In the huge and aged empire, corruption can't be eliminated due to sheer size and structure of the empire. Corrupt people can always evade real responsibility by moving to another region, and the reputation institute doesn't quite work. Lateral anti-corruption checks are eliminated, while the corrupt officials fool the faraway central power. Colonial policy necessarily leads to oppression throughout the country, due to the Foucault's boomerang.

However, when colonized people break free - like the Baltics states broke free from the USSR - politics get local, good reputation becomes essential, and there are powerful lateral anti-corruption checks. Central power can't be fooled much in a country of normal size. Moreover, there's necessarily more international cooperation, with international anti-corruption measures.

So the healthy nations of the empire are going to be on the right track fairly soon: https://freenationsleague.org/en/home.html Less healthy ones will also eventually transform for the better, simply because the countries will become smaller. Late Roman empire was also deeply corrupt, but the nations of it have eventually found their way.

[–] atempuser23@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hope that you are correct. I feel different. Your hopeful attitude has a better chance at a positive outcome then mine.

[–] Ulara@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Well, all the large empires were corrupt at the end of their life, and all have successfully transformed.

There is no gene of corruption - it's rather a matter of prevalent culture, informed by socioeconomic factors. As these factors change, the culture has to change as well, even if this is painstakingly hard for local culture carriers.

By the way, it's remarkable that some of best levels of wellbeing and democracy are achieved by small Nordic countries. So the small size isn't a guarantee of happiness, but smaller countries are easier to govern in right direction.