The sociology of theft in politics

Theft in politics, or more institutionally, corruption, is the misappropriation of public resources and political power for personal gain. Sociologically, this situation is not merely a moral issue; it is a consequence of power relations, institutional decay, and crises of social and political legitimacy.

The sociology of theft in politics cannot be explained solely by a lack of individual morality. Sociologists and political scientists point out that political corruption emerges more as a product of social structures, institutions, and power relations than of individual character. However, recent events show that it also presents itself as a character issue.

Politics involves the power to distribute public resources. Budgets, tenders, appointments, and regulatory decisions create significant economic value. In situations where power is unchecked or limited in its oversight, the transfer of public resources to private interests becomes more likely. A reciprocal relationship can be established between political support and material benefit. In sociology, this is called “clientelism.” The politician provides jobs, tenders, aid, or privileges, while the voter or supporter shows obedience. In this case, corruption becomes not an exception to the system, but one of its operating mechanisms.

As we have seen in our country recently, people focus on protecting the interests of the group to which they belong. Relationships such as party, religious community, tribe, ethnic group, or ideological circle can, in some cases, lead to the normalization of corruption, that is, theft. Rhetoric such as “Our people steal, but they also provide services” leads to the moral legitimization of this behavior.

Economic inequality in our country has reduced citizens' trust in the political system. When people believe that the system does not operate fairly, corruption is more easily tolerated and accepted. Today, it is possible to say that in our country, people have begun to look with sympathy upon those who engage in corruption—that is, both economic and political theft—and that examples of this can be seen. This situation can create moral erosion, or decay. Moreover, looking at what has happened in the last 10 days, one can see how some segments of society approach thieves and those who engage in corruption with sympathy.

Theft and corruption in politics are not viewed sociologically only as bad things done by bad people; they are sometimes even supported through action. For some voters, a rival political movement may be seen as a greater threat than corruption. In this case, even if the voter acknowledges the flaws of the politician they support, they may continue to choose them. If some voters in our country think, “Everyone is corrupt anyway,” they may make their choices based on criteria other than honesty. In this case, corruption ceases to be a distinguishing feature.

The answer to the question, “Why does the public support thieving or corrupt politicians?” is usually not that they consider corruption unimportant. A more common explanation is that voters have other factors they value besides honesty, such as identity, security, economy, interest-based relationships, ideology, and group belonging.

The causes of theft in politics, which have existed throughout history, are many and varied; it is a fact that there are economic, administrative, and social reasons for it. Theft in politics is a threat to economic, political, social, cultural, and moral life. In other words, theft constitutes a major obstacle to development, growth, stability, equality, and efficiency. It destroys the moral structure of society and causes the loss of faith in democracy and the rule of law.

However, we see that those who commit theft and are in a state of moral collapse continue their thefts and injustices brazenly, disregarding the rules of law and morality.

Prof. Dr. Duran BÜLBÜL