Wikipedia defines corruption as ‘spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal’. It continues, stating ‘political corruption occurs, when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for his or her own personal gain’.

It is difficult, that one. Fact is, in Germany, people in politics are constantly changing into the private sector and people working in the private sector are constantly, at least for a time, changing into politics or a closely connected part of the public sector. They call it the revolving door, and though I assume that most of the change occurs for the enhancement of personal gain in the form of money or influence, that is only part of the problem.

In Germany, since at least the late 1990s, privately financed lobbyists from the media, from insurance companies and banks, from the car industry, the chemical industry and the weapons industry have been openly assisting ministries in drafting new laws. These laws are subsequently usually slanting towards the advantage of the private sector. If you ask me, that really is a problem. After all, democracy should primarily be about representing the interests of the voter, and not of those people who scratch your back. From all I can gather, things are even worse on a European level, because there is even less accountability towards the citizen there.

Adding to that, Germany is one of the few countries in the world in which parliamentarians may, without fearing punishment, receive money from pretty much anyone, as long as it is not directly connected to casting a vote. There was a mostly unanimous opinion among politicians against changing those rules, and it was argued that it would otherwise unnecessarily stifle politicians in their decision making.

The situation elsewhere is comparable. For all I know, many former employees of one of the world’s biggest investment banks are active in high-up US-politics. And coming to that, they are pretty active in the rest of the world, too. It is much the same in Britain, where Westminster and the City seem uncomfortably close. The argument for the revolving door will always be a similar one. These people are experts at what they do. Which undoubtedly is true. The question is, what exactly do they do, and in whose interest?

So can all this be called corruption, or at least corruptibility? When there is such great closeness between politicians, industrialists, journalists, consultants and lobbyists, with many openly displaying glowing friendships in the media, never mind covertly on the golf course, what in all honesty should you call it?

There is no easy answer. Friendships, relations and networks are a part of life, and more so in politics, I would guess. And even if this would amount to corruption, were it alright to call it so and thus the enabling system with it? According to paragraph 90a of the German ‘Strafgesetzbuch’, anyone who ‘abuses or maliciously defames Germany or its constitutional system is punishable by up to three years in prison’. While I am not doing anything of the kind, it does make me think about free speech. It shows that freedom is always a relative thing, which I guess must be in the nature of the matter.

Which brings me back to corruption. Germany has a great constitution, written by insightful people after a devastating war. The question is, is that constitution being respected today?