Four Signs a System is Overcoming Corruption

There are 4 signs that a system is changing it processes to protect against corruption and its sister cousin extremism.  I have been using a hypothetical example of a minority family [pick a minority or out-group member ] being targeted by an embedded corrupted/extremist leaning group with few local backstops. Within the fictitious example, presents a moral quandary where the stakeholders of the system must choose between the free future and the segregationist past [and the distortion that breeds corruption and extremism]. Two paths are presented but only one can be followed. 

[Serving the will of the people and the purpose of institutions isn't always about getting people in trouble. That is often the biggest concern beyond self-gain those who support poor systems are worried about. It is about ensuring these institutions are not derailed from their purpose and hold back the development of all society to appease a few. All systems must change or begin to decline on trust, functionality, and outputs. That is all systems in any genre as adaptable from generation to generation or rigid. A poem on benefits of adaptability. I'm not that great at poetry but I try.]

Here are 4 signs system is overcoming corruption. 

1. Recognizing Past Mistakes/History: A history of corruption and complaints could be an indication that prior issues were either not collected properly, not reviewed, or not seen. A change in process and oversite is often needed to make the unseen more seen. Adjusting systems will change to better fulfill their purpose and limiting risks from poor behaviors.

2. Lack of Objective Review/Perception: When similar stakeholders are reviewing and come to conclusions in ways that confirm existing bigotries without understanding the alternatives, we have a type of self-confirming bias that continues to play on repeat. Lack of cognitive and cultural diversity can make systems blind to itself. The risks are compounded for smaller localities where intimate social relationships determine most affairs.

3. Correcting Corruption and/or Extremism Outcomes: When issues of corruption and/or violation of basic civil liberties/human rights occur there must be a correction to show these values are still central to system decision making. Sometimes smaller issues need smaller corrections while larger embedded issues need larger corrections. This is where wisdom in management, or lack thereof, can be found.

4. Tackling Problems Earlier: Corruption and its sister extremism doesn't breed well in places that are seeking to finding meaningful solutions to problems. When people work together those seeking to exploit don't have much wiggle room because actions are judged against shared goals. Corruption, and its sister extremism, are impractical and thus practical systems do their best to remove such issues when they arise to prevent further incidents.

Don't expect these derailed systems to change quickly. Some will recognize their folly and some will need outside intervention. The same immoral justifications that cause a problem often protect that same problem. People who believe in basic moral goodness and the value of freedom and democracy sometimes have their concerns muted. It is an orientation toward the greater good and central social contracts, versus ideological-ethnocentric preferences, that must make its way through complex players. The proof in the pudding is the outcome of that system. Most of the time it seems reasonably good and in some cases reasonably not so good. 🤷

*Thought experiment purposes only.