Many people are wondering these days how it's possible for a political leader who lives closely with members of his team to be unaware of the systematic corruption that occurs in some cases. And apparently they're right; it seems impossible to have been at the side of a consummate cheat for years and not have detected any hint of his fraudulent activity. Are these leaders so short-sighted, so insensitive that they don't notice what some outward manifestations must inevitably have?
Without any desire to justify anything or anyone, because corruption is a cancer for democracy, I believe that political leaders cannot be held entirely responsible, given the conditions of their work. When you hold one of these positions, if you assume them with all the consequences and a desire to work for collective progress, you give up many things. I know that the idea has been spread that holding political office is a kind of perk, an opportunity to get rich without working too hard. I won't say there aren't those who see it that way, but my experience in a couple of public positions has shown me that most people who hold them see it as an opportunity to contribute to the improvement of society and, at the same time, as an enormous effort, requiring a handful of personal sacrifices. Of course, it's a sacrifice of your time, your rest, your leisure time. A sacrifice of doing what you think is right, because everything needs to be agreed upon. Power? Oh, how little! I always felt much freer and empowered as a university professor than as a councilor or general manager, situations in which you are "at the service of the people," so to speak, 24 hours a day, and doing what is required, not what you would like to do.
Among the many sacrifices that positions require, there is one very important one: relinquishing control over what happens around you, because such control is impossible. For example, what political leader has the necessary knowledge and enough time to monitor, step by step, the budgets presented by the construction companies they must contract with? Who knows the price of materials and machinery, the business margins, and above all, who has the time to find out? Often, in the general management position I held for about three years, I would sign contracts, and one of my collaborators would tell me, "Be careful, these signs could land you in jail." And I was aware of this, but what could I do? Either I signed it or I resigned, because I couldn't block any program waiting for a moment—which wouldn't come—to check the data where corruption and cheating could be hidden. Risks had to be taken, and to be able to do so with a degree of peace of mind, it was necessary to trust my team and the people in charge of controlling expenses. Trust in your team is the only resource that allows you to continue when personal control becomes impossible. And I can imagine what this must mean at the level of a head of government, an advisor, or a minister.
Responsibilities cannot be individual in these cases. The positions are held by people with their limitations, both in knowledge and physical strength; in fact, they are poorly designed positions, because theoretically they require such extraordinary and varied abilities that practically no one possesses them. In a way, we ask of great political figures what is impossible for a human being. You might ask me, if it's so difficult, why do they take them? Well, precisely because it's so difficult, there are fewer and fewer valuable people willing to occupy these positions, and above all, there will be, and there already are, fewer and fewer honest and responsible people willing to do so, and more people who access them to enrich themselves or out of vanity, as we are unfortunately seeing.
The solution, in my opinion, must come from another source. If there are corrupt people, it's because there are corruptors and many forms of corruption. Isn't giving millions to a candidate for their political campaign corruption? And why is it allowed? How many companies have been sanctioned for corruption? They should automatically be permanently barred from any public contract. Have the corrupt been required to return every last cent? Control must be systemic, not individual.
Now corruption has become a political weapon, used to wear down rivals, and that is precisely why no real mechanisms are being created to control it, to demonstrate that not only does Rome not pay traitors, but it makes them pay so dearly for their betrayal that no one has the desire to try.
