Is corruption “they” or “we”?

- In reality, those who need support often go unnoticed, and someone came, agreed, kickback was given – and all is well, got their way, – so the Chairman of the government of Dagestan Magomed Ramazanov at the meeting criticized the work of municipalities to provide housing for orphans. The Prime Minister was particularly outraged by the situation when children, really left without parents, wait for years for the laid housing, while some people are not always reasonably presented with apartments.

The head of the Dagestani government directly pointed out that sometimes people received housing from the state through kickbacks. And here’s what is interesting: does the one who decided the issue of bribery and bribery consider himself a link in the corruption chain? Or does self-interest push thoughts of corruption far into the depths of consciousness?

When we use the word “corruption”, we usually have the image of an official who stole millions from the budget, or a law enforcement officer who is ready to turn a blind eye to violations for money. But not everyone is ready to consider himself a criminal when a bribe receives an assessment at the exam, passes a commission for a driver's license or moves his child in line to kindergarten.

People do not justify corruption in general, but they tend to make an exception: “I don’t steal from the state, I just want to speed up the process.” At this point, a person is not thinking about the system, he is thinking about himself, his time and his comfort. It is then that he becomes part of the chain that he is willing to criticize.

A separate “pride” of Dagestan is the scale of fraud in receiving payments. I am sure that almost every one of you has a relative, friend or colleague who illegally issued a phony disability pension, maternity capital for a non-existent child or unemployment benefits with unofficial income.

And here's what's particularly telling: why do we even know about these cases? Sometimes these people don’t even try to keep their mouth shut. They willingly, and sometimes proudly talk about their scam - at the family table, with friends and even in the company of unfamiliar people. The deception of the state is presented as a personal achievement: look how clever I am, was able to get what I was not supposed to.

Such crooks are not stopped even by hundreds of criminal cases initiated in Dagestan against fraudsters. But why does another machinator think he can get away with it? Psychologists and criminologists describe several features of thinking that help to understand this self-confidence:

- The illusion of invulnerability is a condition in which a person sincerely believes that nothing bad will happen to him, even if he takes obvious risks. He understands the statistics and knows that others are caught and punished, but considers himself protected, more fortunate or cautious;

Optimistic bias (or over-optimism) causes you to underestimate the likelihood of trouble in your life (being caught, getting sick, getting into an accident) and overestimate the chance of success. The formula is simple: bad things happen to others, but not to me;

- Egocentric distortion and belief in one’s own exceptionalism – when a person believes that his situation is unique, the plan is flawless, and those punished before him simply made mistakes that he will not make himself;

- Finally, in criminal law there is the concept of “criminal arrogance” – the offender understands that the consequences are possible, but unreasonably hopes that he will be able to avoid them.

A person who gives a bribe or makes a fake payment often does not consider himself a criminal. He thinks he's clever, resourceful, sneaky. “Rules exist for others, but for me there is an exception.” And that is the main trap.

As long as corruption is perceived as what “they” – officials, police officers, bosses – “we” supposedly remain unsuspected. But the chain consists of links, and each holds on to the next. The one who gives and the one who takes are two sides of the same bargain that has no innocents.

Now back to that meeting. The Prime Minister of Dagestan speaks about orphans who have been waiting for apartments for years. And somewhere in the same republic, at the same time, another person – not an official, not a criminal in the eyes of neighbors – is sitting in the kitchen and telling friends how cleverly he “knocked out” his housing: someone called, agreed with someone, brought someone in. He doesn't connect one to the other. For him, these are two different stories: one about the negligence of officials, the second about his own luck. Meanwhile, the chain became one link longer.