Bribery
Don’t pay them; pay us
February 10, 2010 33 comments
So, paying Afghan insurgents to stop fighting is not bribery but “reintegration”, while BAE paying foreign government officials to persuade them to buy its weapons is bribery, yet BAE paying the US and UK governments to make that nastiness go away isn’t bribery but rather “fines”?
What is bribery, readers?
Bribery is when you pay for something that is not for sale…
sorry, that is not “supposed to be” for sale…
Perhaps I’m naive, but I see bribery as getting someone to accept payment for something they shouldn’t do.
So paying Afghan insurgents to stop fighting isn’t bribery, because killing people is not, in the general consensus, something they should be doing. Unless, I suppose, it breaks a written contract with the Afghan insurgency leadership?
BAE paying foreign governments to get them to buy it’s weaponry also isn’t bribery. Paying the officials of that government so that they are biased towards BAE would be ;)
BAE paying US/UK governments? Not familiar with the details on that one. I suppose it depends who offered to pay first? Which makes “bribery” a bit of an unspeak word all on it’s own, I think.
My friends were travelling through Russia when the train was stopped and their passports were checked. They were detained on an unidentified technicality to do with their documents the only remedy to which was to pay a nominal fee to their arresting officers. They were detained for twenty hours after which they were released, though, and hadn’t paid their fines- why? Because the only word the police men knew in English to describe the payment was ‘bribe’ and my friends couldn’t allow themselves to bribe police men. “I have to pay a fine?” “Yes, yes, you bribe me 100 Euros, We must arrest you”
Is a bribe perhaps the last reliable route to ‘justice’ ?
shadowfirebird@3—
Point taken! (And post corrected.)
BAE “agreed” to pay massive wodges of cash to “settle” the allegations of corruption.
(^_^) Sorry!
I think this one is quite simple. Bribery is illegitimate. What is illegitimate is defined by law. Law is defined by power.
QED, bribery is defined by power.
Bribery is the act of making illegal payments to gain influence or favours. The keyword there is illegal.
Paying insurgents to stop fighting is not necessarily in itself illegal, unless it could be argued that that it should be viewed as funding a terrorist organisation.
‘BAE paying foreign government officials to persuade them to buy its weapons is bribery’ is clearly bribery, since it broke OECD anti-bribery laws, as well as the US Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act, by doing so.
BAE paying fines is punishment for aforementioned bribery, and cannot be considered bribery, simply because that’s like saying I’m bribing someone when I pay my traffic ticket.
Admittedly, BAE get off rather lightly, because they’ve essentially admitted guilt and have thus avoided a trial, but that’s just more reason for them to settle and pay the fines, rather than fight it and go to court.
I love it when the key word is “illegal”. But to a question of the form “Why ought act A be considered worse than act B?”, the answer “Because it is illegal” will not always be found satisfactory.
the problem with ‘illegal’ is that it creates the possibility of the same transaction being a bribe in one country and a legitimate business practice in another, which I feel is not only counter-intuitive but also inconsistent (a bribe is, by definition, morally suspect)
@steven: Ah, but then surely you’re asking a very different question to what you originally asked? Now you’re asking why is one act considered illegal, and another not, which is different to “What is bribery?”
The answer to that is probably along the lines of what Rojo defined: “bribery” (or illegality, if you prefer) “is defined by power.”
@hich: I can say exactly the same about your use of “morally suspect” i.e. the problem with ‘morally suspect’ is that it creates the possibility of a bribe being morally unacceptable in one country and perfectly morally acceptable in another.
@4, Hey Zeus, I really enjoyed that story. But it also had me wondering if something else was happening. After all, by constructing a scenario in which your friends were offering a “bribe”, were the Russian policemen not actually perpetrating a form of unspeak – after all, they were indubitably robbing your friends, and perhaps even kidnapping them and holding them for ransom: by reframing it as a “bribe”, they were implicating your friends in an active criminal activity (perpetrating bribery), and changing their own act of mugging and kidnapping into a rather more passive act of criminal activity (accepting a bribe), and then, in a double blow, implying that your friends were fundamentally accepting their guilt and trying to get out of the consequence with a bribe, rather than simply facing justice. It makes me wonder if the Russians were in fact very astute users of the English language.
As for the rest of the thread – well, surely we should defer to the great poet-philosopher-prophet:
Bob Dylan, Chronicles Volume One, pp. 196-197
they were indubitably robbing your friends
This neatly characterizes all my interactions with the police in any country. Also, currently, airline staff. No wonder we need to have a whole language and theory of state power to have any chance of rendering interactions with our predator/stewards intelligible and/or tolerable.
@ Craig: I agree with you. My point was that a bribe is “by definition” morally suspect, in other words, if someone told me I needed to give a certain amount of money as a “bribe” to get things done, it would be a morally questionable action regardless of its legality in that country or other (and yes, this would open up the door to the slippery space that is morality).
I’m sure a definition exists/could be developed which is described strictly in terms of a transaction’s compliance with a particular legal framework, but this, in my humble opinion, should be an auxiliary definition, ie it’s simply a legalese version of the first, wider definition.
I hope (against hope) that I’m making some sense…
So, I have an entirely off topic question about the use of question marks that was, however, prompted by this thread and by Steven’s use of it in general.
Craig, above, said: “Ah, but then surely you’re asking a very different question to what you originally asked? Now you’re asking why is one act considered illegal, and another not, which is different to “What is bribery?””
Both of these strike me as statements, not questions. And I’ve noticed Steven using the question mark in a very similar fashion in many posts. Is it a means of softening your, er, questioning of another’s point? Offering that person an exit, maybe?
And, is it a difference between Brit English and American English that I perhaps I was not aware of?
@Craig, Steven:
The problem with saying that the keyword is illegal, is that, as you mention, there are specific laws against bribery.
So if I make a payment which is illegal under the bribery laws, what you are saying is that it is bribery because it is illegal, and it is illegal because it is bribery?
@shadowfirebird: I’m not sure I follow exactly what point you’re making, because the same can be said for many other laws. Consider the following:
Theft is the act of illegally taking something from someone else.
The problem with saying that the keyword is illegal, is that, as you mention, there are specific laws against theft.
So if I take something which is illegal under theft laws, what you are saying is that it is theft because it is illegal, and it is illegal because it is theft?
(Although, strictly speaking, it should probably be called “anti-bribery laws”, or “anti-theft laws”, because that makes more sense.)
@Rojo: Not sure if this is what you were referring to, but I’m assuming one of the questions you’re talking about is, “Ah, but then surely you’re asking a very different question to what you originally asked?”
It’s a genuine question, since I thought that I may have misunderstood what Steven was saying, in which case it would mean that the opinion I formed was invalid.
@Craig:
You originally said: “Bribery is the act of making illegal payments to gain influence or favours. The keyword there is illegal.”
I’m afraid that I was only making the horribly geeky point that a definition cannot refer to itself, or it’s not a definition.
If bribery is only bribery because it is illegal, but it’s only the laws against bribery that MAKE it illegal, then we have a circular reference. It’s illegal because it’s bribery, but it’s bribery because it’s illegal.
There has to be something more about the act of bribery that makes it bribery, other than the fact that it is illegal. Clearly it is illegal to do things that are illegal — but that’s not a helpful definition of bribery!
(I would also seperately argue that law and morality are far from being the same thing. Many things that are immoral are legal, and quite a few things that can be viewed as immoral are legal.)
Damn would all readers please mentally fix that last paragraph for me. You know what I meant.
@shadowbird
I think the point is that bribery is defined by law. I don’t see a problem w/ that in terms of language. Perhaps the problem is that formal definitions of law very often differ from both law in practice and from our everyday understandings of what one should or should not do. That, I would suggest, is not a problem of language, but of law.
@Craig
re: question marks.
But your quoted sentence is an assertion.
But your quoted sentence is an assertion, isn’t it?
I’m nitpicking I realize, but I was curious about it. Does the question mark automatically add a sense of unsureness to the sentence?
or…
The question mark automatically adds a sense of unsureness to the sentence?
That latter usage I find weird. When I read it, I internally hear a valley-girl accent giving an upward inflection to the end of sentences. As in: “So I went to the mall? And I saw Jo there? And we went to the Forever 21? And I saw this great outfit? And I totally had to have it?”
Here’s an example of Steven’s usage that got me thinking about this:
“In other words I would suggest that Amis’s solecism does not consist in judging Coetzee on the basis of (a misquotation from) WftB rather than on the basis of some other Coetzee novel or many of them; rather, Amis’s crime is the substantially more serious one of being too stupid to understand what he has read?”
He says he suggesting, not asking. Does the question mark at the end just mean that he’s unsure of the assertion or is it an invitation to argue with him?
@Rojo
I know I’m being pedantic, but I think there is a world of difference between saying that we should take the same definition of bribery that the law does, and saying that we should define bribery by the fact that an interchange of money is deemed to be illegal.
It seems to me that Craig said the latter — although, no doubt you are right; he meant the former.
@shadowfirebird: You do realise you’re going to make my brains explode ;)
According to wikipedia, ‘Black’s Law Dictionary [defines bribery] as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.’
That’s pretty good, because it doesn’t refer to itself. However, the problem here is that it doesn’t take cultural or social norms into account. For example, while I would consider lobbying to be “bribery”, obviously in the United States this is a perfectly acceptable practice.
So we have to work law/social norms/cultural norms into that definition somehow …
I see you (and Rojo) added a comment while I was writing, and you’re both exactly right about what I was trying to say. Sorry for being unclear.
“I would also separately argue that law and morality are far from being the same thing. Many things that are immoral are legal, and quite a few things that can be viewed as immoral are legal.”
Of course, but I don’t think I ever tried to argue otherwise.
@Rojo: Well, like I said, I added the question mark purely because I was unsure about the assumption I had made. I think there is an element of politeness in it, though, so in that you’re probably right that it’s a British thing.
When I read ‘But your quoted sentence is an assertion, isn’t it?’ it means to me that you want to know why I used the question mark, whereas ‘But your quoted sentence is an assertion.’ seems to signify that you’ve already made your mind up.
@Craig:
Let me make your brains explode more. (^_~)
“For example, while I would consider lobbying to be “bribery”, obviously in the United States this is a perfectly acceptable practice.”
It can be a perfectly acceptable practice and be bribery at the same time.
I would agree that lobbying is bribery, or that it can be. I would agree that it is wrong. But, as I completely failed to actually say earlier, what’s immoral or unethical is not always illegal, and vice-versa.
The thing about law is that it should apply to everyone universally — everyone in the same country, anyway. The thing about morals is that they vary from person to person.
So while the definition of bribery in law is a good starting place, I don’t think it can be the ending point.
And, since this is a blog about being careful with words, perhaps we should also consider whether bribery is always immoral — although I think in normal use you would have to say yes. There are words for a morally defensible bribe — “tax”, “fine”, etc.
@ Craig
Quoting you quoting me: “When I read ‘But your quoted sentence is an assertion, isn’t it?’ it means to me that you want to know why I used the question mark, whereas ‘But your quoted sentence is an assertion.’ seems to signify that you’ve already made your mind up.”
But that was exactly my point in phrasing those sentences that way. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I intended to show that
“But your quoted sentence is an assertion, isn’t it?” is clearly a question, and “But your quoted sentence is an assertion.” is clearly an assertion, but, to me, at least, “But your quoted assertion?” is an odd use of the question mark.
Anyway, no need to really belabor the issue, I think we all understand each other’s points. And I suspect even more that it is a British/American difference in language use, as you seem to think as well. Perhaps some enterprising young doctoral student in linguistics might take the issue up at some point.
That definitely ain’t me, however, and I doubt I’ll read said thesis if it does get written.
Forgive all the typos, both noted here and elsewhere (typos are more embarrassing when discussing language).
The last example in the early paragraph should read: “But your quoted assertion is an assertion?”
Which, as I said, I find weird.
There was a talk this month at TED by Peter Eigen, a German World Bank veteran who’s now heading an anti-corruption NGO. He speaks mostly about his experience of African governments being bribed by European companies (or “exporters from the North” as he phrases it)
I found some of what he said particularly interesting/relevant:
– in Germany, “you’re not allowed to bribe a civil servant but you are allowed to bribe a deputy” (ie a German MP)
– In Germany, foreign bribery is “not only allowed but tax deductible”
– There’s a UN convention against bribery with 160 signatories (Nope, Germany isn’t one of them)
A clear case of bribery being explicitly legal. In my view legality is too weak/fluid a criterion to base a solid definition on it.
Interesting — thanks for that. I had rather suspected that “bribery” just means “making payments of which I disapprove”.
@ Steven
Does this mean it’s only a bribe if the bribER views it that way? or also when the bribED does? (In other words, who’s the ‘I’ in your definition?)
In any case, isn’t “disapprove” rather too open-ended? I’m sure there’s a very high likelihood both BAE executives AND their Saudi connections approved of whatever payments were handed over in the Al Yamama deal. And I’m equally sure those payments would easily qualify as “bribes”.
It just occurred to me you might have meant “payments of which I (Steven P) disapprove”, in which case, please ignore my redundant rejoinder.
Steven: ‘I had rather suspected that “bribery” just means “making payments of which I disapprove”.’
Except that just leaves it so open-ended and subjective as to be completely meaningless, because everyone would have a completely different take on what is bribery, and what isn’t, and then we are no closer to identifying a working definition.
I’m actually going to backtrack on my earlier assumption that bribery depends on something being illegal, or morally questionable. I think I was wrong.
Using the Wikipedia quote I copied earlier, this is a very good definition to stick to: the act of bribery is the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
Even though a bribe does have a negative, largely historical, connotation, I’m not convinced that it should. Based on earlier comments about bribery being defined by power, it really made me think that we should not consider it in terms that favour power i.e. it’s bribery because those with power say so, or it’s not bribery because they say so. The more I think of it, the more I feel “bribery” has become one of those 1984-esque words defined by those that rule.
With a definition that removes any moral or legal influences, we can then debate about immoral or morally-acceptable bribes, and illegal or legal bribes. Language becomes much, much clearer. It makes the use of this word much more “neutral” and far more meaningful.
@ Craig
I think the definition you’re looking for already exists, for the word “payment”, which IS non-judgmental (ie,it can be illegal/legal, immoral/moral). In my opinion, the only thing specific to this particular type of payment (which is what a bribe amounts to) is that it is for a service/action/etc that is not supposed to be for sale in the first place.
If I pay a judge a hundred dollars to let me off with a lighter sentence, if I pay a government official a million pounds to grant my company a contract it wouldn’t get on a level-playing field etc etc then that is a bribe, even if it takes place in a setting where the law doesn’t disallow it. (which happens more often that people think, after all, many financial transactions get banned only AFTER their nefarious consequences are exposed and documented)
“bribery” just means “making payments of which I disapprove”.
Michael Pearson’s venerable article “Corruption and Corsairs in Western India” is a delight on this kind of usage applied to “corruption” and “piracy.” Perhaps “bribe,’ “fine” and “out of court settlement” should be conjugated.