Andrew D Atkin
The New Zealand government has introduced laws that strengthen the power of its police force. Maybe this needs to be done. But it is a fact, as we know, that police can at times be (and world over have been) shockingly if not brutally corrupt. The latter is a given. So what? So the best question to ask the New Zealand Prime Minister is: "What provisions have you introduced to protect the New Zealand public from the threat of a corrupt police force of which, as we know, could always develop"? A totally legitimate question in response to a demonstrably legitimate concern - right? Of course!
I find it funny how people in positions of power generally put their hands on their hearts and say: "Corrupt? Who me? Not a chance!"..and as though we are supposed to automatically believe them, and as though we are wrongfully insulting them to even express that concern or suspicion. But the fact is that we don't generally know who these people are who run so much of our lives, and of whom we depend on to do the right thing. And the fact is that corruption is a real and prevalent threat/reality within so much of our world of which can be and obviously has been so catastrophically problematic to humanity.
So what does this mean? It means that we should be as coolly objective about the 'disease' of human corruption as we are about cancer and heart disease. If it is a statistical fact that your local politician has, say, a 35% chance of being moderately or maybe even seriously corrupt, then shouldn't we be developing systems (and sciences) to accommodate for this reality? Isn't that the rational thing to do?
....You can see where I am coming from: Where are those systems? Where are the "department of human corruption studies" in our universities? Why don't we study and deal with human corruption in essentially the same way that we study and deal with cancer? Is the topic not worthy of our time? Of course it is - it is deadly important.
As a society we need to stop asking our politicians (and others) to put on a "Mr integrity" show...ahh, too cheap and pathetic. We instead need to insist on the development of the science of human corruption, and the progressive development of systems for human corruption management. Over time it could do a lot to help clean things up, and would prove to be especially important if we want to develop some kind of world government body.
I conclude that when it comes to corruption we need to stop being emotional and defeatist about it, and instead get scientific. Bitching won't solve anything much - study might!