To What Extent Do Authoritarian and Liberal Democratic Governments Differ in Affecting the Level of Perceived Public Corruption States?

Is there a correlation between the most common forms of government in our global political society: the liberal democracy and authoritarianism and the level of perceived corruption they bring?

Our world holds a vast variety of different political regimes, which differ from each other, ranging from very liberal on one end of the spectrum to totalitarian on the other. However, governments of any form often have a significant problem - corruption. It is widespread and has been present throughout history. This paper explores whether there is a correlation between the most common forms of government in our global political society: the liberal democracy and authoritarianism and the level of perceived corruption they bring. This question is relevant because public corruption is a harmful process both for a state’s economy and its citizens’ well being. Corruption causes problems such as lower investment, lower economic growth, misallocation of talent and resources, lower effectiveness of aid, loss of tax revenue, adverse budgetary consequences, lower quality of public infrastructure and services, and distorted composition of government expenditure (Mauro). Public corruption is especially dangerous as it gives impunity to high ranked officials and undermines the justice system. This in turn has a negative impact on the citizens and the state, increasing issues around poverty, inequality, human rights violations, violent and organized crime (Effects of corruption).

Public corruption differs with regard to the culture and time at which it is present (Koller and Albanese). Corruption itself is defined as any unethical or dishonest act (Koller and Albanese); with public corruption generally perceived in terms of abuse of public trust, in violation of the criminal law (Koller and Albanese).

Public corruption is not a spontaneous phenomenon - it appears in response to certain defined incentives. The major ones are political instability, lack of rule of law and failure of governance (Causes of Public Sector Corruption). Most of these are interconnected and usually describe a problem occurring due to the instability of a state and those in positions of power acting to their narrow self-interest: behaving selfishly in line with Thomas Hobbes’ view of human nature (Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679). The 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index is a popular global corruption ranking, measuring perceptions of public corruption according to experts and businesspeople (The Abcs of the CPI: How the Corruption Perceptions Index Is Calculated) and is widely used for analytical purposes. It is measured on a scale from 0 to 100, with 100 meaning that a country is perceived to be extremely little corrupt and 0 being highly corrupt (The Abcs of the CPI: How the Corruption Perceptions Index 3 Is Calculated).

The scores are obtained through a “combination of at least 3 data sources drawn from 13 different corruption surveys and assessments” (The Abcs of the CPI: How the Corruption Perceptions Index Is Calculated). This data is collected from international institutions such as the World Bank and the World Economic Forum, which have significant influence in the current world of economics and politics (The ABCS of the CPI: How the Corruption Perceptions Index Is Calculated).

However, it is important to note that this is an index of perceptions only and does not show the actual levels of corruption in states, thus the conclusions, which can be drawn, are necessarily somewhat limited. In a second step, the potential correlation will be analysed in states with “Liberal Democratic” and “Authoritarian” regimes. By definition, Liberal Democracy is a political ideology “that allows civil society, the economy, and political culture to evolve” (Henderson et al), while providing services, infrastructure, goods, free elections and following the rule of law. This type of ideology heavily emphasizes the separation of powers between different political actors, with various political parties participating at free elections. Additionally, the government is separated into three independent branches: judicial, executive and legislative (Liberal Democracy), allowing for power separation. Liberal Democracies are usually upheld by a constitution - the supreme binding law in a state, whose purpose is to protect the civil liberties of all citizens, identify the powers and responsibilities of the government and create a 4 so-called social contract between the citizens and the government (Liberal Democracy). On the other hand, Authoritarianism is perceived as the opposite of Liberal Democracy due to the presence of perspectives contrary to Liberal Democratic principles. Authoritarianism is defined as “the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action” (Lindstaedt). In this type of political and governmental regime, there are no guarantees for the fulfillment of civil liberties, thus resulting in an absence of a legitimate social contract between the government and its citizens. Power is instead in the hands and access of a small ruling “elite” group or a single leader which takes decisions without facing any accountability from the ruled (Lindstaedt), most commonly due to the absence of legitimate elections and an authentic democratic process. The term “authoritarianism” has been widely used to “denote any form of government that is not democratic”, but there are great variations in the type of rule and its after-effects (Lindstaedt). For the case studies, the selected countries’ form of government will be based on the 2022 Democracy Index Report. This report “provides a snapshot of the state of democracy worldwide in 165 independent states and two territories” (Democracy Index 2022). It is based onthe measurement of five categories: “electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties” (Democracy Index 2022). For our analysis we have focused on the most relevant measurements namely along “electoral process and pluralism”, “functioning of government” and “civil liberties”. Each category is given a score on a scale from 0 to 10, and the average score is used to rank a state. The scores are allocated based on the fulfillment of the following four critical areas of democracy: 1. Whether national elections are free and fair. The security of voters. The influence of foreign powers on government. The capability of the civil service to implement policies (Democracy Index 2022). After the score is calculated, a state is classified as follows: “Full Democracy”, “Flawed Democracy”, “Hybrid Regime” or “Authoritarian Regime” (Democracy Index 2022). It is important to consider the types of classifications employed. The Economist Intelligence Unit sets out its definitions as follows: full democracy is where “not only basic political freedoms and civil liberties are respected, but which also tend to be underpinned by a political culture” (Democracy Index 2022), the government functions satisfactorily and the media is free from forced government intervention. Thus, the states under this categorization fulfill the principles of a liberal democracy. Flawed democracies do still have fair and free elections even if there are certain problems, such as corruption: civil liberties are respected, but there are issues in governance and low levels of political participation. This links partially to the liberal democratic definition, but this does not necessarily categorize them as not liberal. Hybrid regimes are considered to be better than authoritarian ones in this report: “elections have certain irregularities which often prevent them from being free and fair” (Democracy Index 2022), and there is pressure from the government on the opposition and journalists. Thus, this classification thereby balances between the definition of authoritarian and liberal democratic state. Authoritarian regimes contain the absence or very limited political pluralism (Democracy Index 2022), elections are not free and fair, and the media and judiciary are not independent, fulfilling the principles of an authoritarian state.

This essay will present an analysis of four case studies, each representing different types of governments. Denmark will represent a full democracy, Bulgaria a flawed democracy, Syria and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), authoritarian states. These states were chosen as they represent the four analytical points of view explored by this essay: namely, democracy with low levels of corruption, democracy with high levels of corruption, autocracy with high levels of corruption and autocracy with low levels of corruption. The key factors relating to corruption perceptions and the governing regime in question are free and fair elections, effective government, rule of law, and civil liberties. These connect to the key concept of justice, as the fulfillment of these factors is what citizens can legitimately expect from their government (Murphy and Gleek).

For the methodological purpose of accessing a greater variety of information the Democracy Index definitions will be used to identify the governing regime type; supplemented with information from Freedom House. According to Transparency International and the EIU, Denmark ranks 6th in the Democracy Index 2022 and 1st in the CPI Index 2022 (Corruption Perceptions Index; Democracy Index 2022). Thus, it is perceived as one of the cleanest full democracies and to have the lowest perceptions of corruption in the world. Elections in Denmark are fair, as they are mostly accepted by the stakeholders and public and are free from outside interference; there is opposition and several political parties, which contribute effectively to elections (Denmark). Denmark scored a maximum of 10 in “Electoral Process and Pluralism” (Democracy Index 2022). The government is effective: anti-corruption laws are implemented in order to sustain a zero-tolerance policy; and freely elected officials control the functioning of the government (Corruption Perceptions Index; Denmark). The government is transparent and open (Denmark). The rule of law is upheld: there is an independent judiciary and discrimination is forbidden by law. Thus, Denmark scored 9.29 in “Functioning of the Government” (Democracy Index 2022). Civil liberties are respected and upheld. Media is free and independent, and freedom of expression is mostly respected (Denmark). Denmark scored 9.41 in the “Civil Liberties” section (Democracy Index 2022). Denmark represents a full liberal democracy with a high corruption perception score, implying low perceived corruption.

The case of Bulgaria, however, is a state example showing that a liberal democratic regime does not always lead to a low level of corruption. The CPI and DIR of 2022, clearly show that Bulgaria, while being a middle-ranked flawed liberal democracy, has a fairly high corruption level ranking 72nd, with a score of 43/100 (Corruption Perceptions Index; Democracy Index 2022). Even though it is a flawed democracy, Bulgaria has free and fair elections with the existence of opposition, scoring 9.17 in “Electoral Process and Pluralism” (Democracy Index 2022; Bulgaria). With regard to the effectiveness of the Bulgarian government, it is important to note that it is a newly established democracy: until 1989 Bulgaria was a communist state under a 9 dictatorship (President's Trip to Europe: Bulgaria; Todorov). As Bulgaria has transitioned speedily from an authoritarian to a democratic government, this has incentified corruption perceptions levels to rise (Module 3 Corruption and Comparative Politics), which can owe to the underdevelopment of institutions and inability or lack of motivation from the government to fight the issue (Module 3 Corruption and Comparative Politics).

The government does operate with partial transparency and implements certain anti-corruption policies; however while most of it is transparent, the budgetary area is questionable and the anti-corruption policies are not enforced to a satisfactory extent (Bulgaria). The rule of law is respected to a certain degree, as there is a mostly independent judiciary and people are protected from illegitimate use of force; however identity based laws and policies are not yet present to a satisfactory extent, leading Bulgaria to score just 5.36 in “Functioning of the Government” (Democracy Index 2022; Bulgaria). Civil liberties are mostly present; however, many media sources are financially dependent on the government and certain identities are not respected, resulting in Bulgaria scoring 7.65 here (Democracy Index 2022; Bulgaria). It is important to notice that theoretically, even though it is flawed, Bulgaria can still be considered a liberal democracy as there are more positive factors than negative in respect to the definition.

The example of Bulgaria therefore shows that liberal democracies may themselves be corrupt. Syria, on the other hand, is an authoritarian state ranking almost the worst on both indices.

Classified as an authoritarian state and 178th in CPI, the Syrian regime is known as one of the worst of its kind (Corruption Perceptions Index; Democracy Index 2022). Elections are illegitimate and unjust with massive pressure on the opposition and media from the government itself: elections for government positions are only held in areas of the regime's influence. This has excuded Syrians living abroad and areas of Kurdish ethnicity (Syria). The regime itself is a long lasting authoritarian one, ruled by the Al-Assad clan (Ali and Esther). Syria scored 0 in the “Electoral Process and Pluralism” section (Democracy Index 2022). The government is ineffective. Power is de facto controlled by an unelected president, and the economy is also controlled by the president and his allies; no steps are taken to stop corruption.

Additionally, politics lack transparency and accountability: for example “officials have broad discretion to withhold government information, and they are not obliged to disclose their assets” (Syria). The rule of law is not respected, as the judiciary is not independent and citizens are not protected from the illegitimate use of power (Syria). Syria scored 0 for “Functioning of the Government”. Civil liberties are not protected or respected; in practice, there is no free media, even though the Constitution guarantees it (Syria). Freedom of speech is absent, albeit freedom of religious expression is to a certain extent respected, even though there are extremist organizations operating on Syrian territory (Syria). Syria scored 0 for “Civil Liberties” (Democracy Index 2022). It is, though, important to take fully into account that the state has been actively engaged in civil war since 2011, greatly intensifying its fragility: which remains high alert (Woodburn et al).

Finally, the UAE is an authoritarian federal state with a low level of perceived corruption. It is a monarchy run by a set of dynastic rulers, thus it has no free or fair elections and scored 0 in “Electoral Process and Pluralism” (Democracy Index 2022). Yet, the government seems to be effective to a certain extent, scoring 4.29 for “Functioning of Government” (Democracy Index 2022). Even though state policies are controlled by unelected representatives and the government lacks transparency, it is considered to be one the most effective governments in terms of fighting corruption in the Middle East (United Arab Emirates). The rule of law as it applies to public officials is scarcely respected (United Arab Emirates); the judiciary is dependent on the executive rulers and mostly managed by the executive officials, with people subject to discrimination (United Arab Emirates). Civil liberties are not really respected, even though there have been some attempts by the Emirati government to increase religious tolerance, for example by promising to build an Abrahamic House (United Arab Emirates). The media is hugely restricted: it is difficult for independent media to operate: “a number of well-known commentators have been jailed in recent years for criticizing the authorities” (United Arab Emirates). The laws of the state usually limit and challenge certain people’s identities and do not give them protections. Thus, the UAE scored just 2.35 in this section (Democracy Index 2022).

As we have seen from the review of the four countries free and fair elections, effectiveness of the government, rule of law and civil liberties each affect perceptions of corruption. For example, the lack of free and fair elections means that the public cannot stop politicians and parties perceived as corrupt from remaining in power (Module 3 Corruption and Comparative Politics; Democracy Index 2022), intensitfying perceptions of corruption still further. Lack of government effectiveness also contributes to these perceptions; as of course do a lack of functioning and effective anti-corruption mechanisms established by the government. Moreover, a lack of transparency incentivises politicians to abuse their powers and stop the public from seeing what is actually going on.

Lack of the proper rule of law will prevent corrupt politicians from being punished and hugely undermine any real form of public accountability. Finally civil liberties are also critical, as they enable such things as free and independent media: which allow for the monitoring and public transmission of information about the government (Module 3 Corruption and Comparative Politics). All of these factors contribute to the key concept of justice, as the lack of them prevents citizens from what they legitimately expect of their government (Murphy and Gleek).

Accordingly, to achieve the desired outcome of low levels of perceived corruption, states are supposed to protect and encourage all of the factors mentioned here. 13 Full liberal democracies, generally contain most of the positive elements highlighted by the EIU and therefore thought of as preferable systems for fighting corruption. The data and anecdotal evidence in the case study of Denmark suggest that full liberal democracies are often considered to be very clean from corruption, ranking very high in the CPI. These states tend to place a strong emphasis on the key factors mentioned above: as is the case with Denmark, which scored close to maximum scores. However, flawed liberal democracies are ranked lower in perceptions of corruption. These are still considered democracies, but struggle with the key aspects outlined earlier. In the case of Bulgaria, it changed its regime to a democratic one in 1989, when the communist government collapsed (Todorov), but this resulted in instability.

The massive and rapid change in Bulgaria’s political infrastructure has led to significant issues, even though Bulgaria’s goal was to establish itself as a liberal democratic state. Fast change is a key factor in causing levels of corruption to rise - “countries which recently transitioned to democratic governance often did not develop effective anti-corruption and integrity mechanisms, and now find themselves stuck in a cycle of high corruption and low-performing democratic institutions” (Module 3 Corruption and Comparative Politics). The Bulgarian government is yet to prove effective in fighting corruption, with levels remaining high; and there is relative lack of transparency around budgetary areas (Bulgaria).

Additionally, the rule of law is not respected to a certain extent, especially, as regards the police force, whose illegitimate and brutal use of force has been a serious justice concern. Civil liberties (especially in terms of media) are also an issue: most of the media is either state owned or financed (Bulgaria), damaging levels of transparency and public awareness of corruption. This, though, is considered to be a temporary problem: “over time, as governments develop their institutions and capacities, corruption tends to diminish” (Module 3 Corruption and Comparative Politics). The relationship between autocracies and their levels of perceived corruption could be considered even more complex than for democracies (Module 3 Corruption and Comparative Politics).

Autocracies can be separated into two subtypes: those with low levels of corruption and those with high levels of it. Autocracies are often defined by abuse and/or lack of the key factors set out earlier. Paramount here is the effectiveness of the government, as other factors are not applicable in the case of autocratic rule, due to the very nature of the regime. Autocracies with high levels of corruption usually do not have any specific effective policies targeted towards governmental transparency and anti-corruption measures. The Syrian case embodies this: the state government doesn’t enforce effective policies to fight corruption and even appears to actively allow it (Syria), if it's not against the regime’s core.

As noted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), it is seen how ineffectiveness of the government is highlighted by political instability and lack of the rule of law (Causes of Public Sector Corruption). Syria is particularly unstable due to an ongoing civil war (Syria); corruption perceptions have only worsened. Yet in contrast, despite the negative reputation of authoritarian states, there are still those which fight corruption. Amongst these are the UAE, where corruption levels are pretty low. It is ranked 27th in the 2022 CPI: much higher than Bulgaria, which placed 72nd despite being a flawed liberal democracy. On the question of government effectiveness, the UAE “has taken steps to increase efficiency and streamline the bureaucracy” (United Arab Emirates), which has helped the state battle against public corruption. However, as it is still a monarchy, there are low levels of public accountability for the authorities’ actions and theoretically “senior members of the ruling families are able to shield themselves and their associates from public scrutiny” (United Arab Emirates). In any case, even if they limit corruption to a certain degree, autocracies might well leave “corruption that benefits[s] the ruling elite” (Module 3 Corruption and Comparative Politics).

Empirically, it is seen that democracies are considerably more likely to place higher in the CPI than authoritarian and hybrid regimes. The top half of the CPI consists of 23 full democracies taking the highest ranking places, 15 flawed democracies, 4 hybrid regimes and 2 authoritarian regimes (Corruption Perceptions Index; Democracy Index 2022). All 23 full democracies take very high ranking places at or near the top, while flawed democracies vary: from being highly ranked to even ranking lower than authoritarian regimes. Indeed, some of the top positions are taken by the latter, demonstrating that there is still room for certain exceptions, even though their presence in the top half is significantly lower than in the bottom one. This clearly portrays the correlation between the type of governing regime and levels of corruption perception. However, it is important to underscore here that the CPI is based on perceptions only. Politics is not an exact science, thus conclusions made with the use of this source are limited.

As this essay has set out, authoritarian and liberal democratic governments differ in a substantial variety of ways in how they affect the levels of perceived public corruption in their states. Democratic governments are more likely to enjoy low levels of perceived corruption as they mostly embrace the four key anti-corruption factors: free and fair elections, effective government, the rule of law and civil liberties.

Thus the relationship between a liberal democracy and corruption perception levels may be called non-linear with a certain percentage error existing at all times, as corruption is an extremely difficult factor to fight and measure. It is also apparent that the character of authoritarian rule is an important factor and corruption levels are dependent on it. Authoritarian rule provides an incentive for corruption to occur due to the absence of and constant disregard for the four key anti-corruption factors referred to above. This is what makes them autocracies in the first place, meaning there is almost bound to be a certain level of corruption in such regimes. This leads to many more highly corrupt autocracies existing than less corrupt ones. However, again, there are certain exceptions: notably, those autocracies where government is effective despite ignoring the other key factors. This allows certain authoritarian states to fight corruption effectively and enjoy relatively low perceptions of it. In conclusion, states with liberal democratic regimes, especially full democracies, are considerably more likely to be perceived as being little corrupt; while authoritarian regimes with certain exceptions are more likely to be perceived as corrupt due to their nature. A question emerges from the essay - “To what extent can the real level of public corruption be measured and acknowledged?”