It's Cold Outside! (4)

"'Most professionals are subject to strict codes of conduct, enshrining rigorous ethical and moral obligations. Is it naive for a Muslim businessman to behave ethically in a globally, competitive environment? The answer is a resounding NO!' the man conitnued. 'In Islam,' says he, 'ethics governs all aspects of life. The conditions for everlasting success, or Falah, in Islam are the same for all Muslims—whether in conducting their business affairs or in carrying out their daily activities. Without specifying any situational context, Allah describes people who attain success as those who are 'inviting to all that is good (khayr), enjoining what is right (ma 'ruj) and forbidding what is wrong (munkar).' So, are there some guidelines that would ensure consistent ethical behavior in a Muslim business? The Qur'an, answers the great questions of philosophy, 'Does God exist?' or 'Why did God create?' or 'Why are we here?' Islamic scholars agree that an appropriate understanding of Qur’anic ethics, can only be obtained in the light of the Prophetic Conduct or Sunnah, by combining Qur’an and the Ḥadith and that the most complete embodiment of Qur’ānic ethics is in the person of the Prophet (ﷺ).

According to a famous Ḥadith, often referred to as Ḥadith Jibril, there are three levels of the Islamic faith called Islam, Iman, and Iḥsan. The highest level of the Islamic faith, is Al-Iḥsan. This level entails the worship of God as if one is seeing God, and knowing that while one is not able to see Him, He truly sees us. The word Iḥsan, literally means excellence or to do things or make things better or beautiful.

Why should one incorporate Iḥsan in one’s life, particularly in the business transactions? Broadly speaking, the two main motivations are: to attract the pleasure of God and to follow his injunctions; and for the human, economic, and social welfare that such an attitude accrues in the development of a civilized society. Shariah, which is based on divine all-encompassing wisdom, provides guidelines for all activity within an Islamic society and these rulings always have underlying beneficial purposes that promote the welfare of people (Maslahah). Imam Al-Shātibi, the great Andalusi scholar of the science of the objectives (Maqāṣid) of Shariah, described this in the following words, 'Shariah stands for justice, mercy, wisdom, and good. Thus, any ruling that replaces justice with injustice, mercy with its opposite, common good with mischief, or wisdom with nonsense, is a ruling that does not belong to the Shariah, even if it is claimed to be so according to some interpretation.' The Shariah was bestowed upon mankind to bring all kinds of worldly and other-worldly benefits to all humanity, with the duty of conveying God’s guidance to them and living with the Qur’ānic ethics. Therefore, we find that attaining spiritual Ihsan, requires that human beings be able to bring benefit to the entire humanity and ward of all kinds of harm.

To become a person of Iḥsan, a Muslim professional should, first, be sincere and have the correct intention. The intention is very important in Islam. In addition to having the right intention (of doing an action for the pleasure of Allah), one should also be sincere to humanity in general and the larger Muslim Ummah. One should strive to excel in the worship of Allah and also consider professional excellence as a religious duty. A Muslim should also prioritize the reward of the Hereafter over worldly gains, and strive for the home of the hereafter, consistent with the divine imperative. We find in Islamic tradition, that the real reward is according to the intention and similar looking action may get very different rewards and an apparently auspicious action may be wholly rejected due to defects in the intention.

Secondly, embrace the character traits of the people of Iḥsan. The people of Iḥsān have beautiful character, they re characterized by properties of patience, preservation, and deliberation, as well as characterized by their total reliance on Allah (Tawakkul). The people of Iḥsān are moderate and eschew extremism in all its forms—Qur’ān describes the Muslim community as the balanced middle community (Ummat AlWasat). They are are people who seek out wisdom and knowledge, have positive thinking (Ḥusn Zann) and interpret everything positively and accept the good and the afflictions from God and do not despair of Allah’s mercy during failures and difficulties. Looking at the positive side allows one to excel despite—and sometimes because of—adverse circumstances. They love Allah more than anything else–more than their family members, more than their wealth, more than dwellings.

Third, have a vision of a meaningful pioneering life. The people of Iḥsan, recognize the life is purposeful and work towards establishing a productive legacy. They also have leadership qualities and

use it to lead people towards praiseworthy matters and desirable ends. They are responsible, trustworthy, and take ownership of what they have been entrusted with. They have leadership qualities and lead the people entrusted to them with integrity and sacrifice. They are people of great fortitude (Ḥimmah Aliyah) and high determination (High Azm). They are amenable to manual work and possess hands on skills and are not wary of manual work. They are proactive, activists, and have a bias for action; have a spirit of enterprise and hasten towards good and the beneficial. They value their time and are not lazy.

Fourth, do justice and excel in one’s professional work. The people of Iḥsan are meticulous in fulfilling the rights of people (of other people and above all of Allah) over them. While it is true that human beings have many different roles, and one is right to prioritize some over the others, Iḥsān entails the need to fulfill the rights of everyone and everything that has a right over them. This entails holding on the highest standards of professional ethics and avoid any apparent or hidden deception and betrayal. In a professional context, this is especially relevant to leaders and people of responsibility. Justice is an also an important component, rather the primary objective, of an Islamic economic system – and its defining characteristic. It is stated in the Qur’ān that the purpose of sending divine messengers to different people is to establish humankind on justice. The people of Iḥsan are also particular about permissible (Halāl) and impermissible (Harām) and have Taqwa of Allah. They recognize that this world is a world of toil and striving and a place for doing actions. They are not lazy as this is a sign of hypocrites (Munāfiqun) and something that the Prophet (ﷺ) sought refuge of Allah. They recognize that one is ethically responsible (Mukallaf) for trying one’s best. They also recognize that excellence is a continuous journey.

Fifth, have a mastery orientation and a professional outlook: prefering quality over quantity. In the Islamic worldview, the concept of Iḥsan is autotelic–and one must continue to do the actions without being satisfied by doing good. They love meticulous/ professional action/ completion of a job and taking honor in one’s work. They are regular in their actions. The people of Ihsan complete and continue their actions that they start and do not become dabblers in matters in which they start an affair and then lose steam and leave the action. are committed to excellence and are not complacent. In the works of Stephen Covey, one must periodically renew one’s self, remain vigilant, and 'sharpen the saw' to maintain peak productivity. They prioritize quality over quantity, but it is not that quantity does not matter, it only counts when accompanied by quality.

Sixth, someone or something that has a purpose in, and not apart from, itself, be social useful and beneficial for people. Islam places a lot of importance on being socially useful and to bring benefit to people. The famous Islamic theologian, Al-Ghazali, recognized the broader concept of Maṣlahah as furthering the ultimate purposes of Shariah, which are to safeguard the following five things: (1) their faith; (2) their life; (3) their intellect; (4) their posterity; (5) and their wealth. The foremost duty for a person of Iḥsān in this regard is to avoid harm and avoid reciprocating harm, and in particular, Muslim professionals should avoid all forms of cheating, deception, short-charging, and fraud. People of Iḥsan are people who cooperate and facilitate and bring ease to people. They do community service and bring benefit to mankind and to all creations of Allah.

Seventh, live a productive life that attracts the Barakah. If spiritual excellence is named Iḥsan, then spiritual productivity is Barakah. In Islam, Barakah (translated as blessing) is the endowment of blessings in something by God such that all kinds of benefits are accrued from little. How does one attract Barakah? From the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah, there are numerous ways to attract Barakah. An important way to attract Barakah is to fulfill the rights of others, of one’s family, and to perform charity. Another source of attracting Barakah is to do good actions consistently and regularly the farmer regularly gave out one-third of his harvest as charity—and of moderation—the farmer was not reinvesting all of the harvest, or giving away all the harvest in charity, or consuming all the harvest, instead the farmer was moderate in spending in all the due places.

Another way to attract Barakah and attain spiritual excellence is to focus on important things related to one and to avoid idle matters or things unrelated to a person and thereby fully utilize one’s time.

Another rich source of Barakah is to avoid all Haram and to have God consciousness (Taqwa), which means guarding oneself from Allah’s displeasure. There are many benefits of Taqwa including Barakah and the expansion of sustenance (Rizq), which refers to all aspects of a person’s subsistence and livelihood, including but not restricted to, wealth, status, business and children. Another rich source of Barakah is establishing good relationships with one’s close relatives and with the whole Muslim community.

People of Iḥsan can make monumental achievements that astound people and make them wonder how some people are able to achieve so much in so little time. One major reason for this is that they value their time and have a system for managing their time and making in productive. They also leverage times at which their energies are at their peak. We find in the Prophetic tradition an encouragement to start work early in the morning and to sleep after the night prayer (Isha). They are masters at prioritizing and focusing on the most important and relevant tasks for the moment. So, the people of Iḥsan are people that are thankful and grateful, ' the man ended his explanation.'

And gently, his wife whispered, 'Darling, will you plese close the window; it’s cold outside!'

Slowly, he slide out of bed, shuffled to the window, and carefully closed down the open lower half. Smiling at his wife he said, 'Sonow it’s warm outside?' His wife tilted her head as if thinking, then put on a happy expression."

Before she took her leave, Laluna said, "Islam is the divine religion that offers a complete code of ethics that can guide humanity towards greater wellbeing, effectiveness, and productivity. In particular, the spirit of Iḥsan, in all its multifaceted manifestations, can bring upon a system of justice, beauty, excellence, magnanimity, and egalitarianism in which human beings will live in great harmony and attain joy in this world while attaining ultimate felicity and the pleasure of Allah in the hereafter. By adopting the Islamic concept of spiritual excellence, Muslims will be able to become the standard bearer of Qur’ānic morality and a witness to the truth before mankind (Shuhadah ‘alan-Naas). Furthermore, adoption of Iḥsan, leads to human development, felicity, spiritual productivity (Barakah) both in this world and in the hereafter. And Allah knows best.'

Citations & References:
- Simon Blackburn, Ethics : A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press
- Abbas Mirakhor and Idris Samawi Hamid (Ed.), Handbook of Ethics of Islamic Economics and Finance, De Gruyter
- Rasik Issa Beekun, Islamic Business Ethics, International Institute ofIslamic Thought
- Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, Routledge
- Brian Boone, Ethics 101, Brian Media
- Harold Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society, Routledge

Bahasa

It's Cold Outside! (3)

"'Ethics is often equated with morality. Morality is the behavioral values of people or society that can be found in the real life of everyday people, but have not been systematized as a theory. When moral behavior is formulated into theories, it is called ethics. Ethics includes questions about the nature of moral obligations, what basic moral principles mankind must follow, and what is good for humanity,' ,' the man moved on. 'Core of ethics is doing good and avoiding evil. Empowering the human will to behave well and refrain from doing harm to others is the foundation of ethics. For instance, helping a blind person to find his way, is positive form of ethical behavior while restricting a child from an activity in the playground for his/her safety is negative form of ethical deeds. Taking up any initiative to enhance the wellbeing of the community and mitigating hardship born by its members is another example of an ethical act. Even taking care of one’s health by exercising and abandoning consumption of narcotics is practicing ethics. Overall contributing to the creation of good and elimination of evil is the essence of ethics. 

From an Islamic perspective and the importance of their application in developing human virtue and perfection, there two different concepts : aḫlāq (morality) and adab (manners). Adab indicates expression, be it in behavior particular to the individual, or to the norms of a particular culture or even family. In short, adab is a proper conducts, generally, regardless of the spiritual or religious side. Adab is what is visible from the outside. Adab is very important especially, for example, living in a country where the citizens have different races, tribes and religions. Adab is important in terms of how we behave and treat our fellow human beings and the surrounding environment, fairly.

In Islam, virtues or moral character traits are termed as aḫlāq, meaning moral qualities and good traits. Al-Akhlāq (the plural of khuluq/ خُلُق) refers to morality, which means a nature, or an innate disposition or temper. The proper signification of khuluq is the moral character; or the fashion of the inner man; his mind or soul and its peculiar qualities and attributes. Ethics in Arabic is ‘ilm al-Akhlāq' (science of morality), which is the branch of knowledge that studies akhlaq (morals). Ilm al-Akhlāq is not only merely tells about what is good and what is bad, but also, influences and encourages individu to form a purer life to carry out goodness beneficial to fellow human beings.

These virtues of Akhlaq, were identified as preferred traits in the Qur’an and were manifested through the practice by the Prophet (ﷺ) who perfected these, in daily life. There are numerous references in both the Qur’an and hadith in this respect. For example, the Qur’an lays the broad foundation of the preferred character of humans to do what is good; be righteous; and forbid and refrain from what is wrong. After a broad classification of desirable behavior is prescribed, the Qur’an states, 'The noblest of you in the sight of God are the best of you in conduct.' This implies that the ones practicing and living virtues that make up good character are the successful ones.

Furthermore, the Qur’an makes a strong endorsement of the character traits of the Prophet (ﷺ) when it acknowledges the Prophet’s character (ﷺ) (huluq) as of an exalted standard that can be interpreted as adherence to and practice of virtues and sacred values, forming the basis of ethical behavior. In addition, there are several authenticated sayings of the Prophet (ﷺ) that indicate the significance of possessing good character and virtues for a successful life. Practicing these virtues is considered a sign of having perfect faith and therefore it is highly desirable to incorporate these in one’s life. In a famous saying, the Prophet (ﷺ) said that, 'I have been sent for the purpose of perfecting good morals.'

Recognizing the importance of good character traits or virtues alone is not sufficient unless one understands a subtle and strong relationship between the intentions, actions, and the outcomes. In the Islamic concept of ethics, there is an emphasis on virtue, intention, action, and the outcome as a basis for judging whether an act is ethical or not. Although intention or niyya of an action plays a critical role in determining the legal aspect of the action, Islam recognizes the moral significance of intention in advocating sincerity of intent (iḫlas̄ ). Each virtue is judged in light of the intention behind in the practice of the virtue. The distinction between having intention to serve humanity and the betterment of society as opposed to achieve personal gain could make an action ethical or unethical.

To summarize, Islamic virtue ethics are chiefly concerned with 'good character traits,' which may then be exemplified into actions. The relationship between virtues, intentions, and actions, lays the foundation of ethical behavior such that virtue ethics have a logical priority over juridical ethics. Actions driven by good intentions and in the spirit of the practice of virtues would become ordinary behavior that is not only ethical but is internally consistent in terms of intent, means, and outcomes.

Now, in order to get a clearer picture, let's look at Islamic ethics in business and economy. A framework of business ethics in Islam can be developed by identifying key virtues that are the preferred character traits of a human being. The core and fundamental axioms of Islamic ideology are Tawhid, a corollary of which is the unity of the creation, particularly the unity of mankind. Resources are created for all humans of all generations, who compose one humanity, their diversity does not and should not mean their disunity, and, by the primordial covenant, not only do all humans recognize their own unity, they also have full cognition of their responsibility to maintain the unity and integrity of the rest of creation through their service to humanity and to the rest of creation.

Tawhid requires one to believe that all creation has only one omniscient and omnipresent Creator and that all His creation constitutes a unity as well. Unity and social cohesion are so central among the objectives of the Qur’an for mankind that it can be argued that all conducts prohibited by Islam are those that ultimately lead to disunity and social disintegration. Conversely, all righteous conducts prescribed by Islam are those that lead to social integration, cohesiveness and unity. As a result, Islam is not only a call to individuals but also to the collectivity and has given the latter an independent personality and identity, which will be judged on its own merits or demerits separately from the individuals that constitute the collectivity. The final judgment on individual actions will have two dimensions, one as the individual and the other as a member of the collectivity.

One implication of the virtue of embracing the unity of creation and mankind is that it establishes the relationship of brotherhood or sisterhood and equality among communities and societies irrespective of their belief system. In this sense, unity is a coin with two faces: one implies that God is the sole creator of the universe and the other implies that people are equal partners or that each person is a brother or sister to the other. Adoption of this virtue has far reaching implications for business ethics such cooperation, solidarity, and equality of effort and opportunity.

Justice in Islam is a multifaceted concept, and several words or terms exist for each aspect. The most common word in use, which refers to the overall concept of justice, is adl. This word and its many synonyms imply the concepts of 'right,' as an equivalent of 'fairness,' 'putting things in their right place,' 'equality,' 'equalizing,' 'balance,' 'temperance,' and 'moderation.' Justice in Islam is the aggregation of moral and social values, which denotes fairness, balance, and temperance. Its implication for individual behavior is, first of all, that the individual should not transgress his bounds and, secondly, that one should give others, as well as oneself, what is due.

A just economy is part of a just, healthy, and moral society, which is the central objective of Islam for the human collectivity. What underpins all the rules of behavior prescribed by Islam is its conception of justice, which maintains that all behavior, irrespective of its content and context, must, in its conception and commission, be based on just standards as defined by the Shari’ah. Islam considers an economy, in which the behavior of its agents is so conceived, as an enterprising, purposeful, prosperous, and sharing economy in which all members of society receive their just rewards. Such an economy is envisioned as one in which economic disparities that lead to social segmentation and divisiveness are conspicuously absent. The economic justice that is envisaged in Islam does not call for equal incomes and wealth. The focus of economic justice is not solely placed on the outcome. Thus, the central framework and operation of rules concerning economic and social life is justice.

In Islam, economic justice is centered on affording all humans an equitable chance (the means) to flourish while affording the disabled a dignified life and erasing poverty everywhere. All humans should have the ssimilar opportunity and the freedom to achieve their economic goals (a level playing field in education, healthcare, and basic nutrition) through hard work, while preserving the rights (not to be confused with charity) of the disabled and less privileged. After humans have worked and received their just rewards, then they must help the less fortunate to eradicate poverty and avoid great disparities in wealth; this is a test for humans to show their love for their Creator and His creation as contrasted with a love of fleeting wealth. Individuals as well as the state, should remove all roadblocks, importantly including oppression, from the path of human development. Any injustice perpetrated by individuals against other humans and against the rest of creation is ultimately an injustice to the self. Humans must live a life that is just and must stand up to and eradicate injustice wherever they find it.

Ethics in Islam can be best understood in light of principles governing the rights of the individual, society, and state; the laws governing property ownership; and the framework of contracts. Islam’s recognition and protection of rights is not limited to human beings only but encompasses all forms of life as well as the environment. Each element of Allah’s creation, has been endowed with certain rights and each is obligated to respect and honor the rights of others. These rights are bundled with the responsibilities for which humans are held accountable.

Islam forcefully anchors all social-political-economic relations on contracts. More generally, the whole fabric of the Divine Law is contractual in its conceptualization, content, and application. Muslims are constantly reminded of the importance of contractual agreements, as they are required by their faith to honor their contracts.

In Sharῑa’h, the concepts of justice, faithfulness, reward, and punishment, are linked with the fulfillment of obligations incurred under the stipulations of the contract. Justice links man to Allah and to his fellow men. It is this bond that forms the contractual foundation of the Sharῑa’h, which judges the virtue of justice in man not only by his material performance but also by the essential attribute of his intention (niyyah) with which he enters into every contract. This intention consists of sincerity, truthfulness, and insistence on rigorous and loyal fulfillment of what he has consented to do (or not to do). This faithfulness to contractual obligations is so central to Islamic belief. Preserving the sanctity of contracts and accountability to one’s commitment to a contractual agreement is a key character trait and virtue.

Being truthful and keeping one’s word are the core traits of a true human being. This is further emphasized when a trader or a businessman is truthful in his/her dealings. A true believer or Mu’min is expected to be honest in dealings, has strong commitment to his or her word, and speaks truth. The ultimate case of commitment to truthfulness is that one is expected to be truthful while giving evidence, even if it is against him or herself. An honest and truthful trader is given tidings of blessings from the Creator while in absence of these traits, the transaction would be devoid of any blessing. Truthfulness or transparency also enhances trust between the parties and in the market and in all fairness, each party expects full transparency and disclosure regarding the transaction.

Integrity is another key virtue that is highly appreciated in Islam. The

Prophet (ﷺ) was known to be a truthful and trustworthy person who always kept his word. Given the status of the Prophet (ﷺ) as the archetype and a role model, each Muslim is expected to maintain truthfulness and integrity. Integrity of a person or entity indicates that the person or the entity is truthful, honest, and honors his or her word, which implies that such person or entity is most likely to fulfill their commitments and promises in full and in timely fashion. Honoring your word means that you are honest and are not hiding any relevant information, and there is no element of deception or any violation of contracts or property rights. Integrity is important to individuals, groups, organizations, and society because it develops valuable social capital of trust in the society. Such behavior as an employee or as the manager or leader of an organization would lead to the integrity of the entity, which is trusted by all economic agents and therefore, achieves higher efficiency and performance.

Islam places a strong emphasis on trust and considers being trustworthy as an obligatory personality trait. At a philosophical level, the role of man on earth is to act as vicegerent or trustee of the Creator. The root of the word for “trust” (amānah) is the same as that for “belief” (ῑmān), for al-Qur’an insists that a strong signal of true belief is faithfulness to contracts and promises. It makes clear that performing contractual obligations or promises is an important and mandatory characteristic of a true believer.

Contract and trust are interdependent. Without trust, contracts become difficult to negotiate and conclude and costly to monitor and enforce. When trust is weak, complex and expensive administrative devices are needed to enforce contracts.

Weakness of trust creates the problem of lack of credible commitment which arises when parties to an exchange cannot commit themselves or do not trust that others can commit themselves to performing contractual obligations.

Compassion (rahma) is a virtue that is greatly desired and admired. Compassion is stressed in the Qur’an as the basic attribute of God and all humans are expected to practice and exhibit it. Compassion calls for showing mercy, kindness, and passion toward others in all economic and social matters. One application of compassion is leniency in economic transactions in case of hardship and feeling the pain and suffering of the others. Leniency is especially encouraged with respect to debtors who are in difficult conditions provided that they made sincere efforts to meet their obligations.

Generosity is a virtue that calls for giving someone’s due right beyond normal expectations and sharing one’s time, wealth, and knowledge with others. Generosity can take several forms such as generosity toward others in redeeming their rights or generosity in voluntary social welfare contributions or not taking advantage of customers. Virtues of compassion and generosity play an important role in strengthening social bonds among humans and bringing humans closer.

The role of man as vicegerent (khilāfah) of the Creator, carries very heavy responsibility to act with prudence, because any violation of this trust itself, would be unethical. This responsibility demands prudent management of an organization’s or a country’s as well as earth’s resources; care and concern for animals; and protection of the natural environment. Utilization of resources whether scarce or abundant, requires careful management keeping in mind the well-being of the community and the society. No one is authorized to destroy or waste God-given resources. Wasting of resources is strongly condemned in Islam. Islam calls for moderation and to have a balance in social and economic dealings. Prudency calls for restoring balance in managing and utilizing resources to optimize the benefit and welfare for all. Prudence is an essential virtue for those who are in the position of leadership or management.

Humility is a valuable virtue considering that a person should be fully conscious of the state of humans with respect to the Creator. Being humble is appreciated and arrogance is considered the worst of vices. Arrogance is particularly disliked due to it being the root cause of many other evils. Spiritually, arrogance signifies man’s claim of having better knowledge than the Creator and therefore, developing a sense of over-confidence and superiority with respect to other humans. History is witness to the destruction of civilizations or leaders due to arrogance.

The virtue of being honest in business transactions is the very basic character trait of a believer. The Qur’an binds faith and action through righteous deeds as inseparable. The Prophet (ﷺ) explicitly declared honesty an article of faith as he said that there is no faith for one who lacks honesty. Honesty does not only come from being truthful, but requires avoidance of vices for worldly gains. There are several vices that are discouraged greatly when one is engaged in business transactions. Examples of such vices are purposefully deceiving others, engaging in cheating and fraud, and willfully holding or manipulating information pertaining to the transaction. One full chapter of the Qur’an is dedicated to manipulating weights and measures, and giving short-measures such as the act of giving shortmeasures while demanding full measures from others. The chapter emphasizes the grave consequences of such behavior. The Qur’an also makes reference to the community of the Prophet Shu‘ayb, alayhissalam, which was known for engaging in deceitful business practices, especially the manipulation of weights. Consequently, the community was destroyed for its persistence in deceit. Therefore, honesty in business transactions has to be the core virtue of any business person.

Islam seeks to guide man to direct individual action and responsible participation in economic affairs in a manner that commits him to community solidarity and cooperation, resulting in a dynamic and growing economy. Thus, the individual is made accountable for the moral effects of his social actions, including those in economic affairs, so that his own inner personal-spiritual transformation and growth is bound to the progress of the community.

Hence, Islam utilizes cooperation and competition in structuring the ideal society through harmonization and reconciliation between these two opposite, but equally primeval and useful forces at every level of social organization. From this perspective, one can argue that one of the greatest distinguishing characteristics of Islam is its forceful emphasis on the integration of human society as a necessary consequence of the unity of Allah. To this end, the personality of the Prophet (ﷺ) is inseparable from what the Qur’an considers as the optimal approach necessary for the emergence of solidarity in human society. Every dimension of the personality of the Prophet (ﷺ), manifested in his various social roles in the community, is directed toward maximum integration and harmony in the society. Moreover, every rule of behavior, including those in the economic area, is designed to aid the process of integration. Conversely, all prohibited practices are those, which, one way or another, lead to social disintegration.

The virtue of Ihsān, meaning benevolence, goodness, and excellence, is recognized in the Qur’an as well as in the sayings of the Prophet (ﷺ). The concept of Ihsān is the embodiment of goodness and excellence in interaction and conduct at the personal, organizational, and societal levels. As a projection of goodness, it practically and spiritually encompasses mercy, justice, forgiveness, tolerance, and attentiveness. The concept of Ihsān is much broader that simply being good to others but includes striving for excellence in goodness so much so that one is willing to go beyond what may be expected under norms to achieve the welfare of fellow humans, the community, or the society. We'll discuss Ihsān in section 4.'"

Bahasa

It's Cold Outside! (2)

"'The modern business ethics conversation, began in the late 1960s as an outgrowth of the social and political activism movements. Issues such as social quality and government accountability, came to the forefront of public interest, and more and more people started examining the authority, practices, and motivations of large corporations,' the man continued. 'Business ethics are moral values that a company employs in shaping its strategies and practices, and/or in creating a standard to which it holds its employees. Like an individual, ethics must address big-picture concerns—how it does business—and individual ones—how employees are treated. Determining what actions are or are not moral is tricky for a business—a business is not an individual, but neither is a business a single entity with the power of reason—rather it is at the mercy of the opinions and interests of many—nor is a business a governing body with a moral obligation to its people.

Is there even a place for ethics in the world of business? It depends on what you consider to be the imperative of a business. One could argue that businesses don’t need to worry about ethics, because they are not rational beings that must adhere to a moral code—that they exist solely to make money for its owners or shareholders. (Which, in a way, is not unlike the ultimate human goal of “happiness.”) From a Machiavellian perspective, businesses should be allowed to do whatever it takes to make money, and as much money, however they can. But they’d have to do that while still operating within the confines of the law. From an ethical perspective, it would be against the self-interest of a business to break the law—or antagonize its employees, or engage in price-gouging, or sell a faulty product—because that would harm the public image of the business. Decreased public trust, not to mention charges of doing harm, leads to decreased revenues, thus hurting its imperative to make money.

A company that operates in an entirely legal way, might not do so in ways that are just or even palatable. For example, a business that fires a large number of employees and then reroutes that money to executives isn’t behaving illegally, but this action would have an incredibly negative impact on a lot of people and cast the company’s decision-makers in a negative light. Even if such practices were perfectly legal, most ethical schools would probably find them to be morally suspect.

But businesses are a part of society, and an influential one—they’re publicly present, and they have a huge impact on the economy by way of selling goods or services, paying employees, paying taxes, and so forth. For these reasons, businesses are not immune to the moral standards that guide individuals or governments. Ultimately, it’s in a company’s best interest to maintain good relations with the public (and its shareholders, and its customers) by operating from a morally good standpoint.

Relativism comes into play in a big way with business ethics. For example, it’s considered unethical—and illegal, actually—to pay workers in the United States anything less than the minimum wage. (Some would argue for a higher standard, such as a 'fair' or 'livable' wage, but those standards are harder to define.) Though the minimum wage varies from state to state, it is set at a federal level and no one can be paid less than that minimum on an hourly basis. For this reason, labor costs for manufacturing in the United States are quite high. This is the main reason why many American companies have moved operations overseas. A shoe manufacturer, for example, may choose to operate a factory in the developing world and pay workers pennies to assemble a pair of shoes, whereas that same operation in the US could cost a hundred times that in labor. (There is also far less regulation of factories and working conditions in other nations, both of which cost money and slow down production.) Also potentially problematic is the issue of child labor. In the United States, labor laws prevent children from working in factories, and certainly not for eighteen hours a day, in part because such practices are considered immoral in American culture. Other countries have different standards in regard to child labor.

At the end of the day, businesses operate overseas to maximize profits. But such businesses are actually skirting moral-based US laws. A business engages in exploitation when it pays workers overseas as little as possible simply because it can get away with it. This is all due to moral relativism. One might try to explain away these practices using the tenets of moral relativism. But such arguments fall apart because the relative comparison itself is false: Two different cultures and two different moral blueprints are being compared on a relative basis. That shoe company is exploiting cultural differences in an overseas location to drive down costs and drive up profits—it is not providing low-wage jobs out of respect for the moral standards of another culture.

There’s more moral shaky ground in the areas of advertising and marketing. Advertising 'works' on everyone, even the most sophisticated consumer, because messages about products find a way to embed themselves in our brains over time. (If advertising didn’t work, it wouldn’t be used.) However, ethical concerns accompany that power to manipulate. For example, most reasonably savvy adults understand that advertising claims are exaggerations. Such claims are either stated directly (e.g., “It’s the dog food your dog will love best!”) or dramatized or suggested (e.g., a dog happily eating the food and then dancing on its hind legs, thanks to the magic of visual special effects). In other words, advertisements lie.

Is it ethical to proclaim falsehoods, even if people know the claims are false and know to take them with a grain of salt? Perhaps not, because some viewers are highly impressionable, children in particular. Toward the end of the twentieth century, the federal government cracked down on advertising to children because many thought their trust and innocence were being exploited. The main purveyors of ads to children at the time were makers of sugar cereals and fast food, products that could be tied to a growing childhood obesity epidemic. Businesses have a responsibility not to harm their clients in the pursuit of making money, and advertising practices can easily cause a company to step over this boundary.

In Politics, way back when philosophy started as guidelines for politicians. In ancient Greece—and to major philosophers such as John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli—philosophy and politics were intertwined. Socrates, Plato, and others, frequently wrote about and discussed the best way by which men—only men at the time—could reach down deep and apply the noble virtues they possessed, so as to lead others in a just and ethical way. The baseline of personal ethics informed politics, but then personal ethics also became a subject of its own inquiry.

Today, with so much work already done to develop ethics and investigate the meaning of terms like 'just' and 'ethical,' it’s incumbent upon politicians to lead in an ethical manner. Politicians chosen by the people—or born into power—face many specific ethical challenges, all ultimately boiling down to a need to rule and govern in ways that are just and fair. But how do they do that, and who do they most serve?

Running for office or holding an elected position brings great power . . . and great responsibility. A vote for a candidate is an expression of trust, and politicians must try to both represent the voters’ interests and keep their own campaign promises to the best of their abilities. And yet politicians by and large do not enjoy a reputation as a group of people who have a great deal of integrity or moral fiber. Every election season, the same displeasures with politicians soak the cultural ether, primarily revolving around negative campaigning, truth-bending or outright lying, and a collective curiosity as to just why someone is interested in pursuing power.

Most politicians have a genuine interest in public service, but many politicians have differing ideas on what that means. Simply defining who 'the public' is can be a challenge. Do politicians serve the people? If so, then which people? All the people or just their voters? Do politicians serve an area’s interests, and do the needs of the individuals of that area differ from those of the major institutions or employers that also occupy that area? Or is it the responsibility of a politician to serve legal constructs, ideals, or constitutions in an effort just to keep the peace? All of these targets may have conflicting values. Democracy works slowly, and change is hard to come by, so a commitment to change to the morally good requires resolve.

Another ethical issue with regard to politicians is their personal life. In the US, there are countless examples of elected officials who, when news of their extramarital affairs become public, have to issue a public apology and then resign their position. In other countries, such as France, it’s more culturally acceptable for adults, and politicians, to have affairs. Constituents in such countries are able to separate a politician’s personal life from his or her public life, and then judge the political performance of their elected officials solely on that basis. It’s an ethical quandary to determine if politicians’ private lives are indeed private, because they are also public figures. Moreover, opinions of political figures can change if they fail to uphold long-held cultural values—and their performance as public figures can then be called into question.

Money can also certainly cloud the ethical purity of politicians. When campaigns receive money from individuals or organizations who are not also their constituents, a potential conflict of interest is created. Who are well-funded politicians truly beholden to: their donors or their voters?

We also wonder about a politician’s intentions. There are certainly benefits to the job—being famous and having tremendous power and influence are very attractive to some people. But political jobs bring with them intense scrutiny and criticism. Everything one says, does, or votes on is fair game. It makes a person wonder why anybody would ever want to be a politician. There are lots of reasons, and they come from all over the ethical spectrum. Some politicians have a genuine desire to effect change via legislation, or working from inside the 'the belly of the beast.' Others might be coming from a place of self-interest—the desire for power, for example. Motivations can be multiple, of course, and some politicians feel compelled by a desire to defeat 'evil'—or their opponent, who, if the negative campaign ads are to be believed, would be a very bad choice for voters. But no matter what reasons politicians give on the campaign trail for wanting the job, we can’t help but wonder why they’re really running for office.

Despite the persistent cliché that all politicians are corrupt liars, we expect our politicians to be trustworthy and truthful. Perhaps this is because we have to—we have to vote for somebody, and we want to believe that the candidate we select is the morally superior one. It’s in our self-interest and that of the greater good to elect the candidates who we think are the most virtuous, and to reject the ones who will be easily swayed by money and 'special interests.' In American democracy, the 'checks and balances' innate in the system (along with whistle-blowers, a free press, and an impeachment process) have been set in place to help limit that kind of corruption, and the idea that leaders are above the law.

We want, and expect, our politicians to be a little bit better than average. We want them to lead by example and be the best of the best (an image we sometimes force upon them with fervor and hagiography, elevating them to demigod status in a way to justify giving them so much power and trusting they use it wisely). We want them to exhibit virtue ethics and to be the very best. We want them to be truthful and responsible, to truly care, and to work hard to find solutions to the problems we face.

Moral philosophy is concerned with determining the virtues and reasons behind ethics. Laws are the practical, political, and codified applications of those ethics. Between those two systems are social ethics, the formal name for the moral standards, norms, and unofficial code of conduct that’s expected from a person in the world, or in one’s particular society, culture, or community.

Social ethics are built on the shared values of many. But social values are different from those individual values.

Individual values are virtues that each person seeks out for oneself, and they can be as varied as the person. These personal values don’t necessarily become social values, nor do they become part of the framework that is social ethics. This is because of the intent of the value itself. Individual values, while virtuous and good (bravery, courage, and integrity are all examples) merely benefit the individual, or at least frame how that individual should lead his or her individual life. Social values, by contrast, are explicitly concerned with the welfare of others. The drive to help others—or even the abstract idea of 'other people'—is what makes a value a social value. Having those social values in mind affects an individual’s thoughts and behaviors. Individuals then take on these ethics, and that, in turn, helps build the social ethics of a society.  

Obligations to others in a community is what drives social ethics. We have an obligation to help others, be they less fortunate or not, because sharing fuels society. Each of us is a part of society, and as we enjoy the benefits of living in that society, we are obligated to take part in it to help it function. Part of that is sharing, either directly via giving money or food to the less fortunate, for example, or indirectly, by using each of our unique talents and abilities to prop up one another, so that we may help society both operate and progress. Social accountability also factors into social ethics. Because we each have a role, we are trusted to fulfill that role, and thus we are accountable for our actions. This relationship between individual and society is precious and fragile, because other people are counting on you and your contributions to help make society hum. A refusal to play a part affects others—and it’s unethical to impinge the happiness of others or to prevent them from living their best life.

While every society or culture has its ethical standards, how are these created or developed over time? Some factors include dominant religious beliefs, economic factors, and practicality. These prevailing social values are the ones that help a society meet its goals, particularly those that relate to peace and prosperity. Governmental organizations then respond to emerging norms by setting laws based on prevailing ethical standards. This can be a difficult task, however, as some of the more controversial topics in modern society are controversial specifically because their ethical nature is not clear-cut.'

There was a moment of silence, then his wife asked, 'How are Morals and Ethics from an Islamic perspective?' The man replied, 'We'll discuss it on section 3.'"

Bahasa

It's Cold Outside! (1)

"Socrates said, '... what we are talking about is how one should live.' Like Socrates, Plato thought that philosophy could answer the question. He hoped that one could direct one’s life, if necessary redirect it, through an understanding that was distinctively philosophical—that is to say, general and abstract, rationally reflective, and concerned with what can be known through different kinds of inquiry, '" Laluna commenced a talk in the rear of saying Basmalah and Salaam. "And that night, I set my light on a house where a man was lying asleep in bed with his wife, and she woke him, saying, 'Close the window please my dear, it’s cold outside!' He grunted, rolled over, and went back to sleep. His wife nudged him. 'Close the window; it’s cold outside.' He moaned, pulled the blankets closer, and went back to sleep. A moment later, his wife kicked him firmly and pushed him with both hands. 'Go on. Close the window; it’s cold outside!'

The man got up, then sat on the edge of the bed, saying, 'Ethics, also called moral philosophy, is the division of philosophy concerned with how a person should behave in a matter that is considered morally correct or good. It sounds like a simple idea—how to be good, and why it’s important to be good—but it’s a concept that has fascinated and agonized moral philosophers for more than 2,000 years.

Ethics means trying to figure out why one should behave morally, as well as understanding the motivating factors for that behavior. It also examines what, exactly, makes something 'good' or 'bad.' For example: Is that sense of good or bad something that’s naturally inside of us, or is that sense placed there by a divine being? Do we follow a moral code? Do we act morally because it is often in our self-interest to do so? Is ethical behavior all about the nature of the consequences of our actions?

Ethics are arguably the one type of philosophy that is readily applicable to daily life. Philosophy asks big questions like, 'Is God real?' or 'Why are we here?' But those big questions don’t directly address how to live one’s life. Ethics is the missing step between addressing the infiniteness of the universe and reconciling it with the daily existence of life on earth. If philosophy encourages moral behavior by asking the big 'why' questions, then ethics is an exploration of that moral behavior, and it seeks to formulate concrete 'what' and 'how' answers to the questions that philosophy poses.

Ethics can and should be applied to regular life. You can tailor ethics to fit your life, and you can use ethics to make decisions and take actions that are morally 'right' in fields such as medicine, business, and other disciplines. The use of ethics also brings up another ethical conundrum—why is it important to consider why a person should act a certain way? The answer lies in the concept of happiness. Simply stated, happiness is an outgrowth of ethics, be it one’s own happiness or the happiness of others.' 

'What are you talking about? But it looks interesting, go on dear!' says his wife. The man went on, 'At least in the Western world (Europe and the Americas), Philosophy as we know it, sprung up around the sixth century B.C. in Greece. Many philosophers wrote and taught in ancient Greece. But this golden era of Greek philosophy is dominated by three of the most famous and influential thinkers in Western history: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

The Greek schools of thought dominated philosophy and all of its subsets until the first century A.D. Socrates (ca. 470–399 B.C.) created much of the framework and methodology for how to approach philosophy and ethics. Among these innovations is the 'Socratic method.' Carrying on the Socratic traditions was one of his primary students, Plato (ca. 428–348 B.C.). In Athens, Plato formed the first higher learning institution in the West, the Academy. One of his major contributions to moral philosophy is the theory of forms, which explores how humans can live a life of happiness in an ever-changing, material world.

The third pillar of ancient Greek philosophy is Aristotle (384–322 B.C.)—he got employed by Phillip II of Macedon, which was quite a coushy job—a student of Plato’s at the Academy, and later a professor at the same institution. One of his main theories deals with universals. The theories of these three philosophers created the Western philosophical canon, and represent the first major entries into the study of ethics.'

The man paused for a moment, then moved on, 'Morality is about the good-bad duality. In a general sense, morality refers to a code or rules in which actions are judged against how they stack up to shared values. Some things are 'right,' while others are 'wrong.' Ethics, meanwhile, refers to the rules that form those moral codes and that also come from those moral codes.

Ideas about the nature of the universe logically leads to the idea that all people are connected. We all occupy the same planet, and within it, individual societies and countries have their own sets of standards of behavior. Why are those standards in place? The answer is straightforward: to maintain the peace and to keep things humming along so that some, many, or all, may live lives of worth and fulfillment. This is where the philosophical branch of moral philosophy comes into play.

'Moral philosophy'—a term that is used interchangeably with ethics—is its own realm of study. It sits apart from the broad ideas of general philosophy, as well as the other branches of philosophy.

Ethics are obviously important constructs of civilization, born out of a primal human need to understand the world. But why, exactly, are ethics important? Because humanity needs structure to make sense out of the world. As we collect information, we order and categorize it. This helps us decode the vast and seemingly impossible-to-understand universe. Ethics is part of this ongoing crusade of decoding.

If knowledge defines the 'what' of the universe, then philosophy is an attempt to unlock the 'why.' Ethics is then how that 'why' is carried out, giving us standards, virtues, and rules by which we use to direct how we behave, both on a daily basis and in the grand scheme of things.'

'Why we act ethically?' his wife wanted to know. The man replied, 'Philosophers have pinpointed several different reasons why humans can and should act in a virtuous manner. Here are a few:

• It’s a requirement for life. It’s our biological imperative as humans to survive and thrive, and ethics are part of the complicated structure of humanity that helps us determine the best ways to act so that each of us may live a long, productive life. Acting virtuously helps ensure that our actions are not aimless, pointless, or random. By narrowing down the vastness of the universe to a lived experience with purpose and meaning—especially if it’s one shared by a society or cultural group—goals and happiness are more within reach.
• It’s a requirement for society. To be a member of society in good standing, one must follow the codes and laws that govern that culture. Everybody has a role to play, and if the social fabric breaks down, the happiness of others is threatened. Ethics builds relationships, both individually and on a grand scale. Kindness matters, and it helps forge the underlying bonds that unite a society.
• For religious purposes. Some people try to act in a way they have decided is the most morally upstanding, and they get their cues from religion. This plays into a type of ethics called divine command theory. People who subscribe to this type of ethics act in accordance with the rules set forth by an organized religion, and those rules are derived from holy text or the direction of a divine entity.
• For self-interest. Some ethicists believe that humans ultimately act out of self-service, that they do things with their own interests in mind. This viewpoint even informs their moral behavior. As hinted at in 'the Golden Rule'—do unto others as you would have done unto you—and the similar Eastern idea of karma, being good can be a self-serving pursuit. Hence, if a person behaves morally, respectfully, and kindly to others—for whatever reason, and even if those reasons are motivated by self-interest—good things will happen to that person in kind.
• Because humans are good. This is a major theme of moral philosophy. The essential question is this: Are humans ethical because they have to be, or do humans pursue a moral life because certain acts are just naturally good, or naturally bad? As an action, this plays out in the idea that humans, by and large, are themselves naturally good, and they try to act accordingly.

Central to the discussion of ethics is the notion of virtues. Moral philosophy is very much invested in determining not only the way humans ought to act, but also the way they act. Ethics lead to quantifiable values, and those values are the handful of qualities that direct good behavior. Most every different viewpoint on ethics is concerned with virtues, because virtues have no ties to a specific religion or ethical ideology. And many are universal—some aren’t, but that’s a question for ethicists to debate.'

'And how we apply ethics?' his wife rise a question. The man answered, 'Ethics don’t exist solely as theories and idea; ethics are meant to lead directly to action. Therefore we have applied ethics, or moral philosophy in action and in pratice.

Although the most prominent moral philosophies were hammered out centuries ago, their finer points remain open to question. Ethics don’t exist in a vacuum, and they don’t stand still. They’re systems that contain multitudes of practical rules that can be learned and adapted into any number of real-life situations. Indeed, ethicists have attempted to find the universals of morality that apply to all humans and, it would seem, all walks of life. Ethics are a big part of the decision-making processes in many of today’s professions and fields, and are especially relevant as the world faces rapidly changing and as-yet unknown challenges both now and in the future.

Ethics, or virtues, are a vital tool in a civilized society, and they apply to nearly every sector of the professional world. There are several areas that can be used as examples of the application of ethics, among others, will be continued to section 2.'"

[Bahasa]

The Miller and a Huge Rat (2)

"'In what can be called the theory of redistributive corruption, the state is the weaker part in the state-society relationship,' the Miller continued, 'Here, various social and economic groups, interests or individuals are organised and powerful enough to draw more benefit from the corrupt practices they engage in with the state as a counterpart, than is the state and the ruling elite. The main beneficiaries of the resources extracted, privatised and consumed are not the political and state-based elite, but state resources are depleted and distributed to various groups and interests according to the power configurations in each country.

Who, in society, will benefit the most from this kind of corruption depends on the local distribution of forces. It might be powerful ethnic or regional groups or clans who are strong enough to extract much more from the state than their fair part of public investments, development projects, international aid, regional autonomy and representation in national institutions. It might be foreign or local corporate interests that are able to buy under-priced national resources, concessions, preferential treatments, permissions, and tax exemptions. It might be the general population, individuals who are able to buy benefits like tax exemptions, subsidies, pensions, or unemployment insurance, or get preferential access to privileged schools, medical care, housing, real estate or ownership stakes in enterprises being privatised.

The loser in this game is the state and its regulating capacity. When private citizens, commercial businesses—local and international—and various interest groups—formal and informal, modern and traditional—are able to buy national and public resources cheaply, to buy exceptions, privileges, immunity and impunity through the use of kickbacks and mafia methods vis-à-vis public officials, the state will be eroded. The effect of 'redistributive' corruption is that the state is rendered incapacitated and politically impotent. The capacity of the state to extract taxes and render public services will be eroded; its ability to implement coherent policies is destroyed, as well as the state’s ability to transform the society and the economy according to political priorities and to execute rational development policies.

Furthermore, redistributive corruption will 'particularly hurt the poor' because resources are privatised and redistributed according to the ability of groups to influence policies through pressure and bribes, and not through the principle of 'one man one vote.' Resources will not be distributed according to 'universalistic' or ideological considerations of needs and fairness. Those in most need of political redistribution, in terms of basic public services like schools, health, social services, and state protection, will suffer the most when the state’s capacity is crippled.

Feudalisation is a term that has been used when weak states are manipulated by strong societies, when the state is losing control to 'civilian' forces. Feudalisation refers to the 'privatisation' and 'decentralisation' of the state, and underlines the clientelist relationship involved. Feudalisation occurs when entire geographical areas, economic sectors and/or military units are taken over by 'private' interests. In the short run, a ruler might benefit from deliberate feudalisation in terms of loyalty—from local or regional strongmen, clientelist groups or vassals—and in terms of an assured delivery of the votes for the ruling party in elections, but in the long run, the unity of the state is jeopardised.

In the alternative view, in what can be called the theory of extractive corruption, the state is the stronger part in the state-society relationship. According to this theory, the corrupted—the state or some state agent—benefits the most from corruption and the corrupter is more or less a passive player. Essentially, the ruling elite is the strongest force is society, this elite or class uses the state apparatus as its instrument to extract resources from society, and it does so for the benefit of the rulers. This theory is partly based on the operation of authoritarian countries in general, and on the experience of the neo-patrimonial states in particular.

The theory mainly applies where the state is not only the strongest force in society, but also where a ruling elite has developed into a dominant and ruling class in control of the powers of the state. The theory also emphasises the well-known remark that all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is, the more political power is concentrated exclusively in the hands of a few individuals, the greater the temptation for power abuse, selfish wealth-seeking and primitive extraction.

So, what causes Corruption? There is a strong relation between the level of income—low, lower-middle, upper-middle and high—and corruption. The higher income a country, the lower is the level of corruption.

There has been formulated a 'law' or general regularity that says, that the degree of corruption varies inversely to the degree that power is consensual. That is, the more the power is legitimate, the less corruption. The level of corruption and the form it takes, is also varying rather systematically with the political setting. Corruption levels and forms vary with the regime type within which it occurs. One widely held general assumption is that the level of corruption corresponds negatively with democratisation, i.e. that the level of corruption is decreasing with increasing levels of democracy.

Then, what are the consequences of Corruption? Corruption might cause a lot of harm to society, like for instance when it leads to illegal logging of tropical rain forests and the non-observation of building codes designed to ensure public safety. Corruption may also lead to insecure citizens, speculative politicians, and administrators vacillating between huge opportunities, grave risks and much double-pressure.

In economic terms, corruption is not always bad. For instance, in the level of economic growth and the level of direct foreign investment, in highly corrupt nations. In some countries, the growth rate does not seem to suffer, as it has been kept on a high level for years despite the existence of systemic corruption. This is mainly the case of some Southeast Asian countries. In other countries, mainly in Africa, high levels of corruption, have been inhibitive to growth. The economic effects of corruption is nevertheless dependent on the type of corruption in each country, on the way corruption is organised or disorganised.

However, in countries with widespread corruption, corruption will furthermore increase the operating costs of government, revenues will leak out and the resources available for public services will wane. Governmental decision-making will be distorted, and governments will fail to deliver the much-needed public services. Another dilemma is that in non-democratic or semi-democratic (neo-patrimonial) systems, where political power is mainly used to pursue the interest of a ruling elite, an increase in the state’s efficiency might well in itself be detrimental to national development. It might imply a more efficient resource extraction for the benefit of a ruling elite.

Corruption affects the way countries are ruled. However, like with the economic consequences, the political consequences of corruption, is largely dependent on the type of corruption that takes place, and the consequences differs much according to the ways in which the extracted resources are used. In weak states, in states where the ruling elite exercises little control over who will gain how much from what kind of corruption, the legitimacy of the state as such will wane with the lack of service. Uncontrolled and unrestricted corruption will have the general effect of undermining state institutions and political legitimacy.

Strong states, on the other hand, states with exclusive and undeniable control of the economic policies, of the formal as well as the informal ways of accumulation, redistribution, and consumption. Here, any extractive corruption will be an integrated part of the overall control over the state apparatus and its operations, including the authoritative allocation of resources. Strong leaders will exercise a strong control over the various forms of corruption, and will be able to decide who will gain how much from what kind of corruption. The level of corruption can therefore be stable, predictable and acceptable to businesses and the general public. In strong states, the institutions of the state will not necessarily suffer from corruption.

Besides, the legitimacy and efficiency of the state, and consequently the general attitude towards corruption, is dependent on the overall esteem of the rule system in the eyes of the population. The political system—the political authority and the state agents—are sanctioned and obeyed by most citizens when people generally perceive of the political authority as benevolent. Legitimacy depends on the services rendered and the ability to satisfy popular demands, more than the way the state is operated. Besides, the charisma of political leaders is also important when it comes to legitimacy. Efficient states can therefore maintain a relatively high and stable level of corruption, or manage to keep the level of corruption at a low level at will. The strength of the state and the political will is what explains the low level of corruption in authoritarian countries like Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

The level of corruption and its political impact in Europe is hardly comparable to the devastating effects seen in most African and some Asian countries. In democratic countries, or more precisely in countries ruled by law and where human rights and the division of power between institutions and groups are respected and effective, the acts of political corruption may be disclosed by a free press and other media, by the opposition, by auditing and controlling bodies or by the police, and the offenders may loose office through legal procedures or in the next elections. Corruption scandals may actually sharpen the instruments of control. Therefore, democratic institutions are not necessarily threatened by isolated incidents of political corruption. They may even be strengthened if the cases of political corruption are properly dealt with. Systematic and endemic political corruption may nevertheless endanger any democratic system.

Corruption persists over long periods of time—though not necessarily two dozen centuries. Corruption is not easy to eliminate. Systemic corruption is deeply rooted in the underlying social and historical political structure.

A country’s history shapes the conditions for honesty in government: economic equality and a state that is strong enough to provide services to its citizens. The most important service a state can provide is education. Countries with higher levels of education in the past have less corruption today.

Why education? Education promotes economic equality. The linkage between equality and lower levels of corruption is well established. And education promotes the civic values that underlie 'good government' –or honesty in government. Education provides the foundation for ordinary people to take part in their governments–and to take power away from corrupt leaders.

Education empowers people to make their own way in the world without having to rely upon clientelistic leaders for their livelihood. When people depend upon 'patrons' for their well-being, their welfare, even their sustenance, is tied to their loyalty. They may 'tolerate' corruption by these leaders, either because these 'big men' defend them against others who might exploit them even more or because ordinary people do not have alternative sources of income. The patron–client relationship is founded on inequality.

Education also promotes loyalty to the state rather than to local—or tribal—leaders. When governments provide services such as education, people will associate benefits with the state and will be more likely to have a broad identity with their fellow citizens. This broader identity is the foundation of generalized trust–trust in people we don’t know who may not be like us. Higher levels of trust are strongly linked to lower corruption. A common identity, like trust, is only possible where there is greater equality. The strong aggregate relationship between trust and mean school years in 1870 (r2 = .462) suggests that education is part of the 'inequality trap,' perhaps even a surrogate measure for trust.'"

'Alas Sir!' the poor Rat interupted again, 'the miserable pittance that I take, is only from hand to mouth, and out of pure necessity to keep life and soul together,' as the Rat pleaded hunger on the one hand, the Miller threw the matter of conscience and honesty in his teeth on the other, and preach’d to him upon the topick of a political convenience, in making such pilfering knaves examples for the publick good.

'Well, sir!' says the Rat once again, 'will you consider for your own sake, that this is your own case; and that you and I are both corn merchants, and of the same fraternity; nay, and that for one grain that I take, you take a thousand.

'This is not language,' cries the Miller, in a rage, 'for an honest man to bear; but the best on’t is sirrah, your tongue’s no slander,' so he turn’d the Cat loose upon him to do that which we call in the world an execution of justice.

After carrying out his duties, walking leisurely, the puss sang,

Tikus-tikus tak kenal kenyang

[The rats were never satisfied]

Rakus-rakus, bukan kepalang

[Greedy, outrageously]

Otak tikus memang bukan otak udang

[The rats brains, indeed, were not a shrimp brains]

Kucing datang, tikus menghilang *)

[The cats came, the rats disappeared]

As a closing, Laluna said, "Corruption is widely recognized malfeasance as objectionable, not just because it flaunts norms of honesty, but because it exacerbates Inequality gap. And Allah knows best."

Citations & References:
- Inge Amundsen, Political Corruption: An Introduction to the Issues, Chr. Michelsen Institute
- Eric M. Uslaner, The Historical Roots of Corruption, Cambridge Univesity Press
- Arnold J. Heidenheimer & Michael Jihnston (ed.), Political Corruption : Concept & Contexts, Transactions Publishers
*) "Tikus-tikus Kantor" written by Iwan Fals

Bahasa

The Miller and a Huge Rat (1)

"'Corruption is a disease, a cancer that eats into the cultural, political and economic fabric of society, and destroys the functioning of vital organs,' said the Miller as he took a huge over-grown Rat in his meal tub," Laluna introduced a story after greeting with Basmalah and Salaam. "Corruption is found almost everywhere, but it is stubbornly entrenched in the poor countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, it is widespread in Latin America, it is deeprooted in many of the newly industrialised countries, and it is reaching alarming proportions in several of the post-communist countries.

It's indeed difficult in attempting to define Corruption. A series of problems are often linked in public discussions of corruption. The first problem is 'Corruption by Public Officials.' The second major category is abuse of office by public officials. Here, a precise definition is impossible, the dictionary says only that to abuse means 'to misuse' or 'to do something improper,' and misuse and improper are as vague as abuse. Canadian political scientist Kenneth Gibbons suggests a number of actions which some people may label 'abuse of office' : 

• A civil servant gives a position in his office to a relative rather than to a better-qualified applicant. [Nepotism]
• A political party wins an election and then removes all office-holders who supported the opposition party. [Patronage]
• A legislator owns stock in a mining company, and votes for a bill which will give tax concessions to the company. [Legislative conflict of interest]
• Government bureaucrats use their knowledge and contacts to establish a part-time consulting firm which gives advice to private clients. [Bureaucratic conflict of interest]

To Gibbons’ list, might be added the awarding of government contracts to favoured friends or political supporters lying to the media and the public and many forms of campaign finance; all raise similar problems of abuse of office.

Third, business corruption, fraud, theft, abuse, error and waste. These improprieties, differ from official corruption and abuse of office, primarily because they are committed by someone who is not an office holder. Probably, the most frequent activity under this category ,concerns business corruption or 'kickbacks.' A second form of private misconduct is fraud. And stil there are everal other forms of misconduct by corporations or private citizens.

The final public problem which should be mentioned is 'Organized Crime and Racketeering.' Crime syndicates and racketeers can and do corrupt publie officials to nullify law enforcement. However, while corruption is a tool of crime syndicates and racketeers, it is not the same thing. Many forms of official corruption are unrelated to crime syndicates and racketeering, and crime syndicates are sometimes able to operate even where officials are completely honest.

So, variations in definitions among nations, guarantee that no definition of corruption will be equally accepted in every nation. These variations can be found whether definitions are based on statutory criteria, on the impact of corruption on the public interest, or on public opinion.

The issue of corruption has to some extent entered the political and economic sciences, from the new interest in the role of the state in the developing world, and in particular from the idea that the state is an indispensable instrument for economic development.

In contrast to the largely rejected 'state-dominated' and 'state-less' development models, there is now much consensus on the relevance of an efficient medium-sized state in economic development. The 1997 World Development Report stated that 'an effective state is vital for the provision of the goods and services—and the rules and institutions—that allow markets to flourish and people to lead healthier, happier lives. Without it, sustainable development, both economic and social is impossible.'

Corruption has come up as a thematic constituent of this renewed paradigm, in which development necessitates economic reform, which is again dependent on political and administrative reforms like good governance and civil service reforms (CRS), accountability, human rights, multipartyism and democratisation. Besides, very high levels of corruption has been observed where the government is regarded as illegitimate in the eyes of the population—implying widespread disrespect for legal procedures—and in countries where the state plays an interventionist role in the economy. The role of the state and of politics is therefore essential to understand corruption.

The decisive role of the state is also reflected in most definitions of corruption. Corruption is conventionally understood, and referred to, as the private wealthseeking behaviour of someone who represents the state and the public authority, or as the misuse of public goods by public officials for private ends. The working definition of the World Bank is that corruption is the abuse of public power for private benefit.

In other words, corruption is a particular (and, one could say, perverted) statesociety relation. On the one side is the state, that is the civil servants, functionaries, bureaucrats and politicians, anyone who holds a position of authority to allocate rights over (scarce) public resources in the name of the state or the government. Corruption is when these individuals are misusing the public power they are bestowed with for private benefit. The corrupt act is when this responsible person accepts money or some other form of reward, and then proceeds to misuse his official powers by returning undue favours. For instance, it is an act of corruption when a state official takes a bribe to render some public service that is supposed to be free of charge or demands more than the official cost of it.

The involvement of state officials in corruption is also emphasised in an alternative definition, where corruption is seen as 'a form of secret social exchange through which those in power—political or administrative—take personal advantage, of one type or another, of the influence they exercise in virtue of their mandate or their function.' In sum, almost every definition—or rather conceptualisation—of corruption has a principal focus on the state and politics ('the corrupted'), and a 'demand-oriented' perspective.

On the other side of a corrupt act is nevertheless the 'supply side”, and some theories and conceptualisations exist that emphasise the 'corrupters,' those who offer the bribes, and the advantages they gain. These suppliers are the general public, or—in other words—the non state society. The counterparts to the corrupt officials are any non-governmental and non-public individual, corporate and organisational, domestic and external.

Corruption also exists within and between private businesses, within nongovernmental organisations, and between individuals in their personal dealings, without any state agency or state official being involved. There is corruption also in the form of bribing, swindling, and mafia-methods within and between private businesses, there are treacherous individuals and disloyal employees also in private firms. This kind of corruption may even have repercussions into the political system as it destroys the public morale, and it may be symptomatic for the general economic and moral development of a society.

However, most definitions of corruption will exclude this intra-societal corruption, and emphasise corruption as a state-society relationship. This is quite appropriate as long as the focus is not exclusively on the personal, cultural and social aspects of corruption. Business-internal corruption can and will normally be handled as a disciplinary problem within the firm, as a judicial problem within a given legal framework, or as a moral problem within a cultural setting. Therefore, in contrast to corrupt state-society relations, business internal corruption will not necessarily have to consider the broader political and economic issues.

In the definition shared by most political scientists, political corruption is any transaction between private and public sector actors through which collective goods are illegitimately converted into private-regarding payoffs. In a more strict definition, political corruption involves political decisionmakers. Political or grand corruption takes place at the high levels of the political system. It is when the politicians and state agents, who are entitled to make and enforce the laws in the name of the people, are themselves corrupt. Political corruption is when political decision-makers use the political power they are armed with, to sustain their power, status and wealth. Thus, political corruption can be distinguished from bureaucratic or petty corruption, which is corruption in the public administration, at the implementation end of politics.

Political corruption not only leads to the misallocation of resources, but it also affects the manner in which decisions are made. Political corruption is the manipulation of the political institutions and the rules of procedure, and therefore it influences the institutions of government and the political system, and it frequently leads to institutional decay. Political corruption is therefore something more than a deviation from formal and written legal norms, from professional codes of ethics and court rulings. Political corruption is when laws and regulations are more or less systematically abused by the rulers, side-stepped, ignored, or even tailored to fit their interests. Political corruption is a deviation from the rational-legal values and principles of the modern state, and the basic problem is the weak accountability between the governors and the governed. In particular in authoritarian countries, the legal bases, against which corrupt practices are usually evaluated and judged, are weak and furthermore subject to downright encroachment by the rulers.

The formal legal framework of the state is therefore insufficient as terms of reference to assess and judge the problem of political corruption. Moral, normative, ethical, and indeed political benchmarks will have to be brought in, not at least because it will be necessary to discern legality from legitimacy when it comes to political corruption. Besides, whereas bureaucratic corruption normally can be dealt with through auditing, legislation, and institutional arrangements, the degenerative effects of political corruption cannot be counteracted by an administrative approach alone. Endemic political corruption calls for radical political reforms.

Political corruption—usually supported by widespread bureaucratic or petty corruption—should furthermore be considered as one of the basic modes of operation of authoritarian regimes. However, the essence of the problem of political corruption differs much between authoritarian and liberal democratic regimes. In democratic countries, the problem of political corruption is more of an incidental and occasional nature, and can be dealt with within the existing political system; by reforming, strengthening and vitalising the existing political institutions of checks and balances.

A second analytically important classification of corruption, namely between private and collective forms of corruption. The degree to which the money or benefits collected through corruption is 'privatised,' is varying. It may be extraction for the benefit of an individual who will share nothing or very little of the benefits with his equals, or it may be extraction for a particular group with some coherence and unity. The 'private,' individual and intimate nature of corruption is repeatedly underlined because of the illegal and surreptitious nature of corrupt transactions. The illegality and immorality of corruption necessitates a collusion or conspiracy between individuals, or at least a certain closeness and confidentiality.

However, corruption may also be 'collective.' First of all because corruption has a substantial economic effect in aggregate terms, but also because corruption may in itself be a deliberate way of resource extraction for the benefit of a larger group. Some definitions of corruption also emphasises the point that the rulers as a group or class, or as an institution or organisation, make unjustified use of their influence to extract resources for the benefit of the group as such.

Corruption has a strong inclination for 'collectivisation.' To keep quiet and gradually take part in the practice is usually much less costly than to blow the whistle, inform, and confront. A conspiracy between individuals is easily extended into a larger practice involving colleagues, partners, assistants, patrons and superiors. Instances of petty corruption may therefore develop into larger networks, cliques and medium-sized brotherhoods, and finally into large-scale institutionalised corruption if unchecked, if there is 'room for manoeuvre.'

In whose interest does corruption take place, and who benefits the most from corruption? The various definitions of corruption maintain that the state—or some state agent—is always involved, and that corruption is basically a particular state-society relationship. It is furthermore maintained that this relationship is based on a mutual exchange of benefits, that it is an exchange from which both the state—the state agent—and the society—the individual citizen, client or businessman—will draw some immediate and private benefit. This relationship of mutual exchange is rarely balanced, however. In aggregate terms corrupt practices will generate a flow of resources either from the society to the state—extractive corruption, or corruption form above—or from the state to the society—redistributive corruption, or corruption from below.'

The Rat, suddenly interrupted, 'Sir, may I talk?' The miller replied, 'No, I am laying the law to you, about the lewdness of your life and conversation, and the abominable sin of stealing; but your thieving, is now come home to you, and I shall e’n leave honest: Puss here to reckon with you for all your rogueries. So, listen to what I'm going to say!'"

[Part 2]

Bahasa