To fight corruption, of course, we must first say what corruption is.
Corruption in the end, for profit, and its beginning, is all related to power - the powerless, corrupt can not afford to lose.
To seek specific benefits by means of public or private power is for corruption.
In European history, there have been many similar examples.
At that time, the athenian great figure Dimisticles led the Athenians to fight the Battle of Salamis, and predetermined the maritime hegemony of Athens for the next century.
But the Athenians, fearing that he might be corrupt, first exiled him for ten years, and then collected that "this may have given the Persian army a chance to retreat", so they pursued him until he committed suicide.
This is an extreme case.
In other words, the Romans made a republic, opened the Senate, and felt that they could avoid corruption:
The power of the majority, the rhetoric of the sword, can suppress power.
By the 2nd century BC, the Romans had also defeated Carthage, forced Hannibal to death, crushed the Greeks almost, and cleaned up the mediterranean periphery.
Then something went wrong.
First of all, the area they conquered was too big.
Many history buffs love to nag and fantasize about what Rome and the Great Qin Empire look like when they fight. In fact, the Romans and the Qin and Han dynasties are not the same:
We Qin Han, as we all know, are counties.
In Rome, it was customary to divide the conquered far away places as provinces and send individuals to the provinces as governors. The governor was in charge of collecting taxes, keeping order, maintaining order, and occasionally crucifying prisoners or something. In other respects, most of the officials in the provincial cities are autonomous. As long as these cities pay taxes and say that we are obedient to Rome, there will be no problem.
This system looks at freedom, and the problem is big:
Since the essence of the Roman provinces is in the collection of taxes, the natural tax system is renovated, which makes the people of the provinces dizzy.
For example, there was a so-called tax package system, the Senate said "so-and-so province will pay six million taxes next year", which grandfather said "I am responsible for collecting eight million a year", and another gentleman said: "Ten million is not a word", then let the ten million go to be the governor; that term of office is also short, naturally also have to scrape the land as much as possible, finish the work, in addition to giving the senate ten million, they are full of private pockets, then there is no need to mention more.
This is typical of local leadership power corruption.
Even more frightening is the Senate.
As Rome grew bigger, Rome's own citizens slowly stopped paying taxes and began to work hard.
In order to feed the great master of the city, the Roman Senate also had to knock out the marrow of the bone and treat the people of the province as improper.
For example, carthage had been obedient to Rome since its defeat at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC, but the Romans were jealous and greedy when they saw that Carthage was prosperous again. Can't get you up.
Cato the Elder of the Senate, constantly instigating another war against Carthage, with great respect, every time he went to the Senate, no matter what was discussed, he concluded with a sentence:
"And I think Carthage must be destroyed!"
So in 149 BC, the year Cato died at the age of 85, the Roman Senate was finally bothered by him and raised an army to attack Carthage. Three years later, Scipio the Younger razed Carthage to the ground and made it a province called Afrika.
This is how Rome was corrupted that day:
The Roman Senate had the power to instigate wars, so it made a fortune from them.
They wage endless wars and destroy surrounding cities. Corinth in Greece, Carthage in North Africa, and Numandia in Spain were robbed and then burned, the people were sold into slavery, and wealth was sucked into the pockets of the Roman Senate.
The unfortunate were the fallen soldiers, the landless small peasant class, and the poor people who had been reduced to provinces in the distant lands, who had been converted from commoners to slaves.
So finally there was a warrior who planned to come out and fight corruption.
The Roman general who defeated Hannibal at the time was Afrika Scipio. His grandson Tiberius Gracchus served as a conservator.
As soon as Gracchus took office, he spoke of the suffering of the commoners:
"Even the beasts of Italy have nests and caves where they can live, but the people who fought and died for Italy have nothing but air and sunlight in Italy. Like nomads, they have no houses and wander around with their wives and children. When commanders call on soldiers on the battlefield to defend ancestral tombs and shrines from the enemy, they are deceiving soldiers. Remember that many Romans did not have altars to worship their ancestors, nor tombs of their ancestors, they fought and died so that others could live a luxurious life, so that others could get rich. People call them the rulers of the world, but they have no place to stand. ”
In 133 BC, Gracchuy's proposal to "redistribute public lands" became a bill.
Of course, the Senate especially hated this. So Gracchus was assassinated: the cake of the Senate was moved.
Ten years later, his brother Gaius Gracchus was assassinated as he continued his legacy.
The failure of these two anti-corruption also made the Romans understand to some extent:
The aristocratic senate is not exempt from corruption.
The corrupt upper echelons really dare to kill people.
In 111 BC, the Roman populace could not allow the Roman Senate to continue its misdeeds. They elected a new consul, voted in a general plebiscite, and gave him independent command in Africa.
It was the first in Roman history to be elected by means of a referendum on the appointment of military personnel.
This gentleman, who was 44 years old at the time and whose name was Gaius Malleus, came from a poor background.
As soon as he came to power, he launched an anti-corruption reform:
First: the trivial property qualification restrictions of previous soldiers are lifted. This solves the problem of the source of soldiers.
Then, small farmers can continue to farm at home; those idle and adventurous lads? We enlisted in the army and went to war.
Then there's the term. Originally, the Romans cultivated the land in peacetime and went out in wartime. Malleus stipulated that soldiers must serve for sixteen years.
The state pays the soldiers, and after discharge from the army, pays the land in the conquered areas.
In this way, the soldiers changed from amateur service to a professional system, and the remuneration was quite high, so that the soldiers had hope - in the past, they became soldiers, risked their lives, and contributed to the senate; now they are soldiers and receive salaries, although the time is long, but they are retired and have land, which is worth a lot.
The young soldiers, prime-aged soldiers and reserve soldiers, which used to be divided by age, are now being reclassified.
The heavily armored infantry was unified into legionnaires and the units were redivided. Weapons and equipment are uniformly rationed by the state, and the specifications and styles are unified, so that everyone does not have to pay for it themselves.
It was this army that allowed Malleus to sweep all the way.
Of course, Malleus later angered the Senate and was forced to retire; but this system was decisive and directly influenced the subsequent history of Rome.
Malleus's reforms, seemingly limited to the military, directly shook the basis of corruption in the Senate:
Rome had a standing army, and it was no longer up to the Senate to decide; the populace began to accept military strongmen, and the Senate lost absolute power, and thus lost the greatest tool they could think they were making for their own profits—a slap in the bucket against corruption.
But this anti-corruption campaign also has a follow-up impact.
Because the Senate was hit by anti-corruption, the military power in Rome became increasingly concentrated.
After Malleus's death, his adjutant general Sulla, Sulla's adjutant general Pompey, and Mario's wife's nephew Caesar, one by one, became military strongmen.
Rome later competed for supremacy, and Pompey told Caesar, to put it bluntly, it was still the roots planted here by Malleus.
The twilight senate was constantly weakened, and finally Octavian became Augustus, pushing Rome into an empire.
Who said: During the Roman Empire, power was in the legions, to avoid corruption?
Unfortunately, neither.
Any power that has been strong for a long time is almost inevitably corrupt.
During the Roman Empire, there was more than one emperor, which was directly supported by the legions.
Later, Eastern Rome also liked to play this - familiar with our five generations and ten kingdoms, it sounds a little familiar.
Later, during Valens' reign in Rome, the Romans were barbarians as Goths.
At one point the Goths gathered on the banks of the Danube and demanded to cross the river. The Romans had both contempt for and exploitation of the Goths—at that time, the Romans had long lost the spirit of Caesars to open up territory and were bent on using barbarians to fight barbarians.
However, to let the Goths cross the river is ultimately a hesitation:
After all, it is a small matter of letting barbarians enter.
So the Romans put forward the conditions:
The Goths want to cross the river? Yes; all boys who had not yet reached the age of military service were handed over as hostages, and before crossing the river, all weapons were handed over to the two Roman officers guarding the river.
This strategy sounds feasible and is a simple immigration check. However, when implemented, it is very unreliable.
It turned out that the Roman soldiers were corrupt to such an extent:
As long as the Goths handed over their wives and daughters for their amusement, the weapons were not confiscated—the Goths crossed the river in shame and humiliation, and with hatred for the Romans, they took root in the north of the Roman Empire.
Those familiar with history naturally know that in 476 AD, the Visigoths destroyed Rome – and this is where the roots are.
Therefore, once the army begins to bargain and do business, it is bound to become corrupt.
So, presumably the lesson of Rome is:
-- The root cause of anti-corruption is anti-power, and it is the showdown between power and power.
- The corruption of Rome stemmed from the uneven distribution of power.
Judging from the results, countries that have successfully fought corruption will be more efficient, but their power will also be more concentrated.
- And the power that is concentrated, once the power is not constrained, may eventually begin a new round of corruption.
And so on.
So to put it another way, it's the old saying:
The balance of power, supervision and mutual restraint may be a relatively long-term reliable way.