Talk:Kleptocracy Information & Talk:Kleptocracy Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)

Politics portal

This 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

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.

[edit] George W. Bush

I may be way off base here, but I read the Transparency International report referred to for this list of the top 11 kleptocrats, and it's only a ten-item list and does not include George W. Bush. While I personally can't stand the man and have no reason to believe he is anything other than a kleptocrat of the worst kind, I think we ought to at the very least make sure that when we make a claim, it's something we can back - it's pretty poor rhetoric to point readers in the direction of a document that invalidates your argument. If someone can find some proof as to Bush's kleptocracy, then I think it's fine (actually, I think it's great) to include him on the list, but please give us a link to the document providing said proof. Then, if you could, please forward that to Nancy Pelosi's office, so that we can get some impeachment hearings rolling, and over to Bob Byrd and Harry Reid's offices for a quick conviction, that'd be great. Thanks. L. Greenway, Macon, GA.

Hi. I checked out the edition of the article of George Walker Bush, because of the non-existing proof. The surprising fact was that in the editing page the name Bush doesn't appear and the table have just ten names! so, I'm starting to think that the page has been hacked or something. Jose Miotto

Some observers use the term 'kleptocracy' to disparage democratic political processes which permit corporations to influence political policy. The use of kleptocracy in this context privileges one form of rent seeking over all others that are a normal concomitant of democracy.

I don't understand the meaning of the second sentence of this paragraph at all. What is meant by "The use of kleptocracy in this context", and what is meant by "privileges one form of rent seeking"? --Clement Cherlin 02:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear - I can see where this is going... somebody will add United States, somebody else will remove it again, repeat until somebody gets tired of that and gives up on having a list... :-) - Khendon 09:10 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

bing ;-) - Khendon 10:52 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

A couple of notes:

1- I fully agree with the comment of Khendon above, that on a list of so-called "kleptocratic" governments, there is really no meaningful way of determinining which one is and which one isn't a kleptocracy. It would be highly subjective, and in my opinion even with most forgiving standards, the list would by significantly longer than the one offered in the article.

2- The word "kleptocracy", even though philologically speaking, is sound and legitimate, does not appear in any of my English language dictionaries -- with either spelling (i.e., kleptocracy or cleptocracy) ... nor can I find it in my 235,000+ English Wordlist file in my Unix system. Are we inventing words here in Wikipedia or what? --Keyvan

Belated reply, I know, but the Google test usually helps in cases like this. :) -- Schnee 00:49, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually, this source provides you with a "meaningful way of determining which" leaders have been reported to be kleptos or not. - OttOO 7.30.08 14:18

http://www.transparency.org/content/download/4459/26786/file/Introduction_to_political_corruption.pdf

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.1.202 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

\*You* may think they're kleptocracies "beyond doubt", but others would say the same about Bush's administration. The list of examples is fundamentally and intrinsically POV. (The word itself is fine, though - I've seen it in print, and google has some reasonably reuptable-seeming results, includingan academic economics paper) - Khendon 18:13 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

There is a big difference between being a kleptocracy, where money is basically shipped from the national vault into private stashes and "standard politics", at the extreme end of which are practices such as the spoils system (which is incidentally outlawed in the US). I think it is a mistake for this article to include accusations of impropriety made by critics who may not even be using the common definition of kleptocracy. We'd ultimately end up listing every major democracy (if George W. Bush, why not Queen Elizabeth II, Vicente Fox, and so on). "List" articles are not all that useful, but if we can manage to list the ones commonly regarded as kleptocracies instead of using it as a way to score points against contemporary politicians that people don't like, then I think it is useful. I also have trouble believing that anyone except the most corrupt supporter would regard Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, or Ferdinand Marcos as anything other than outright thieves. The article would be improved by listing more information about those cases and why kleptocracy is an appropriate term. Daniel Quinlan 19:03, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)

I removed Silvio Berlusconi after doing a bit of reading. From what I can read, it looks like his troubles are generally connected to his business empire and his failure to divest it and avoid conflicts of interest. I don't think he fits the definition of a kleptocrat, though. The Kleptocracy article shouldn't just be a dumping ground for any type of money-related scandal. Even the article on him in Wikipedia does not allege that he is a kleptocrat. Daniel Quinlan 04:36, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

I think that Berlusconi have to enter in the definition. Take notice that to solve conflict of interest to your favor IS kleptocracy, just that in an indirect way. Kleptocracy is not a money-scandal page, but when we have a government with generalized corruption and mafia connivence, like Berlusconi's government, we are talking about kleptocracy. Jose Miotto

In response to the above question regarding whether or not 'kleptocracy' is a real word (whatever that means-- philosophy of language is another topic, but I think that if a word is in circulation at all, then it's germane to the wikipedia project)-- for what it's worth, it does appear in the online OED.

Honestly, I think it is entirely counter productive to even try to list any examples of a kleptocracy-- any example is going to be an *overt* value judgment; the rhetorical move of saying "it is commonly accepted that blah blah..." is also exceptionally problematic. I don't know much about most of the ones that were listed, but I think several are debatable. And like it or not, many people would probably think the current administration fits the definition perfectly. This word itself carries a massive political charge; it is explicitly negative. It is impossible to list a regime from the neutral point of view. Look at the Political corruption page; it does not list any countries as corrupt as if it were a bare fact, it would be inflammatory and unsubstantiable; to call a regime a kleptocray amounts to the same thing. What the political corruption page does do is display a list of several countries considered most and least corrupt as compiled by some think tank or something, which is referenced. Unless someone can produce specific references, it is unacceptable to list ANY regime as a kleptocracy, and to portray that listing as purely objective.

As for the wikipedia article on Berlusconi: it's quite possible he wasn't called a kleptocrat therein because no one has really heard of the word (it took searches of several dictionaries even to find one in which it was listed); it is not necessarily reflective of whether he fits the definition or not.

--brendan colloran, 04:56, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

I put Putin back because of the whole business with the Yukos. Granted that the Yukos had it coming, but typically the penalty for non paying taxes is usually a seizure of the amount owed. Sweetfreek 21:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Russia operates as a Kleptocracy. It's not going into Putin's pockets or the pockets of his cronies, is it? Outrageous penalties and taxation != kleptocracy. Daniel Quinlan 21:54, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

When a "mystery bidder" comes along and buys one of the largest oil firms in Russia... there's a difference between knowing and proving... hint, hint, hint... hmm. In any event, one of the most basic elements of any civilization (as well as any helf-way successful/stable nomadic tribes) is the codified law concerning the keeping and moving of properties. When this law is either abolished or unenforced, a state of chaos exists and all other laws begin to collapse. It is enevitable that Capitalist societies (like all other fuedal systems) will degenerate into "rob the poor to feed the rich" systems, given that they are founded upon economic superiorities rather than on the rules of property ownership (despite what is often claimed by its supporters). Capitalists invariably attempt to maintain the fiction that they stand for laws of private ownership, but the practices of debt slavery (like with credit cards, or the Federal Deficit) and commercial/industrial monopolization ultimately create a need to violate those same laws through practices such as iminent domain and some forms of taxation. Justifaction for these actions requires tapping into the moral concept of "the greater good". Communist/Socialist societies, on the other hand, tend to dispense with the fictions and go forward with outright seizure or private properties for "the use of the society/community/etc." and rapidly lead to obvious economic failures, or at the very least, sharp limits of activity on both personal and national scales. Either way, both are cases where the only rule is "he who grabs the most rules the most"... thus, "kleptocracy". I myself am what might be generally (though perhaps not "exactly") referred to as a free market advocate. Sweetfreek 23:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barbary or not?

I am wondering if kleptocrats by definition are those who steal from their own people? If this is the case than pirate states would not necessarily qualify.

Pirate states are not Kleptocracies. That's why there's a different name for them. ;-) Daniel Quinlan 21:54, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

If that was the case then all governments would be kleptocracies because all of them rely on involuntary taxation in order to function. Last time I checked, taking money from people against their will is stealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.151.159 (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They aren't taking against their will though. If everyone decided not to pay tax, countries would fall apart as there would be no money to go towards the country's infrastructure. That's the difference you see. In a Kleptocracy, the money isn't being given back in another form, so there it is stealing. Deamon138 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

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)

[edit] POV

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)

[edit] NPOV or objective truth?

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)

[edit] Add an Illustration

I think the article should have an illustration. To me, "kleptocrat" means this guy: http://www.frankandernest.com/images/archive/100/1000313.gif

Absolutely not. It would give the article a political slant. —Sesel wa 20:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow...you guys are really dumb if you can somehow find a way to be biased about this.

The problem is not one of bias, but relevance. That cartoon is satirizing modern American democracy, not kleptocracy (assuming you see a difference!). Political pandering — even if the promises are largely carried out upon election — is not the same thing as kleptocracy. - dcljr (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It just says vote. many of the Kleptocratic countries have been forms of democracies. I do not agree with it, but the implication towards the United States cannot be the sole implication or allusion. - OttOO 7.30.08 14:22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.1.202 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Other kleptocrats"

I cut this entire section as it does nothing to further the article. This article seems to repeatedly suffer from being sidetracked by individuals who see this is a List of corrupt rulers or some such. siafu 15:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Pedro Rosselló

Why was Puerto Rican kleptocrat Pedro Rosselló removed from this list? He is on the spanish version of Wikipedia and it is a well known fact that during his 8 year administration a lot of money was stealed from Puerto Rico's public cofers. As a matter of fact, a lot of public servants were prosecuted and convicted of theft and embezzelment of funds (fmr secretary of Education Victor Fajardo, fmr president of the house of representatives Edison Misla Aldarondo, &c.). Pedro Rosselló himself is being investigated for illegaly getting his public servant pension approved by a former department head of his administration! Also, Pedro Roselló coerced a legally elected senator from the district of Arecibo to give up his chair to him in order to pursue his megalomaniacal wishes of presiding the Puerto Rican senate in order to upset the separation of powers provided by the constitution of Puerto Rico. Pedro Rosselló is a kleptocrat, and should be in this list!

The list is not wikipedia's choice of kleptocrats, it comes from Transparency International. If you're unhappy about an exclusion or inclusion, take it up with them. siafu 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The list here is clearly based on political bias rather than accurate information: So far nobody has being able to prove that former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori accumulate that amount of wealth. With no sources to support that claim and clearly avoiding many corrupt leader (Boris Yeltsin, Fernando Collor de Mello, Alan García, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, Augusto Pinochet, Alfredo Stroessner and many more), what type of impartial list is that? The definition should stay, but the so called list should be removed because it clearly follows a political agenda. Messhermit 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (re)distributive

There's no explanation of the terms distributive economy and restributive economy, nor any wikipedia pages on them to link to. Either someone needs to define these, or the discussion has to be recast in different terms. 72.70.235.24 14:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Along this line of thinking, the article should mention the points of view (libertarian and otherwise) in which ALL government is a form of kleptocracy (see Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel ch. 14), in which taxation itself is theft from society.

[edit] Neologism (sort of); biased POV

Overall, I strongly support the creation (and preservation) of neologisms with unique and important definitions here on Wikipedia (realizing, of course, that I'm an extreme minority). However, it seems I first encountered the term "kleptocracy" while reading materials composed by right-wing libertarians and paleoconservatives (e.g. Pat Buchanan) to attack social democracies, the welfare state, and "liberalism", for taxing the rich so that the poor can survive, and I thought it looked like a "made-up word" at the time, similar to such terms as "RepubliRat", "Democlican", "Clintonocracy", etc., so I wonder how NPOV the term really is, but if anti-Bushites are using it against "W", I guess I'm all for it. Also, I don't see any relevance at all for the proposed article "tax slavery", since most likely, whoever created this views the necessity of paying any taxes at all as being "slavery"; guess we can't have a military, cops, or courts then. Because of all this, I've proposed that this page be deleted.

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50127180?query_type=word&queryword=kleptocracy&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=tFRN-3nxLFK-8556&hilite=50127180

The Oxford English Dictionary lists kleptocracy, referenced as 1819. So how is this a neologism? 132.205.44.134 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kleptocracy

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Kleptocracy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Shanoman 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Shanoman 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In Europe, I encountered "Kleptocracy" as a nickname for the Jelzin administration, where members of the gouvernement could take gouvernemental assets at will and corruption was high. I contest "Kleptocracy" as a form of gouvernement, and I frankly don't see any reason to have more than a REDIR to "political corruption". I made a proposal to merge the relevant sections of the article with the corruption article. --85.181.63.14 11:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "Kleptocracy"

Whether or not the word appears in a certain dictionary is irrelevant. It is a commonly used term. Therefore, it has a place in Wikipedia.

I also think it is legitimate to apply the term to countries, which are supposedly democracies. For instance, it is possible for someone to make a case for the United Kingdom, under Thatcher, Major and Blair, being a kleptocracy because British governments of the last thirty years have created huge private monopolies, which then hold citizens to ransom. That is legalising a kind of theft. The situation would not be tolerated in the United States, which has very strict anti-trust laws (and consumer groups with a bit of "get up and go").

Some of these monopolistic outfits [e.g. British Airways, the Train Operating Companies and the bus companies] continue to receive massive subsidies, either directly or indirectly, from the taxpayer, despite so-called "privatisation". The running costs of the railways are now about six times what they were, under British Rail (using today's prices for both) and the service is certainly no better. The safety record has been much worse. All the funding is still coming from the public purse but, instead of it being invested in improvements, more than four fifths of it are going into the pockets of businessmen, shareholders and bankers. [Have Treasury officials forgotten that it's cheaper for a government to borrow money, through bonds etc, than for a private company, through commercial loans?]

The clearest instances of theft by British politicians were the disposal of state-owned assets, worth hundreds of billions of pounds, at knocked-down prices. [These had either been acquired from the private sector, at full market value, or appropriated from municipal undertakings.] Very often, those benefiting from the sales had links to whatever party was in power. In more than one case, the senior civil servants, who oversaw privatisation, moved on to work in the newly privatised company or the bank, which handled the sale. It was also common for the assets to be sold on, soon after privatisation, at a hefty profit, thus proving that they had been undervalued (quite possibly by people, who had a vested interest in keeping the price down). The most ridiculous [or corrupt, depending on one's frame of mind] example was when Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue sold all their property, for much less than it was worth, to a consortium, which was based in Belize, for the purposes of avoiding tax.

In recent years, glorified hire-purchase schemes ["Public-Private Partnerships" and "The Private Finance Initiative"] have allowed the private sector [again in the form of large companies, which have made donations to political parties and then mysteriously won public contracts- their raison d'etre] to build and run schools, roads, hospitals etc at a cost, which is (on average) five and a half times the "normal" cost [i.e. if the projects had been paid for, there and then, by the government]. The PPP/PFI legerdemain was, in part, aimed at meeting targets, relating to public spending as a proportion of GDP. These were among Gordon Brown's criteria for joining the Euro, although there is a snowball's chance in Hell that Britain will adopt the currency. Of course, public spending [and, therefore, taxation] has actually been increased by phoney "privatisation" but spread over such long periods, that it is harder to see.

Not long before he died, Harold Macmillan spoke of Thatcher "selling off the family silver". What would he say now? Over the last ten years, Gordon Brown has increased taxes by stealth. He introduced "Tax Credits" for low earners but took away the money by increasing National Insurance contributions. Indirect taxation, which isn't noticed as much, has been increased, little by little. In the last budget, the starting rate of Income Tax (again something, which existed for the benefit of low earners) has been abolished.

It was all to keep the basic rate and higher rate of Income Tax at the same level and cook the books (by spreading the cost of public projects over very long periods, perhaps as much as 25 years), while at the same time handing ever larger amounts of money to the government's friends in Big Business. In other words, he, like his predecessors since 1979, has stolen from the poor [or the average taxpayer] and given to the rich [or large corporations]. You can all debate whether that makes him a kleptocrat, till the cows come home, but it certainly makes him "Robin Hood in reverse". I am sorry to say that, in modern Britain, latter-day "Sheriffs of Nottingham" are definitely winning.

[edit] In the Discworld series?

What?

 From the "Kleptocracy in Fiction" section:

In fiction, kleptocracy has sometimes been portrayed as an actual part of the government or an important city guild, such as in Fritz Leiber's "Ill Met in Lankhmar", the Ferengi, and Terry Pratchett's Discworld series.

OK, I don't know enough about the first two, but I don't see the Guilds system in Ankh-Morpork counting as kleptocracy. Guilds exist, yes, but they are pretty effectively regulated by the Patrician. WikiReaderer 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Farm

Off the subject, but would the society created by the animals in Animal Farm be considered a kleptocracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.213.129 (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference to that is not necessary as the farm alludes to many forms of government. This explanation is in the Animal Farm article. - OttOO 7.30.08 14:24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.1.202 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

By definition, all Socialist states are kleptocracies.Agre22 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

[edit] Global Corruption Report 2004

The debate about who should be on the Wikipedia top ten kleptocracy list is misplaced because the list was created by a German NGO in 2004. If we think names should be added or removed a new list could be created. To solve the problem of the editing of this list in Wikipedia (Bush and Arafat are not on the original GCR04 list), the list could be offered only as the link to the Adobe Reader document from the NGO. Otherwise it looks like shabby propaganda to have 11 names on a list of ten.Notnearlycloseenough 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags tags tags and MORE tags

Does anyone have a REAL* reliable source to give verifiability to any of the statements in this article. (ok a second source, there appears to be ONE good source in use.) Trout Ice Cream (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kievan Rus

I don't understand what differed Kievan Rus from other medieval societies. I change phrase "An old case of a kleptocratic governed state was Kievan Rus'" to "According to one source, an old case...." The title of reference sounds like a gutter press. Olvegg (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs to be moved

As stated in the fist sentence of the entry: "A kleptocracy (sometimes cleptocracy, occasionally kleptarchy) (root: klepto+kratein = rule by thieves) is a term applied to a government," kleptocracy is not a FORM of government but a term applied to a government. The term is describing operations and behaviors, not the framework of a government. The term can be applied to many forms of government and needs to be removed from the list of "forms" of governments. Navywings (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that since the term "conservative" is a term that is applied to a government, then therefore conservatism isn't a form of government? Well it is and so is kleptocracy. If a term applied to a government doesn't descripe its form, then what on Earth is a term then? Deamon138 (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that since the term "conservative" is a term that is applied to a government, then therefore conservatism isn't a form of government. Yes, that is what we are saying. You can have a "conservative"/"kleptocratic" monarchy, a "conservative"/"kleptocratic" dictatorship, or a "conservative"/"kleptocratic" democracy. The "conservative" and "kleptocracy" are merely descriptors. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a neologism

Kleptocracy is not a neologism. It's listed in most dictionaries and there are 200,000 hits on Google for it. I have removed the tag for this. Deamon138 (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bush and Kleptocracy

There is no problem at all if you want to include Bush or any other name. But there must be some evidence in doing so. If you can manage the evidences then you can offcourse put Bush's name or any other names as well. Without evidence it makes no sense in citing ones name and it simple becomes a blame game... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnablahiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Narcokleptocracy

Is there any objection to merging the two sentance Narcokleptocracy article here to preserve the sourced information? -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adjustments in Transparency International figures

Are the Transparency International figures adjusted? That is do they reflect the flat amount "stolen" during these regimes -- or the amount of wealth stolen during those regimes as measured in 2004 US $.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Uprisings

It seems logical that this article should discuss the general disgust of the people living within a kleptocracy, and their general tendency to ultimately become violent toward oppression and ultimately dispose of the leaders of such "government". These "disposals" are often extremely violent manifestations and often include public murdering / public execution. I will see if I can find a references for that.

I know there are historical examples. Yogiudo (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Germany-based NGO Transparency International = COWARDS and/or corrupt

The rating is pathetic. It only includes the deposed and the weak heads of tiny banana republics. Anyone with any knowledge of modern history can add at least a dozen names that rank far, far above those listed. Problem is, these people still have power and/or influence. The 'best' ones aren't proven or documented much, but everyone knows about them. And even some of the 'small fly' make the listed kleptocrats look tiny and innocent in comparison. Hell, how about this one, from modern first-world Germany no less: "As Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder was a strong advocate of the Nord Stream pipeline project, which aims to supply Russian gas directly to Germany and thereby bypassing transit countries. The agreement to build the pipeline was signed two weeks before the German parliamentary election. On 24 October 2005, just a few weeks before Schröder stepped down as a Chancellor, the German government guaranteed to cover 1 billion euros of the Nord Stream project cost, should Gazprom default on a loan ... Schröder accepted Gazprom's nomination for the post of the head of the shareholders' committee of Nord Stream AG, raising questions about a potential conflict of interest. German opposition parties have expressed concern over the issue, as have the governments of countries over whose territory gas is currently pumped ... In January 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that Schröder would join the board of the oil company TNK-BP, a joint venture between oil major BP and Russian partners [18]." Yes, he didn't exactly take money from his country - instead, he used $1 billion of his country's budget to back a loan to a company, for which he received a position there. Companies bribing government is as old as writing; but governments bribing companies?! Had Gazprom defaulted on the loan (or if it will in the future), that would be overt theft of $1 billion from the German budget. And, considering the openness of such major corruption, who knows where else the man used federal money for his own betterment?! Aadieu (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

PS on Shroeder - not only did he sort-of-appropriate $1 billion in bailout guarantees for a company he was about to head, but the pipeline it is building is vastly un-beneficial and conflicting with the political interests of Germany, the EU, and all of Germany's main allies. Using government funds to undermine said government in exchange for a cozy (and undisclosed, but definitely huge) salary? Seems to fit with kleptocracy all right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadieu (talk • contribs) 07:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Contents