Too many managers in the decision making process, maybe it is one of the root cause of corruption. Indeed, it supposes an effective coordination (private-public) towards a results-driven strategy of getting private benefits under a steady joint action from top managers from different areas.
Its not just a matter of a dictator´s strategy in which one make the rules and others follow without getting direct benefits, but of many actors in strategic positions that “contaminate” the system towards exclusively private goals. When the public sector get to this level of pollution there is a complete loss of control not just in relation to their obscure operations but also for the entire system. A real endemic nightmare that cannot be achieved if is not under the complicity of many top managers from key areas within the public and private sector.
The only way to change this chaotic situation is to implement “inclusive policies that put people at the center of development,” (Sha Zukang). Therefore, citizens that are fully involved in the decision making process in all their stages as well as the rest of the government members. That represents one of the guarantees to stop these harmful processes of contamination and start cleaning with small gestures of accountability. Moving beyond the legal framework.
“Revolving doors”: one the most clear model of corruption that is literally killing the political system and exposure the need for innovative mechanisms of transparency and accountability at political level. Not so, at law framework level in which there is abundant and inactive material.
An effective-transparent-accountable organization (in politics or business sector) is the result of a simply good management focusing on economic-financial results or in-depth debate from their members –at all levels- by the implementation of inclusive policies?
The power of an active and involved workforce: citizens or just a simply management process from top managers within a results-driven strategy focusing on growth?
Its important to highlight that even if corruption hint development it can achieve good economic-financial results that’s the reason for stressing the fact that the citizens should be able to trigger their own mechanisms of ethics to unfold any attempt for biased interests. Political decisions must be taken within an inclusive policy and active dialogue. Is in that sense that copy the same patterns of the private sector specially those that have become sustainable and accountable should be a model to follow suit for the public sector.
Too many managers without the certainty of a practical mind and results-driven action coming from workers/citizens, is not the answer and we must move forward towards transparent and accountable processes based on an almost “direct democracy”.
The less inclusive is a system the less democratic is and the results are not based on accountability and transparency. This is not just a matter of a legal framework or effective Justice but of a responsive system able to identify immediately any sign that represents an alert in terms of corruption or deviation of ethical rules.
The strict fulfillment of transparent and accountable rules is a must, not yet well placed among some societies. As a consequence it transforms the citizenship into an inoperative actor. A disempowered role within a process in which there are not invited to participate and there is not a framework that assures their complete involvement as well as attention to their demands. In addition, for demanding we need information and to get fair information the system needs to be clean. In corrupt countries the boundaries are very strong and just to get information is a truly challenge. A corrupt country is very close to a dictatorship in which the filters are created in a sense that the citizens are the last to know.
A corrupt system is built by many top managers in all layers of the society through decisions that protect there interests and cover all the possible areas: media, Education, politics, health, business, etc. In general, to keep the balance in the decision making process there is not verticality but horizontality…and the secrecy of hidden private interests. Is it for this reason that more verticality assures more control and the capacity from citizens to be involved in the decision making process.
A legal framework for corrupt systems within democracies is not enough, we need to explore mechanisms not just of pure transparency but of revolutionary citizen engagement that allows more transparency/accountability from a different angle.
From action… not just legality.
The only managers should be the citizens and is in this sense that the political system should represent them better by a more involvement through the implementation of inclusive policies with 0 cost in financial terms but 100% benefits for getting an open, transparent and accountable system.