While much of Lebanese society has a general idea of who stole the money, though judicial accountability is still pending, it is less frequently discussed the reasons why the money was stolen.
Corruption has been present as far back as the Ottoman era, although it was taken to extravangant heights under the rule of the cartel for the past 30 years.
One could go by the theory that there is always a certain proportion of inherently unethical people, and that these types of people simply made their way to government positions and participated in and/or complicitly perpetuated corrupt practices.
However, if one includes all of the MPs, ministers, judges, and municipality governors combined – without even including regular citizens and businesses – the entire web of corruption of the past 30 years extends to a few thousand individuals.
Sure, the bulk of the wealth was stolen by far fewer individuals, but there is something more endemic causing this massive corruption that requires a more universal theory explaining it.
Corruption ultimately boils down to value systems (values encompass everything from taste-based preferences, interests, ethical standards, and one’s order of priorities), and mechanisms for accountability. It is a cost-benefit analysis weighed in the subconscious of the perpetrator of corruption.
In terms of accountability, any nation that wants to free itself from corruption needs an independent judiciary and administrative transparency for all public spending. In the presence of impunity, the cost of corruption drops so low it becomes an endemic phenomenon.
In terms of values, laws are only respected if individuals value the laws enough to be willing to compromise in the short-run in order to make these laws work for everyone.
Respecting the law is a form of personal sacrifice for the benefit of the community – since rule of law is more preferable then anarchy, even though some laws can be hassles to abide by at times.
When there is a general disrespect for the law, it creates negative chain reactions whereby corruption becomes normalized: “if no one respects driving rules, why should I?”
All the wealth stolen from the treasury essentially involves taking away the wealth of the public and stuffing it in private accounts, with diverse end uses spanning from luxurious consumption or to increase the wealth and power of certain individuals and parties.
Corruption is a form of social dilemma. Stealing wealth from the public often involves a trade-off between supporting the development of a state, which will protect everyone in the long-run if everyone pools their resources together and collectively agree not to be corrupt – versus catering to narrow personal, family, tribal and clientelistic interests.
At the core of corruption is therefore a trader mentality that trades public wealth for personal profit and gain. In the minds of a trader, a republic is not derived from “public affairs” but is rather an entity that can be plundered for private gain. Instead of allocating public sector employment and contracts based on merit and competitivity, in a way that maximizes collective development, these decisions are allocated based on the bribes made by the highest bidders, just like traders in a bazaar.