Talk:Kleptocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

NPOV[edit]

Claims that the PLO under Arafat was a kleptocracy are overwhelming made by POV news sources and are far from "generally recognised". They cannot be NPOV claims considering the highly contested nature of allegations of kleptocracy in the best of cases. The only claims that Pedro Rosselló is or was a kleptocrat that I can find on the web are mirrors of this page. There is no "general recognition" of kleptocracy for any of these candidates except Mobutu. This is little better than alleging that some poltician is fascist or communist.

No, that Arafat embezzled money from the P.A. are well established. I don't know about Pedro Rosselló, really. Saying that only Mobutu is recognized as a kleptocrat is a stretch. ;-)
So, every embezzler in government is a kleptocrat? That's not the common usage.
When it's the head of state, I think that's common usage. Ferdinand Marcos is another example. Daniel Quinlan 23:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have offered an alternative version in the history here. I believe it removes POV elements without eliminating the notion that kleptocrat is a word mostly used in relation to specific figures rather than some political or economic abstraction. It also makes plain what the current version does not: an allegation of kleptocracy is invariably politically coloured and Wikipedia cannot simply name specific figures as kleptocrats without without hedging.

Saying they are invariably politically colored is more POV than the article currently is. Adding hedging on well-established kleptocrats is definitely POV. I think you got this one backwards.
You want to claim that there exists some group of people who are "generally recognised" as kleptocrats. Unless you mean to define every goverment official who embezzles as a kleptocrat, I don't think that's very easy to do. I want you to explain exactly what qualifies such a categorisation as "generally recognised", and how you know that to be the case. Especially when the list already contains someone (Pedro Rosselló) that you don't really know anything about. Furthermore, for each of those, I want you to add the word kleptocrat to their articles here on Wikipedia, and see if the people who edit those articles will accept the revision.
There is a large qualitative and quantitative difference between "an official" and the head of state (or head of government). The instance of a specific example like Pedro Rosselló does not mean the entire article should be devoid of examples. And just because it is a negative term does not mean we should remove most of the examples. As far as the test goes, it's not valid. The articles about those people and their governments already say they embezzled or stole. Bear in mind that the root "Klepto" mearly means "steal". That it offends some people does not remove the factual nature that there have been governments that were kleptocracies. Daniel Quinlan 23:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Ralph Nader line uses unacceptably POV word choices in its current form. Diderot 11:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a crazy quote, of course it does. Few people really believe that. I'm not sure I'd use the word "famously", though. I think Ralph is famous for more general reasons. Daniel Quinlan 19:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Then let's see a citation. I want to see what he said and the context he said it in. I rewrote it in a way that does far less to express a POV on Nader than the current version. Diderot 21:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with the idea of writing it to be less POV. I'll take a look at your rewrite. Daniel Quinlan 23:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

POV[edit]

Given the contentious nature of these claims, I think it would be a good idea to remove all but a very few historical examples of "kleptocracies", e.g. the most obvious three and no others. This would help to avoid the invariably thorny question of POV/NPOV regarding current politics. As it stands, we have a list of corrupt governments that don't necessarily qualify, and since this article is not in itself a list, it's not in any way necessary to catalog all the kleptocracies in the history of the world. We just need a few clear examples to clarify the definition. I'd suggest just Haiti (Papa Doc), Zaire (Mobutu Sese Seko), Iraq (Saddam Hussein), and/or Romania (Nicolae Ceausescu). Obviously I suggested three, so I think whichever of those is the least proper exemplar should go, and leave the article with a list of only three. Agreement, disagreement? siafu 00:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been out a bit and left this issue hanging.
I think that the kinds of people who ought to be listed as examples shouldn't be the ones who are simply "accused" of kleptocracy, since there are lots and lots of politicians who have found ways to siphon off large quantities of state money. Rather, I'd like to see the list contain only those whose names jump to mind when a modertately well informed reader hears the word "kleptocrat". That means: Mobutu for sure and probably the Duvaliers. I'm not sure how good a fit Ceausescu is, since while he's clearly (and deservedly) remembered as a very bad dude, I don't know if a broad cross-section of people globally think of him primarily as a kleptocrat. But I'm not going to press that point, since this involves a judgement of "what people think", and I can't read minds.
However, I think the NPOV problems run deeper. I still think kleptocracy could be better charaterised like this:
As a general rule, a kleptocracy is a regime where a small ruling class or a single autocrat use the mechanisms of government to amass substantial personal fortunes. Kleptocrats may use various methods (eg. money laundering, anonymous banking) to protect and conceal their illicit gains. In general, they try to ensure that their money is outside of the reach of the state they are ruling. Economies based on the extraction of exportable natural resources can be particularly prone to kleptocracy, since they provide a foreign currency income which can be more easily diverted to foreign accounts. Historically, the socio-political environment associated with colonial rule has been particularly conducive to the creation of kleptocracies both during and after colonisation, especially in resource-rich but under-industrialised parts of Africa and South America.
The current version uses an economic terminology which obscures what is not so complicated a subject. Even the line "kleptocracies are generally incompetent in the face of social crises, and often collapse into prolonged civil war and anarchy" is debatable. Neither Mobutu nor Papa Doc was not incompetent in the face of social crises. They tended to resolve them through shooting people and mobilising foriegn aid agencies rather than spending the money they extracted from the state. These are not solutions that I would support, but this is quite different from incompetence. Furthermore, civil war and anarchy were not features of their rule, they came about after they were gone. But this has been true of many other kinds of regimes. Furthermore, Ceauceascu's regime was the very opposite of an anarchic, paralyzed state. It was highly mobilised and strictly ordered. And, it did not collapse into civil war and anarchy after his departure.
The whole generalising character of the article is problematic. I think the idea that should be expressed is that a kleptocracy is an autocratic regime which diverts public revenues to one person or a small group of people on an enormous scale - one large enough to be counted as a portion of GDP. This better captures the meaning most people give to the word. The examples should be the most typical examples rather than a long list - just the ones that most indicate to readers just what kinds of regimes are intended.
And, I think it makes sense to say something about how easy it is to toss the word "kleptocracy" around as little more than a synonym for "corruption", in the same way that "fascist" is widely used to designate any racially discrimatory policy or reduction of civil liberties.
I think that would serve the purpose of really documenting the world as it is, and would not be POV. Diderot 09:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think what you've said is very informative and well thought out, Diderot. It's a rare pleasure to be bombarded with a reasoned argument instead of an impassioned tract. That said, I think there's more we need to do to proceed here.
I agree that the generalising character of this article is somewhat problematic, but I think it would do to remember that what we're dealing with here is something that, in the strictest sense, does not actually exist in real life. That is, the literal definition of kleptocracy as "rule by thieves" implies that the thieves rule everything and do not dissimulate their true nature. Since no "kleptocrat", or rather, no ruler in history that I know of has openly stated that the purpose of their rule is to suck their subjects dry, the issue of picking out any actual government as a kleptocracy is only useful as a relative example.
That said (again), this page has at least in part become a forum wherein users add their own pet kleptocrats to a list, and I am right now merely trying to address and rectify that. I want it to be clear that this article is not to be confused with "List of Kleptocracies" (not that I'm advocating the creation of such a list), and be limited in its name-calling to a very minimum of examples that lie not only closest to the definition, but most obviously so as well.
So, we need a list. The Duvaliers seem to fit well. I admit I don't know enough about Ceausescu to argue for or against him strongly. Mobutu is another who will settle well, and I think Saddam Hussein with his US$20 billion (or more, no one can yet say for certain) would be able to garner a consensus. If we can gather a consensus, I would like to just chop off the list entirely and replace it sooner rather than later. siafu 03:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I am most comfortable in using the word "kleptocracy" to describe countries which were wrecked directly by government thievery, unlike Baathist Iraq (where Saddam's wars and UN sanctions played a major role in wrecking the country), or any of the Communist regimes except Nicolae Ceausescu's. Mobutu, the Duvaliers, Suharto and Marcos are the most egregious examples of kleptocracy in my view. GCarty 16:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV or objective truth?[edit]

Given that there is significant controversy about who is and isn't a kleptocrat, we shouldn't be in the business of trying to list those that definitely are. I like the change to cite the list from Transparancy International, but I have an alternative suggestion. How about we list those people or systems that have at least N (say 3) moderately-independent creditable citations for being a kleptocracy? We can also cite counter-arguments, if any. This way, we're not trying to define objective truth, and not doing original research, but are instead representing all sides of a controversy. Bovlb 23:20, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Former Governments[edit]

It seems from this page that all the Kleptocratic regimes are historical. Is this to keep things safe? I agree with the previous comments about the Federal Reserve being a de facto kleptocracy but I wonder more why there are no current governments listed. Are we to believe that kleptocracy is a thing of the past?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kleptocracy&oldid=898642371"