FILSAFAT KORUPSI - Direktori File UPI

corruption or prevent the implementation of regressive policies. Mechanisms should be directed
towards real distribution of political power, not only towards the transference of power among
political elites.
6. Fighting Corruption and Inequality by Limiting Presidential Authority
In the previous sections of this paper I presented four arguments. First, that ―executive
supremacy‖ in Latin America is a result of generalized institutional weakness related to its
colonization structure, and not to a cultural tendency to authoritarianism and tolerance to
corruption. Slavery, violence, and extreme concentration of political power and economic
resources have more to do with institutional weakness than ―Latin American values.‖ It is a
matter of changing political and economic structures more than changing culture. This claim is
supported by my second argument that perception of corruption is correlated with economic
inequality, once structural distribution of power is statistically more significant than values. A
third argument is that the political structure of ―executive supremacy‖, or ―delegative
democracy‖ for the more optimistic, maintained many features of authoritarianism, chief among
them the broad executive authority to legislate. My fourth argument is that the use of executive
decree authority to fight economic crises and implement liberalizing reforms weakened political
institutions even more, increasing economic inequality and perception of corruption and
Page 26
unfairness. As a conclusion, I will describe why this situation is dangerous in societies as
unequal as Latin American ones. I will also propose a direction for reforms.
6.1. Income Inequality and Political Tolerance to Unfair Economic Reforms
In highly unequal societies, governments should have checks in their capacity to
implement policies and new legislation which might have negative distributive effects. Such
societies should devise new institutional arrangement by which groups with limited access to
economic power might compensate this asymmetry by using their political power. Otherwise
there is a high risk that governments will implement policies which increase inequality,
considering its low political opposition. I will present a graphic version of the argument to make
it clearer.
Political Tolerance to Unfair Policies
The graphic above describes the distribution of income in two different societies. Society
1 is highly unequal and Society 2 has a more equitable distribution of income. The objective of
this graphic is to demonstrate how distribution of income might impact on tolerance to unfair
economic and financial Policies. 57). This model should be interpreted in light of theories of political
transition that assume that economic reforms would have a negative impact on income for a while, which
would be compensated by higher levels of economic growth in the future. 58). This model describes a
situation in which such loss is distributed evenly in society. Everyone losses the same amount of income.
This effect is clearly regressive and would increase
inequality in society, despite the fact that the slope of distribution would be the same and all
members would incur in equal loss. The hope is that future economic growth would generate the
opposite effect (―a rising tide lift all boats‖), reducing economic inequality.
However, there is a hidden unfairness in this process. It resides in the fact that the
income loss is irrelevant for the wealthier strata of society, and for the lower strata it means that
they are going to endure extreme deprivation. The poorer strata will endure permanent loss, such
as reduction in their live expectancy, health damages, exposure to violence, and educational
deficits. A mere recovery on income in the future might not account for such losses. In fact,
those suffering deprivation will have a permanent loss in their equality of opportunities. Hence,
policies that force part of the population to suffer extreme deprivations might be considered
unfair if they are not accompanied by compensatory policies.
Moreover, in societies with high levels of income inequality, such as Society 1, income
losses drive only a small percentage of the population below the poverty line. Hence, policies
202