NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the Top Ten according to level of graft, its a real shame to see the Philippines have two entries... Anyways which one of these do you think was the worst?

* Suharto: $15-35bn(Indonesia, 1967-98)
* Ferdinand Marcos: $5-10bn(Philippines, 1972-86)
* Mobutu Sese Seko: $5bn(Zaire, 1965-97)
* Sani Abacha: $2-5bn(Nigeria, 1993-98)
* Slobodan Milosevic: $1bn(Yugoslavia, 1989-2000)
* J-C Duvalier: $300-800m(Haiti, 1971-86)
* Alberto Fujimori: $600m(Peru, 1990-2000)
* Pavlo Lazarenko: $114-200m(Ukraine, 1996-7)
* Arnoldo Aleman: $100m (Nicaragua, 1997-2002)
* Joseph Estrada: $78-80m(Philippines, 1998-2001)


(source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3567745.stm )

My nomination would be for Suharto.

If it's based on level of graft, then the role of 'most' isn't neccisarily up for a vote, is it? Don't the numbers handle that?

What would be the secondary criteria, outside of the level of graft that narrowed the field to 10? Now that their level of graft has been determined is worst determined by how much of that was at the detriment of the populace, or what? How am I to be determining 'most' corrupt outside of the criteria already in place?

I was going to vote for Milosevic... and then I saw Joseph Estrada. And I thought, "Wait a minute, my RA's name is Estrada... TREASONIST BASTARD!!!!"

So you see, I had no choice. His body now hangs in my closet:sniper:

If it's based on level of graft, then the role of 'most' isn't neccisarily up for a vote, is it? Don't the numbers handle that?

What would be the secondary criteria, outside of the level of graft that narrowed the field to 10? Now that their level of graft has been determined is worst determined by how much of that was at the detriment of the populace, or what? How am I to be determining 'most' corrupt outside of the criteria already in place?

I would think dollar amount is not a useful criteria after it reaches a certain level. It only reflects how much was *available* to steal. Compare the head of a country who stole billions by skimming to say the mayor of a small town who abducts drifters, kills them, sells their organs and only makes a few hundred thousand a year. Who is more corrupt? The skimmer or the butcher?

Their list is extremely inaccurate. Why aren't Lansana Conté, Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Moussa Traoré, Mathieu Kérékou, Daniel arap Moi, and Gnassingbé Eyadéma listed? The list is made of fail.

Duvalier. "Papa Doc" may have stolen less, but that's only because there was less to steal. If you plot his graft alongside total amounts available, I think you'd find he's got the greatest percentages.

This is the Top Ten according to level of graft, its a real shame to see the Philippines have two entries... Anyways which one of these do you think was the worst?Probably not a 20th century politician.

Did Emperor Bokassa not bankrupt his entire country with his coronation - surely he merits a mention? Idi Amin?

Did Emperor Bokassa not bankrupt his entire country with his coronation - surely he merits a mention? Idi Amin?

France paid for his coronation.

Fujimori Is The Greatest In My Opinion. The Arguments Are Many Look Only At His Benefits.

If it's based on level of graft, then the role of 'most' isn't neccisarily up for a vote, is it? Don't the numbers handle that?

One factor to consider is length of tenure. For example, Mobutu was President of Zaire for 32 years, and during that time, and accumulated a fortune anywhere from $4 billion to $15 billion.

Sani Abacha, on the other hand, ruled Nigeria for about 5 or 6 years, and stole between $4 billion and $10 billion. Had he been in power as long as Mobutu, undoubtedly he would have stolen vastly more. Then again, Nigeria is far wealthier than Zaire is (although, of course, most of this wealth is pocketed by corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, military figures, etc.).

This is the Top Ten according to level of graft, its a real shame to see the Philippines have two entries... Anyways which one of these do you think was the worst?

* Suharto: $15-35bn(Indonesia, 1967-98)
* Ferdinand Marcos: $5-10bn(Philippines, 1972-86)
* Mobutu Sese Seko: $5bn(Zaire, 1965-97)
* Sani Abacha: $2-5bn(Nigeria, 1993-98)
* Slobodan Milosevic: $1bn(Yugoslavia, 1989-2000)
* J-C Duvalier: $300-800m(Haiti, 1971-86)
* Alberto Fujimori: $600m(Peru, 1990-2000)
* Pavlo Lazarenko: $114-200m(Ukraine, 1996-7)
* Arnoldo Aleman: $100m (Nicaragua, 1997-2002)
* Joseph Estrada: $78-80m(Philippines, 1998-2001)


(source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3567745.stm )
First, divide the monetary figures by number of years in power, then divide by GNP, THEN compare.

if we're going historical, then surely Caligula deserves an honorary mention.

As for current leaders, I think Putin deserves a mention. He might not have profited much financially thus far, but he's certainly doing his best to turn himself into Russia's first 21st century tzar.

Of those listed, I would have to say Mobutu. Who else had a presidential salary that made up 1/3 of the national budget, had a fortune big enough to single-handedly pay off their country's national debt, and institutionalized corruption so thoroughly, from the top all the way to the bottom? In Zaire it got so bad that Mobutu told his cronies, "If you steal, do not steal too much at one time. You might get caught. Steal cleverly, little by little." Apparently this was an attempt to lessen or "moderate" the level of corruption, but was instead seen as his open approval for politicians to plunder as much booty as they could.

The West, of course, knew all about this, and did nothing. When pressed in the early 1980s, a member of the Reagan Administration said, "We know he's evil, but who else is there?"

Duvalier. "Papa Doc" may have stolen less, but that's only because there was less to steal. If you plot his graft alongside total amounts available, I think you'd find he's got the greatest percentages.

The Duvalier on the OP's list is Baby Doc, though.

i really would not base such things on little green pieces of paper but on the kinds of conditions people living in their countries at the time they were in power had to face.

In that case, your vote should go to Mobutu.

i really would not base such things on little green pieces of paper but on the kinds of conditions people living in their countries at the time they were in power had to face.

and on that basis, well i'm not going to try and name them at the moment, but i would probably come up with a different list of nominees. many of the same names WOULD be on it of course. the marcoses and malosivich of course. but many of history's supposed/so called "hero's", i.e. concorors, belong on that list too.

even on the existing basis, i think batista, the one castro threw out, would certainly qualify too. but there are many others.

on what i would consider a more rational basis they would include andrew jackson and george village burner washington, possibly v.i.lennon and certainly of course 'papa joseph' stallin.

i'm not discouting the qualifications of any already on there, just pointing out in passing, that they have lots of company on all sides of all idiological and economic fences.

=^^=
.../\...

In that case, your vote should go to Mobutu.

Why not Pol Pot?

Why not Pol Pot?

This is about corrupt leaders, though. Pol Pot was a genocidal, totalitarian douchebag - and a worthy candidate for worst leader of all time - but was not especially corrupt. He never enriched himself or his cronies (in fact, Democratic Kampuchea banned money altogether).

This is about corrupt leaders, though. Pol Pot was a genocidal, totalitarian douchebag - and a worthy candidate for worst leader of all time - but was not especially corrupt. He never enriched himself or his cronies (in fact, Democratic Kampuchea banned money altogether).

I know, I guess I was following on Cameroi's point that stealing money is not the worst a leader can do.

I also guess it was an irrelevant question of mine.

I wonder why the top-10-most-corrupt ignore Bettino Craxi and Silvio Berlusconi. Oh wait, Silvio isn't corrupt... he's a corruptor!

Berlusconi is both.

Who's Craxi?

I wonder why the top-10-most-corrupt ignore Bettino Craxi and Silvio Berlusconi. Oh wait, Silvio isn't corrupt... he's a corruptor!

Not to mention that he sent troops to fight alongside Apartheid forces invading Angola. Also the guy he overthrew was hung by UN troops.

What are you talking about?

I assume you're talking about Lumumba, and he wasn't hung, he was executed by firing squad by Katangan soldiers presided over by a Belgian officer.

Of those listed, I would have to say Mobutu. Who else had a presidential salary that made up 1/3 of the national budget, had a fortune big enough to single-handedly pay off their country's national debt, and institutionalized corruption so thoroughly, from the top all the way to the bottom? In Zaire it got so bad that Mobutu told his cronies, "If you steal, do not steal too much at one time. You might get caught. Steal cleverly, little by little." Apparently this was an attempt to lessen or "moderate" the level of corruption, but was instead seen as his open approval for politicians to plunder as much booty as they could.

The West, of course, knew all about this, and did nothing. When pressed in the early 1980s, a member of the Reagan Administration said, "We know he's evil, but who else is there?"
Not to mention that he sent troops to fight alongside Apartheid forces invading Angola. Also the guy he overthrew was hung by UN troops.

Not to mention that he sent troops to fight alongside Apartheid forces invading Angola.

And his troops got pwned. :p

I don't think I'm qualified to judge.

I gave Mobutu the nod because his thorough-going corruption of the nation is a legacy that keeps on giving.

It's a tie between the communist/socialist leaders who stole the whole country by declaring that all property is owned by the state which on paper may have been owned by the people or something but in reality was owned/controlled by the leader, you can't beat them by stealing more than everything.

Another way to measure it could be to compare the actual living standards for the lower class under their rule to the living standards of the lower class in a democracy with similar resources at their disposal.

A lot of very corrupt leaders have already been mentioned, another candidate worth mentioning is Ne Win.

Notice that most of the names on the list are right-wingers?

Mobutu would beg to differ. The MPR described itself as "neither left nor right nor even center" and called for "the repudiation of both capitalism and communism."

It's a tie between the communist/socialist leaders who stole the whole country by declaring that all property is owned by the state which on paper may have been owned by the people or something but in reality was owned/controlled by the leader, you can't beat them by stealing more than everything.

Another way to measure it could be to compare the actual living standards for the lower class under their rule to the living standards of the lower class in a democracy with similar resources at their disposal.

A lot of very corrupt leaders have already been mentioned, another candidate worth mentioning is Ne Win.
They didn't steal anything because the means of production were owned by the workers communally. Notice that most of the names on the list are right-wingers?

They didn't steal anything because the means of production were owned by the workers communally. Notice that most of the names on the list are right-wingers?
Sounds like a great place to live, at least if that was the case not only on paper but in reality too. What if the workers in a factory wanted to produce toys while the leader wanted them to produce tanks, which one do you think the factory would end up producing? Whoever's decision is followed there is the real owner of the factory.

George W. Bush

Where's Bob Mugabe?

... is he really that corrupt?

being a moron and having the system waste a Lot of money/resources as a result is not quite the same as actively stealing it.

also, corruption tends to include not just theft, but the general misuse of one's position for personal profit. accepting bribes etc rates too.

... is he really that corrupt?

being a moron and having the system waste a Lot of money/resources as a result is not quite the same as actively stealing it.

also, corruption tends to include not just theft, but the general misuse of one's position for personal profit. accepting bribes etc rates too.

But generally the aim of corruption is the arbitrary use of power for personal profit, granted 'personal profit' can not always be reduced to a $ amount, but other indicators of 'profit' are not as easy to compare and contrast as raw $ figures are, thus the emphasis on them.

Papa Doc DuVallier was one of the more batshit rulers in the world, so I'd probably vote for him.

Dong Zhuo should be mentioned, even though he dates back 1800 years (he had his troops execute thousands of rich citizens, then claimed the money was taken form bandits). So should Hitler (among other things, he had his troops yasnk out gold fillings to pay for the war effort!)

Dubya should be tried for war crimes, but he's not a top ten.

...and no, those aren't the only things Dong Zhuo and Hitler did... not even close.

Francisco Franco should be mentioned among the most corrupt rulers the world has ever seen. He twisted the future of Spain for 35 years. And not only that, he banned regional dialects (a part of who we all are in Spain) under pain of treason and execution. Plus, so many of my countrymen lost their lives and so many families were damaged. I hope his soul's locked in the deepest levels of Hell.

Berlusconi is both.

Who's Craxi?

wiki is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craxi

see also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mani_Pulite

... is he really that corrupt?

being a moron and having the system waste a Lot of money/resources as a result is not quite the same as actively stealing it.

also, corruption tends to include not just theft, but the general misuse of one's position for personal profit. accepting bribes etc rates too.

I suppose you could point to the companies the contracts were handed out to, think Halliburton and Cheney etc.

This is the Top Ten according to level of graft, its a real shame to see the Philippines have two entries...
I've never been so proud of my country. :rolleyes: We always get in those lists.

I've never been so proud of my country. :rolleyes: We always get in those lists.

Oops, the list also forgot to post George W. Bush's name on it.:D

The Duvalier on the OP's list is Baby Doc, though.

Oops, quite so. Why's he there? Baby Doc was mostly just an incompetent.

Where's Bob Mugabe?

Bob, sometimes used as a shortened version of Robert.
Robert Mugabe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe).
Pretty nasty guy.

My dead parakeet.

He rules his cage with an iron rod in one hands, a sack of food he received as bribes in the other. He does this even in the afterlife.

I'm a littie surprisede that the Shah of Iran wasn't mentioned. You know, the one who had all kinds of elaborate shit during the time the U.S. supported him while the rest of the city of Tehran starved. It was his greed that helped fuel the Islamic Revolution; it provided fervent hatred toward the regime as well as the U.S. for supporting it. If he were less extravagant, Iran might still be run by a rich asshat rather than a batshit-insane nuke-wielding bastard.

Oops, quite so. Why's he there? Baby Doc was mostly just an incompetent.
Because he stole lots of money?

Dong Zhuo should be mentioned, even though he dates back 1800 years (he had his troops execute thousands of rich citizens, then claimed the money was taken form bandits). So should Hitler (among other things, he had his troops yasnk out gold fillings to pay for the war effort!)

Dubya should be tried for war crimes, but he's not a top ten.

...and no, those aren't the only things Dong Zhuo and Hitler did... not even close.

actually, i'm not sure how Corrupt one could say Hitler was on a dollar basis. stuff taken from the enemy doesn't really count, and he was really big on efficacy and improvement of infrastructure and stuff, neither of which corruption helps.

i'm also not sure it counts when one is taking stuff from private citizens, for the state, to fund an on going war. 'not getting conquered' is typically a legitimate reason for doing stuff, you know?

which, i should note, in no way denies that he was evil and such like.


though Dong Zhuo is Defiantly up there as corrupt. and also evil. boiling people alive as dinner entertainment is kinda pushing the limits a bit, ya know? :P


oh! whoever the king of Spain was during the Napoleonic wars... he took money from the French to refuse the British and their allies the use of his ports [including merchants] ... then took money from the various supposedly 'banned' ships to let them do their thing anyway.
a clever idea... only he wasn't sneaky enough about it, Napoleon found out, and Spain suddenly found it's self under French occupation. heh. whoops :D
not sure if he rates a 'most corrupt' label.. but certainly a 'biggest and most obvious immediate effect of corruption and bad decision making' list, he would rate on :D

* Pavlo Lazarenko: $114-200m(Ukraine, 1996-7)

Alright, let's be fair there, he didn't RULE anything. Prime Ministers are effectively appointed by the President.

though Dong Zhuo is Defiantly up there as corrupt. and also evil. boiling people alive as dinner entertainment is kinda pushing the limits a bit, ya know? :P
Still, he kicks ass in Dynasty Warriors.

I was going to vote for Milosevic... and then I saw Joseph Estrada. And I thought, "Wait a minute, my RA's name is Estrada... TREASONIST BASTARD!!!!"

So you see, I had no choice. His body now hangs in my closet:sniper:

Go after Ponch and you're dead, mark my words.

:mp5::D

Still, he kicks ass in Dynasty Warriors.

pfft, Cao Cao>Lu Bu>Dong Zhuo.

pfft, Cao Cao>Lu Bu>Dong Zhuo.
Yeah, but playing with Sun Ce, Pang Tong or Wei Yan is much more fun.

Because he stole lots of money?

Except that he was even incompetent at that. His father made him look like a piker.

They didn't steal anything because the means of production were owned by the workers communally.

Sorry, I just had to respond.

My parents told me that when someone (I'm talking about pre-'89 period) had to get a new light bulb, he didn't buy it, but took one from the elevator/lift (I mean, those small rooms moving up and down in shafts, frickin' BE/AE differences). The reasoning was that it was communally owned, so it was not a theft :)

So Belarus is the only real dictatorship left in Europe according to the "experts."

So Belarus is the only real dictatorship left in Europe according to the "experts."
They're right, you know.

Vladimir Putin

I'm surprised that Forrest Whitaker isn't even on the list. :p

Francisco Franco should be mentioned among the most corrupt rulers the world has ever seen. He twisted the future of Spain for 35 years. And not only that, he banned regional dialects (a part of who we all are in Spain) under pain of treason and execution. Plus, so many of my countrymen lost their lives and so many families were damaged. I hope his soul's locked in the deepest levels of Hell.

I won't argue that he was a totalitarian douchebag monster. But was he a kleptocrat?

Where's Hugo Chavez?? :p