Underdeveloped countries

[Oluwa-btc]

Unfortunately, I have to agree that it’s impossible to completely eradicate corruption in today’s world. There is power and there is money - these are the key elements that give rise to corruption. BUT! Like a serious illness, it can be "put into remission" and kept in that state for a long time.
In your example, there are two solutions:
A strict enforcement system and the application of the law to everyone.
A strict system of authority, authoritarian or totalitarian , where there is inevitable, harsh punishment for corruption if you’re not part of the inner circle, have become a potential threat, or are simply unlucky.

I don't know how the president of El Salvador did it but he was able to tackle it to an extent most especially when it comes to prosecuting those corrupt judges in the systems and with displacing them from a place of power, he was able to leave in place good judges who can take good decisions and help fight against drug lord's and trafficking.

China has also done the same. They are good with hanging and killing corrupt political representatives. Are these not good enough measures to tackle corruption?

[Localhostspeed]

Not only school  it is almost all institutions that are led by corrupt leaders. But yes schools are the root of any society that's only nd real  hope of any society for changing. But unfortunately in under developed countries these institutions are also functioning under the influence of politics, they designed system that usually generate profit for them. Many political leaders are also headed these system.

Actually it is collaboration of few groups that they made such laws and regulations because of that people become dependent on the government for every step. The foolish public always waiting for the government policies instead of taking steps for the betterment of themselves Here you are right if government intention are in the favour of progress it would easy for it. Because as it is said that " where there is  will there is a way" . Government have always lot of options including reforms, subsidies and ideas even skilled workers for functioning. But they just come in power to make stronger themselves rather work for the development of society.

School is not bound by only the things you say, they teach morals in school and if they can make sure that students has good morals but there is corruption then you need to know that corruption can be treated and school is not the enabler of corruption. The people that are enabler of corruption are the government. The government can make it work by making sure that teachers are well take care, well paid and well organized, that way even the students will be organized.

We cannot accused the school of corruptions when the government are the founders of corruptions. They see what is happening, they neglect their responsibilities, they neglect people problems and suffering but will want to have 5 star enjoyment. They don't do their work, and as a public figure, if you are not doing your part as as the government and a leader, the people will not listen to you and they are going to develop that corrupt mind in the society as well.

[trendcoin]

The OP has approached the issue entirely from a political perspective, but I don’t agree with that. Not everything can be explained by government corruption. In fact, if we were to say that, we’d be calling it a “theory of everything.” Government corruption is not a “theory of everything.”

Even if you were an honorable leader, if chaos reigns in the countries around you, and if there are foreign nations in your region that pose a threat to imperial interests, you cannot enrich your country because you are unable to ensure peace and security in the region. I know that even the worst dictators may hold flawed economic ideas, but I do not believe they deliberately impoverish their countries. In other words, while they may hold views contrary to economic science, I am certain they love their countries just as much as anyone else in the world...

[MainIbem]

The OP has approached the issue entirely from a political perspective, but I don’t agree with that. Not everything can be explained by government corruption. In fact, if we were to say that, we’d be calling it a “theory of everything.” Government corruption is not a “theory of everything.”

Even if you were an honorable leader, if chaos reigns in the countries around you, and if there are foreign nations in your region that pose a threat to imperial interests, you cannot enrich your country because you are unable to ensure peace and security in the region. I know that even the worst dictators may hold flawed economic ideas, but I do not believe they deliberately impoverish their countries. In other words, while they may hold views contrary to economic science, I am certain they love their countries just as much as anyone else in the world...

You can’t deny a fact which is that the problem of most underdeveloped countries is bad/corrupt governance, I'll use Africa as an instance many African leaders are very selfish and corrupt, instead of using the resources of the nation to improve their economies they use it to their own interests to give their families good life and education abroad then neglect the poor masses they promised a good economy and so on, people who do such doesn't give a fuck about the country else they would've made provision of basic amenities for their citizens. I rather prefer a dictator who builds a good economy, stop inflation and provide amenities for citizens including payimg workers salaries than a corrupt one that decieve people with democracy.

[Sally9256]

The OP has approached the issue entirely from a political perspective, but I don’t agree with that. Not everything can be explained by government corruption. In fact, if we were to say that, we’d be calling it a “theory of everything.” Government corruption is not a “theory of everything.”

Even if you were an honorable leader, if chaos reigns in the countries around you, and if there are foreign nations in your region that pose a threat to imperial interests, you cannot enrich your country because you are unable to ensure peace and security in the region. I know that even the worst dictators may hold flawed economic ideas, but I do not believe they deliberately impoverish their countries. In other words, while they may hold views contrary to economic science, I am certain they love their countries just as much as anyone else in the world...

You can’t deny a fact which is that the problem of most underdeveloped countries is bad/corrupt governance, I'll use Africa as an instance many African leaders are very selfish and corrupt, instead of using the resources of the nation to improve their economies they use it to their own interests to give their families good life and education abroad then neglect the poor masses they promised a good economy and so on, people who do such doesn't give a fuck about the country else they would've made provision of basic amenities for their citizens. I rather prefer a dictator who builds a good economy, stop inflation and provide amenities for citizens including payimg workers salaries than a corrupt one that decieve people with democracy.

That a fact, A lot of leaders in Africa mostly steal public fund for personal and a nation will be without common amenity, such as schools, good road and even clean water. In such case if a dictator can provide these common values for it people, then I would say it a better option.

But then even a dictator has it disadvantages, especially when it a bad one, because he can only be overthrown by war or coup, which will really lead to the lose of lives of commoners. But when it a democracy, a government will be overthrown by election, which the citizens will be fine.

So at the end, bad leadership, either elected or a dictator Shouldn’t be an option, we should go for leaders that will be accountable for their people.

[Zackz5000]

One of the major problem of underdeveloped countries is the kind of leader they put in power. A good leader is very important in developing a nation,  but in the case of underdeveloped nation,  they have bad government that don't care about the people or even try to develop the state rather they are more interested in enriching themselves and their families and this has been a major problem for these nations. Underdeveloped nations mostly have greedy leaders,  despite all the resources that these nations have, they still remain poor and underdeveloped, while the politicians are getting rich on the expense of the people. It is such a pity that the people can't even do anything to safe themselves from this leaders.

What makes a country under develop is the kind of leadership they have, if a country have a bad and corrupt leaders it will be difficult for such country to be developed this is because they won't have the interest of the country at heart even the citizens, an example is my country i believe we have everything it takes for a country to be developed we are bless with different natural resources but due to greed and selfishness they only care about what concern them and what happened to the country and it's citizens doesn't give them sleepless night at all.

[trendcoin]

The OP has approached the issue entirely from a political perspective, but I don’t agree with that. Not everything can be explained by government corruption. In fact, if we were to say that, we’d be calling it a “theory of everything.” Government corruption is not a “theory of everything.”

Even if you were an honorable leader, if chaos reigns in the countries around you, and if there are foreign nations in your region that pose a threat to imperial interests, you cannot enrich your country because you are unable to ensure peace and security in the region. I know that even the worst dictators may hold flawed economic ideas, but I do not believe they deliberately impoverish their countries. In other words, while they may hold views contrary to economic science, I am certain they love their countries just as much as anyone else in the world...

You can’t deny a fact which is that the problem of most underdeveloped countries is bad/corrupt governance, I'll use Africa as an instance many African leaders are very selfish and corrupt, instead of using the resources of the nation to improve their economies they use it to their own interests to give their families good life and education abroad then neglect the poor masses they promised a good economy and so on, people who do such doesn't give a fuck about the country else they would've made provision of basic amenities for their citizens. I rather prefer a dictator who builds a good economy, stop inflation and provide amenities for citizens including payimg workers salaries than a corrupt one that decieve people with democracy.

Discussing individuals does not solve problems. Problems must be identified within systems and resolved at the systemic level.

An African or any other dictatorial leader cannot improve their country’s prosperity due to their misguided economic views. Even if an African or any other dictator engages in corruption for the benefit of those close to them, this can only benefit a few hundred people at most. The expenses of a few hundred people cannot match the budget needed to ensure the prosperity of a country with millions of people.

What I’m trying to say is that a country’s standard of living does not decline because of a dictator’s corruption. I’m saying that a country’s standard of living deteriorates due to flawed structural ideas and practices in the economic sphere.

The constant rhetoric about corruption is nothing more than political pressure from external powers and domestic political forces. They do this sometimes through fake news and sometimes through events distorted from their true nature. They never, ever talk about the system itself. They simply demonize individuals. This is a clear trap that the average person must not fall into.

And finally, if you ask me, I’d say that even the worst democracy is better than the best dictator, and that the fight against corruption is achieved not through newspaper headlines, but through the rule of law and the election box.

[WatChe]

What makes a country under develop is the kind of leadership they have, if a country have a bad and corrupt leaders it will be difficult for such country to be developed this is because they won't have the interest of the country at heart even the citizens, an example is my country i believe we have everything it takes for a country to be developed we are bless with different natural resources but due to greed and selfishness they only care about what concern them and what happened to the country and it's citizens doesn't give them sleepless night at all.

If a country has corrupt leadership then its impossible for that country to get developed, no matter how much natural resources or skilled man power is available in that country. Corrupt leadership is like a hole in a ship and if there is hole in a ship then that ship is deemed to sink. If we look on developed countries then none of them has corrupt leadership and if any corrupt person was able to make it to government office then he is not able to do corruption because of strict laws and accountability. Thats the main difference between a developed and underdeveloped country. 

[Etranger]

There is no other way to cure corruption. Corruption is like a cancerous tumor for a country - it must be eradicated; it won’t go away on its own...

I am deeply convinced that completely defeating corruption is simply impossible. Even in super developed countries such as Switzerland or Norway, there will be corruption, because it is simply inherent to human nature. The question is its scale. In those countries where a person already feels worthy, where they do not view coming to power as the sole source of income, where they have a choice in decently paid work, where social guarantees are present, and where there are clear, understandable, and rather terrifyingly harsh sanctions applied to EVERYONE, no exceptions, corruption will be significantly lower. Even in China, despite the fact that the death penalty is presumed for it, corruption exists. But it is controlled, which allows it not to destroy the system.

Unfortunately, I have to agree that it’s impossible to completely eradicate corruption in today’s world. There is power and there is money - these are the key elements that give rise to corruption. BUT! Like a serious illness, it can be "put into remission" and kept in that state for a long time.
In your example, there are two solutions:
A strict enforcement system and the application of the law to everyone.
A strict system of authority, authoritarian or totalitarian , where there is inevitable, harsh punishment for corruption if you’re not part of the inner circle, have become a potential threat, or are simply unlucky.

Yes, in the case of our country and many similar ones, a strong authoritarian government with an emphasis on improving economic performance can indeed be a solution. China did this, and Singapore did this. It works. The main thing is that after the stabilization of the economy and political and state institutions, the authoritarian leader is willing to transfer power to other hands, and that is rare.

[Cityhunter34]

Some of the developed countries you are seeing today experienced what other underdeveloped countries are experiencing now because there are some group of leaders that stood up their ground to put an end to corruption that is making the citizens to enjoy what they are enjoying today in the land, which undeveloped countries of the world can do the same thing to escape corruption, we know that corruption don't bring development into a country and it will be a good thing for citizens to rise against anything that will make corruption to live long in their country because they know that it will consume a lot of resources and life of citizens.

Yes, that's true. I think it's just necessary for an underdeveloped country to have a good leader on the seat, because it requires a lot of discipline and sacrifice to make an underdeveloped country look developed. And the greedy leaders can never afford to make it through for the Citizens.

So greed is exactly the main reason why many countries are still suffering till now, because some leaders are just after their own pockets, and that's absolutely wrong. We all know how powerful it is when someone become a leader, but it makes no sense to leave your undeveloped.

[GiftedMAN]

One of the major problem of underdeveloped countries is the kind of leader they put in power. A good leader is very important in developing a nation,  but in the case of underdeveloped nation,  they have bad government that don't care about the people or even try to develop the state rather they are more interested in enriching themselves and their families and this has been a major problem for these nations. Underdeveloped nations mostly have greedy leaders,  despite all the resources that these nations have, they still remain poor and underdeveloped, while the politicians are getting rich on the expense of the people. It is such a pity that the people can't even do anything to safe themselves from this leaders.

What makes a country under develop is the kind of leadership they have, if a country have a bad and corrupt leaders it will be difficult for such country to be developed this is because they won't have the interest of the country at heart even the citizens, an example is my country i believe we have everything it takes for a country to be developed we are bless with different natural resources but due to greed and selfishness they only care about what concern them and what happened to the country and it's citizens doesn't give them sleepless night at all.

Check the countries marked as underdeveloped you will see one common them about them and their economy you will realize how blessed they are with natural mineral resources but they will be among the poorest countries in the world due to the level of evil politicians and the way they steal what should be used to establish their economy to themselves. Speaking about Nigeria which is your supposed country based on the local board you represent, the evidence is so obvious that our leaders are the reasons why the people are suffering and the economy is still struggling to develop.

[liasbaa]

One of the major problem of underdeveloped countries is the kind of leader they put in power. A good leader is very important in developing a nation,  but in the case of underdeveloped nation,  they have bad government that don't care about the people or even try to develop the state rather they are more interested in enriching themselves and their families and this has been a major problem for these nations. Underdeveloped nations mostly have greedy leaders,  despite all the resources that these nations have, they still remain poor and underdeveloped, while the politicians are getting rich on the expense of the people. It is such a pity that the people can't even do anything to safe themselves from this leaders.

What makes a country under develop is the kind of leadership they have, if a country have a bad and corrupt leaders it will be difficult for such country to be developed this is because they won't have the interest of the country at heart even the citizens, an example is my country i believe we have everything it takes for a country to be developed we are bless with different natural resources but due to greed and selfishness they only care about what concern them and what happened to the country and it's citizens doesn't give them sleepless night at all.

The biggest obstacle to the development of the country is a few greedy political leaders. They use the poor people of the country for their own interests. They talk about the development of the country and get votes from the general public but after coming to power, they become corrupt. I agree with this that the style of leadership makes a country poor. The closeness of the political leaders in the government with the bureaucrats increases the level of corruption among them. Due to the lack of accountability, most of the funds allocated for the development of the country are stolen by the leading people of these two levels and benefit themselves. The political leadership and bureaucrats are the two classes of people who are more corrupt, and as a result, the overall development of a country does not occur.

[yixichloro2xx]

Yes, in the case of our country and many similar ones, a strong authoritarian government with an emphasis on improving economic performance can indeed be a solution. China did this, and Singapore did this. It works. The main thing is that after the stabilization of the economy and political and state institutions, the authoritarian leader is willing to transfer power to other hands, and that is rare.

Alot of African countries have been under Authoritarian government before, especially in the 90s. Yet none of them develop the country during their time, example is Sani Abacha who was a military man (head of State) , he looted alot of money without developing the country. So I don't think that kind of government will work for Africa, because they use it to for their personal interest. Democracy has failed woofully in Africa, it is embedded with corruption. Democratic government will gives us candidates in different parties but with the same ideology.  So I feel regardless of the system of government we use, our leader needs start caring about the welfare of their citizens and ways to improve the quality of lives.

[fruktik]

Poverty truly exists in underdeveloped countries, even though they are not, in fact, poor countries. They possess abundant resources, but a highly corrupt government makes them underdeveloped and hinders progress and development. I truly wonder how they (the government and officials) in these countries can be so greedy and greedy that they are willing to create a system that tortures and impoverishes their own people. These are truly cruel and inhumane actions and practices.

Nothing can be done, because they simply refuse to accept criticism and suggestions from their own people, due to their utter greed and avarice. Therefore, a country's economy is completely destroyed when it is led by corrupt leaders, government, and officials. They have no plans to develop the nation, they only plan to enrich themselves.

You've described the situation in my country so perfectly. It's spot-on. It's sad to watch how colossal resources are wasted. More and more are being extracted, while the people only become poorer.

Yes, the excessive and insatiable greed of parliamentarians and officials of all ranks is to blame for everything. They simply don't care about the people's problems. There's not a shred of interest in this. They care only about their own enrichment and nothing else. This will all lead to disaster.

[Etranger]

Yes, in the case of our country and many similar ones, a strong authoritarian government with an emphasis on improving economic performance can indeed be a solution. China did this, and Singapore did this. It works. The main thing is that after the stabilization of the economy and political and state institutions, the authoritarian leader is willing to transfer power to other hands, and that is rare.

Alot of African countries have been under Authoritarian government before, especially in the 90s. Yet none of them develop the country during their time, example is Sani Abacha who was a military man (head of State) , he looted alot of money without developing the country. So I don't think that kind of government will work for Africa, because they use it to for their personal interest. Democracy has failed woofully in Africa, it is embedded with corruption. Democratic government will gives us candidates in different parties but with the same ideology.  So I feel regardless of the system of government we use, our leader needs start caring about the welfare of their citizens and ways to improve the quality of lives.

I am not claiming that an authoritarian regime is a panacea for any situation. And I also described not just any authoritarian regime, but specifically one where efforts are directed at increasing economic potential, and where the leader does not pursue exclusively their own interests. Therefore, I of course agree that we see far more anti-examples than effective proof.

[DrBeer]

There is no other way to cure corruption. Corruption is like a cancerous tumor for a country - it must be eradicated; it won’t go away on its own...

I am deeply convinced that completely defeating corruption is simply impossible. Even in super developed countries such as Switzerland or Norway, there will be corruption, because it is simply inherent to human nature. The question is its scale. In those countries where a person already feels worthy, where they do not view coming to power as the sole source of income, where they have a choice in decently paid work, where social guarantees are present, and where there are clear, understandable, and rather terrifyingly harsh sanctions applied to EVERYONE, no exceptions, corruption will be significantly lower. Even in China, despite the fact that the death penalty is presumed for it, corruption exists. But it is controlled, which allows it not to destroy the system.

Unfortunately, I have to agree that it’s impossible to completely eradicate corruption in today’s world. There is power and there is money - these are the key elements that give rise to corruption. BUT! Like a serious illness, it can be "put into remission" and kept in that state for a long time.
In your example, there are two solutions:
A strict enforcement system and the application of the law to everyone.
A strict system of authority, authoritarian or totalitarian , where there is inevitable, harsh punishment for corruption if you’re not part of the inner circle, have become a potential threat, or are simply unlucky.

Yes, in the case of our country and many similar ones, a strong authoritarian government with an emphasis on improving economic performance can indeed be a solution. China did this, and Singapore did this. It works. The main thing is that after the stabilization of the economy and political and state institutions, the authoritarian leader is willing to transfer power to other hands, and that is rare.

This is the path Singapore has taken. Lee Kuan Yew’s rule can be described as authoritarian during the period when the country and its economy were stabilizing and undergoing restructuring. But later, he stepped down from power, although he remained a significant figure in politics for some time, he no longer held actual power.
Furthermore, Singapore had no overt enemies or aggressors, which allowed it to spend decades building a wonderful country.
 

[Etranger]

This is the path Singapore has taken. Lee Kuan Yew’s rule can be described as authoritarian during the period when the country and its economy were stabilizing and undergoing restructuring. But later, he stepped down from power, although he remained a significant figure in politics for some time, he no longer held actual power.
Furthermore, Singapore had no overt enemies or aggressors, which allowed it to spend decades building a wonderful country.
 

Yes, exactly this example is what I was referring to. Here, Singapore proves that such a thing is possible in reality, and not just in theory. And that is why it is very important to pay attention to real historical evidence. After all, it is what inspires us to strive for such things, rather than simply describing on paper some utopian options that are impossible to achieve.

[DYOR+BTC]

Not only school  it is almost all institutions that are led by corrupt leaders. But yes schools are the root of any society that's only nd real  hope of any society for changing. But unfortunately in under developed countries these institutions are also functioning under the influence of politics, they designed system that usually generate profit for them. Many political leaders are also headed these system.

Actually it is collaboration of few groups that they made such laws and regulations because of that people become dependent on the government for every step. The foolish public always waiting for the government policies instead of taking steps for the betterment of themselves Here you are right if government intention are in the favour of progress it would easy for it. Because as it is said that " where there is  will there is a way" . Government have always lot of options including reforms, subsidies and ideas even skilled workers for functioning. But they just come in power to make stronger themselves rather work for the development of society.

School is not bound by only the things you say, they teach morals in school and if they can make sure that students has good morals but there is corruption then you need to know that corruption can be treated and school is not the enabler of corruption. The people that are enabler of corruption are the government. The government can make it work by making sure that teachers are well take care, well paid and well organized, that way even the students will be organized.

We cannot accused the school of corruptions when the government are the founders of corruptions. They see what is happening, they neglect their responsibilities, they neglect people problems and suffering but will want to have 5 star enjoyment. They don't do their work, and as a public figure, if you are not doing your part as as the government and a leader, the people will not listen to you and they are going to develop that corrupt mind in the society as well.

I disagree with anyone saying schools are the enablers of corruption,  school i know is a correction centre where students are made to understand the various challenges affecting there nations and taught the possible solutions to them. As for the architect of corruption I will not forget to identify government as mentioned above as the root cause of corruption because all involved in power management finds it difficult handing over power and by pushing to control that same power they always get involved in various things without looking to know the consequences.

[Kryptowerk]

Poverty truly exists in underdeveloped countries, even though they are not, in fact, poor countries. They possess abundant resources, but a highly corrupt government makes them underdeveloped and hinders progress and development. I truly wonder how they (the government and officials) in these countries can be so greedy and greedy that they are willing to create a system that tortures and impoverishes their own people. These are truly cruel and inhumane actions and practices.

Nothing can be done, because they simply refuse to accept criticism and suggestions from their own people, due to their utter greed and avarice. Therefore, a country's economy is completely destroyed when it is led by corrupt leaders, government, and officials. They have no plans to develop the nation, they only plan to enrich themselves.

Yes, the situation you describe is one of the big plagues of humanity in our current time.
However I would add that yes, "underdeveloped countries" often are indeed affected by this dynamic a low. Worryingly enough, though, many modern "first world" nations have strong tendencies towards massive corruption - often times covered by a white sheet of legal structures that work in favor of the few ultra rich and those in power. Slowly widening the massive gap from poor to rich and undermining the democratic structures of these nations.

[DrBeer]

This is the path Singapore has taken. Lee Kuan Yew’s rule can be described as authoritarian during the period when the country and its economy were stabilizing and undergoing restructuring. But later, he stepped down from power, although he remained a significant figure in politics for some time, he no longer held actual power.
Furthermore, Singapore had no overt enemies or aggressors, which allowed it to spend decades building a wonderful country.
 

Yes, exactly this example is what I was referring to. Here, Singapore proves that such a thing is possible in reality, and not just in theory. And that is why it is very important to pay attention to real historical evidence. After all, it is what inspires us to strive for such things, rather than simply describing on paper some utopian options that are impossible to achieve.

There is one nuance to the example of Singapore. It is a nuance of SCALE - in this case, the scale of the country. At the start of its reforms, Singapore had a population of less than 2 million, and it was a territory that could be crossed by car in an hour...
Singapore is essentially a compact metropolis, if we compare it, for example, to our country, Singapore is smaller in every respect than Kyiv alone.
Plus, Ukraine (let’s take it as an example) has a decentralized system of government, diverse regions, a lack of readiness for authoritarianism, a more complex economic model, and many other differences that greatly complicate the replication of the Singapore model, or even make it impossible...