have ended up fleeing the country or serving lengthy prison sentences. In Ireland, to date, there has not been a single successful conviction for corruption.

MT wrote:

More women in politics. Think about it, most Irish politicians are only drawn from one half of the population. Make involvement just as accessible to women and you have twice the rivalry. Furthermore, countries like Sweden with nearly 50/50 gender representation in parliament tend to be less corrupt. Maybe its due to the claim that women have a more transparent way of doing things – less room for the secretive nod and a wink culture.

You can hardly pick a single country that has high female representation and derive a trend - beyond that the idea that an increase in female participation in government decreases corruption is at best speculative and at worst sexist.

MT

Hi arcadegame2004,

I find that statement bewildering when you consider that the British Straight Vote electoral system effectively enshrines the 2-party political system that effectively prevents anyone other than Labour or the Conservatives from getting into government….

I think you’ve misinterpreted the point I was conveying concerning political competition. I may not have made it clear, but the competition that the article and myself are referring to is that between people competing for positions in government or industry. This is simply less intense in a nation with a smaller population – there are simply fewer people with the ability to fulfil high-ranking posts. The danger presented by this smaller pool of talent is a greater risk of cosy self-serving elites forming. The risk is that in such an elite a blind eye might be turned to patronage, incompetence, even misconduct, etc. Where you have more people of the required capability to begin with an atmosphere of greater rivalry for power is fostered placing those holding office under greater pressure to perform and at greater risk of exposure for their misdeeds. It’s common sense really. Having said all this, I still believe that such problems can be circumvented in smaller states by increased scrutiny of public appointments and greater levels of transparency surrounding political and business machinations. Increased vigilance is required where competition might otherwise suffice.

The issue you highlight is increased inter party competition in a system of proportional representation as opposed to first past the post. While in theory this gives voters greater choice it still does nothing to increase the number of talented individuals amongst the nation’s political ranks – rather sprinkles them across a greater number of parties as opposed to two or three. So while such a system may be preferable for other reasons – such as the benign rivalry of coalition partners while in government – it does not increase the pool of talented politicos. Indeed the benefits of increased self-scrutiny by a coalition government may well be cancelled out by an additional problem they give rise to. The larger party often has to overlook more talented individuals in its own ranks to ensure the participation of a junior partner by giving its sometimes less able members the portfolios instead.

Very simply, a greater number of parties competing for power does not result in a greater number of people competing for ministerial position. Instead, there are just fewer politicians per party. And as shown above coalition governments can actually diminish further the rivalry for posts. No, I’d suggest that a much better way for a smaller nation to safeguard against the problems of a self-indulgent elite is increased transparency and more rigorous measures to provide scrutiny.

The idea that you present that somehow small countries are intrinsical corrupt when they govern themselves is totally wrong, and seems to hint…

I disagree, all things being equal I believe they are. But all other factors are never equal, so small countries – as the index in an earlier post demonstrates – can invoke measures to eradicate the problems caused by fewer people. In this respect, there’s no reason why Ireland can’t overcome ‘small country syndrome’ and become one of the worlds least corrupt and most competently administered nations. However, is the political will there to do so?

…and seems to hint, however unintentional perhaps on your part, that it is better for them to remain under their often former imperial rulers. I totally reject that idea.

What? Could you explain what this means.

arcadegame2004

What? Could you explain what this means.

Perhaps I am wrong. But I made the remark at the end of my last post because I was curious as to whether your position was that small countries cannot run themselves in a non-corrupt environment and thus need the rule of the imperial power. If that is not your position then I take that back.

AngelofFire

Doing a 7000 word essay for sociology in college on behaviourial variations across different countries, and im developing a theory that the level of corruption by politicans and abuse by powerful insitutions like the catholic church stems from a deliquant mentality we have developed since being colonised by the british. However it doesn`t stop here it filters down into all levels of irish society, example if someone tryed to smoke down the back of a bus over in britain, someone would report it and the driver would even go as far as to stop the bus. I cant go upstairs on most buses in dublin without breathing in ciggarette or even hash smoke. This deliquant attitude that we have developed under colonisation as a way of revolting against our rulers is still prevalent in all walks of society, even at the highest levels.