La Francophonie finira mal - De francofonie zal slecht eindigen - The Francophonie will end badly

[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule with an iron hand, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus)and mass arrests of Hutus by the RPF criminal organization =>AS International]

La corruption politique est un détournement de l'utilisation du pouvoir public dans le but d'en retirer des avantages illégaux, cela intéresse le monde politique (hommes politiques, partis politiques, élus, membres du gouvernement).

“Je prévois que la Francophonie finira mal”, a-t-il déclaré à l’AFP. Cette organisation “est supposée promouvoir les valeurs de langue française et les droits de la personne humaine. On comprend mal pourquoi le président Macron a imposé la candidature d’un ressortissant du Rwanda”.

Qu'est-ce que la corruption?

Définir la corruption n'est pas aisé compte tenu précisément desvariations culturelles dans la hiérarchie des valeurs, dans la définition réciproque du public et du privé, dans l'attitude plus ou moins laxiste des élites et de l'opinion publique. La corruption peut être définie comme un échange clandestin entre deux “marchés”, le “marché politique et/ou administratif” et le marché économique et social. Cet échange est occulte car il viole des normes publiques, juridiques et éthiques et sacrifie l'intérêt général à des intérêts privés (personnels, corporatistes, partisans, etc.).

Emmanuel Macron (39 ans)
et sa femme Brigitte Macron (63 ans)
Rien d'étonnant sur sa prise de décision de soutenir
le Hitler Rwandais.

Enfin, cette transaction qui permet à des acteurs privés d'avoir accès à des ressources publiques (contrats, financements, décisions,...), de manière privilégiée et biaisée (absence de transparence, de concurrence) procure aux acteurs publics corrompus des bénéfices matériels présents ou futurs pour eux-mêmes ou pour l'organisation dont ils sont membres. La corruption s'exprime donc avec intensité à l'interface du public et du privé et en particulier dans les secteurs où le décideur public n'est pas soumis à des règles totalement contraignantes.

La corruption, dans unEtat de droit démocratique, n'a que de rares occasions de se développer là où le fonctionnaire ou l'homme public ne peut que répondre positivement au citoyen si les conditions requises sont réunies: la délivrance d'un passeport, le paiement de prestations sociales sont soumises à des règles strictes qui ne laissent guère de marge d'appréciation au fonctionnaire.

“Scandals can be seen as proof of both the manufunctioning and the good functioning of the political system. They illustrate the malfunctioning, but the very fact that they are disclosed shows that the political system is willing (albeit sometimes reluctantly) to deal with these aberrations. The question remains, though, why scandals are so frequently reported today. It is because morals standards have changed? It is because volatility is higher, which induces fierce campaigning, including the exposure of scandals in order to disqualify the opponent? In other words are there more scandalous acts in politics nowadays than in former days or are these kinds of acts simply more often disclosed than before?”

Macron, President Rothschild

Pour comprendre ce qui ce passe aujourd'hui: Emmanuel Macron a travaillé pour la banque d’affaires Rothschild & Cie de 2008 à 2012.
La corruption n'est pas seulement une relation dyadique entre corrupteurs et corrompus mais une relation triangulaire dans laquelle à l'occasion du scandale ou de la révélation des faits cachés, apparaît l'opinion, les citoyens. Dans un système de corruption extrême et pratiquée quasiment à visage découvert, la relation entre élus et citoyens est estompée par une relation de dépendance personnelle et clientéliste qui détruit le lien civique remplacé par l'allégeance. Cette communauté délinquante ne se brise que lorsque l'efficacité distributive du système corrompu s'épuise faute notamment de ressources suffisantes. Là en revanche où la corruption fait scandale, c'est le lien de confiance entre élites et électeurs qui s'affaiblit ou se rompt.

Why do all dictator regimes encourage corruption? 

Corruption, in some form, exists in all countries. It is generally done by people in a position of power, for instance a cop taking a bribe to rip up a parking ticket, or more in other instances, politicians taking a kickback for approving zoning changes.

Since corruption occurs by people in positions of power, it stands to reason that they are more likely to be selectors in a dictatorship. The dictator thus depends upon their support, and so will move to protect them against threats. This I hope helps answer your question. 

I believe that democratic countries have a lesser problem with corruption. This is due to democratic ideals such as freedom of the press. While it is debatable how free the press of any nation is, they tend to be more free in democratic countries. Their voice gives them a position to investigate corruption and report on it to the public. The main thing politicians fear are being thrown out of office and jail. In autocratic countries, the press is often curtailed, and reports about corruption can often be met with retribution. This is only one example, there are certainly many more, and this isn't to say that corruption does not exist in democratic countries, it does.

Government By Corruption

Corruption is universally viewed as a scourge. It stifles commerce, perverts governments and breeds social injustice. The most common cause of corruption is believed to be a combination of discretion and accountability. Governments with enormous discretionary power and low accountability are more corrupt than those with less discretion and more accountability. This observation has led us to seek institutional reforms that would grant governments less discretionary power, while making them more accountable to the people.

So far, so good. But in our quest to rid the world of corruption, we often forget one elemental truth--corruption may be a scourge for the ordinary people, but it is a vital governing tool for authoritarian regimes.

Of course, corruption exists in democracies as well, but such corruption, petty in both nature and sum, is fundamentally different from the massive looting by autocrats in dictatorships. That is why the least corrupt countries, with a few exceptions, all happen to be democracies, and the most corrupt countries are overwhelmingly autocracies. In Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index 2008, which covered 180 societies, 90% of the 60 least corrupt societies in the world are democracies. France is the more corrupted western country.

It often takes a curiously long time for European countries to repatriate such funds to their country of origin; legal questions, ignored when the money was first ‘invested’ or laundered, suddenly emerge.

Perhaps surprisingly, the most successful was the United States. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter signed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), powerful legislation that to this day punishes US companies who bribe their way through deals. In 2011, the OECD figures showed that 58 individuals and 28 American companies were sanctioned under the FCPA.

Compare this to the numbers from Europe. In 2011 Sweden, France and the UK – all countries with  huge arms industries, which sell in countries known to be corrupt – between them managed to prosecute just nine individuals and two companies for foreign bribery.

In June, the OECD was forced to issue a statement describing Sweden’s anti-bribery laws as “far too weak”, and demanding change. Spain prosecuted no one in 2011; nor did the Netherlands. Australia had never successfully prosecuted anyone for overseas bribery, despite serious allegations against some of its firms. In other words, the West is not just hiding the money of dictatorships – it is paying it to them.

Civil War Complicity

The UK and other European governments make very little effort to deter foreign officials from hiding their shadowy fortunes in European bank accounts and real estate. The “freezing” of assets only takes place once a dictator is out of power, or about to be.

These “freezings” fulfil three purposes for European governments: they make them appear committed to freedom and transparency; they let the dictator’s replacements know that Europe is on “their side”; and they also let these replacements know that if they wish to stash their own ill-gotten assets overseas, Europe is there to help.

It should also be noted that Europe makes very little effort to prevent its companies from bribing these corrupt leaders to secure lucrative government contracts. For the past three years the OECD has collected data for the number of foreign-bribery convictions secured by the richest countries against their own citizens and corporation.This approach makes Western governments directly complicit in the kind of civil war now racking Syria. As a dictatorship becomes more corrupt, it becomes less likely to hand over power peacefully. A leader who has ruled honestly does not stand to lose a vast fortune if he steps aside, or to be prosecuted for embezzlement. Indeed, he or she may even benefit financially- the Mo Ibrahim Foundation offers a $5 million and a lifetime salary to former African leaders who governed responsibly.

Corrupt dictators have the opposite set of incentives. If they lose power, they lose everything. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is a prime example of this trend. The UK has now “frozen” an astonishing £100 million linked to Assad and his clique.

Some estimates put Assad’s fortune at almost £1 billion, distributed across a variety of money-laundering centres aside from the UK. However, if he loses power in the revolution, his replacements are certain to demand this money back.

It is therefore little wonder that Assad, like Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, has refused to step down or to accept offers of exile to avert Syria’s increasingly bloody civil war. Charges of grand corruption and money laundering will follow him wherever he goes.

What reason, then, does he have to fear prosecution for war crimes? In any scenario, the result is likely to be a long prison term, or worse. The best Assad can hope for is impoverished exile. Had Europe not made it quite so easy for Syria’s dictator and his friends to stash their assets, he would not now be clinging so tenaciously to power.

My book The Economics of Killing explores this connection between corruption and war which has been demonstrated many times over, particularly in the world’s poorest countries. Yet Western countries continue to accept the billions stolen by dictators, with no questions asked, and no thought of the consequences for peaceful transitions of political power. If we are to stop global conflicts, severing this corrupt relationship between the global North and South must become a priority

The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine