Institutions have changed the meaning of the word corruption and this sham can strengthen authoritarianism against new generations.

The word corruption, popularly, refers to the abuse of power, to benefit or harm one or the other, but institutions have changed this meaning.
Transparency International and the United Nations have changed this concept, understanding it in a restrictive way, according to which the official has to benefit economically so that it be corruption. In this way, actions that harm third parties are excluded, but even more serious is the case of the public authority that encourages or maintains an abusive regime or abusecracy.

It is striking that the main global representative of the social sector in relation to corruption that is Transparency International and the main global representative of the public sector that is the UN, agree to adopt the same meaning to refer to corruption, this being so restrictive and contrary to its popular and scientific use (loss of property and integrity).

With this definition, Transparency International is conditioning the work against corruption of all the associations in the world.

Transparency International's famous Perceptions of Corruption Index means something different from what most people believe when they hear about it. Furthermore, by making public that corruption is the norm in all countries of the world, they are making us to be accustomed to tolerate the intolerable, making the greatest social engineering of all times to invalidate the real gravity of corruption.

In the case of the UN, it has a special relevance because in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (2003), the countries that subscribe to this norm are asked to include in their criminal laws the crime of corruption following these guidelines, corrupting the corruption term.

Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the use of the word corruption in the media and among people, regarding its legal meaning that is used by politicians and institutions. It can even provoke hilarity in public authorities when they are accused of being corrupt because of facts that they know are not contemplated by the law as corruption.

Even worse is when we speak of a corrupt regime, because according to the institutions it would mean that a large part of the public authorities benefit economically from their power, but it would exclude the use of institutional power to subdue the majority of the population that is which really wants to express itself when referring to a corrupt regime. In other words, a corrupt regime is the one in which the public authorities have as a priority that a minority take advantage of the majority.

This type of regime should be qualified as authoritarian, where public authorities do not comply with the law with total IMPUNITY to benefit themselves and to harm the majority.

The aforementioned Perception of Corruption Index shows that democracies are authoritarian regimes in all countries, to a greater or lesser extent, so they can be called authoritarian democracies. Due that democracies are the largest power machineries in history and use the potential of new technologies to control the entire population, public authorities are taking people to the highest level of slavery in history.

Likewise, international institutions are authoritarian. Both the UN and the European Union and any other international organization have an intergovernmental nature, because they have been created by governments, and are led by the governments of the member countries, transferring their authoritarianism.

In short, we must talk about officials, governments, institutions and authoritarian regimes instead of corrupt, as well as legislative authoritarianism, executive authoritarianism or judicial authoritarianism.

The authoritarian democracies have led Europeans to decline, as is demonstrated by the fact that every day there are more dissidents, more depravation in power and because throughout Europe the current generations of young people are living worse than their parents, As stated in the Report to the European Council of the Reflection Group on the future of the EU in 2030, which was delivered in 2010.

In a historic speech, Kennedy stated that he would not allow abusocracy. More than half a century later, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, on the electoral night of April 28, 2019, said he had "sent a message [...] to Europe and the world that the reaction can be won, to authoritarianism [...] ". In this way, both politicians recognized that democracies are authoritarian.


Decadence has been reached, despite the fact that the business world is constantly increasing wealth, so that only the majority of the blame can be attributed to the institutions. Therefore, a part of the world elite and the real intellectuals (dissidents and freethinkers) consider that the macro-state of democracies is the problem and that alternatives to representative democracy must be sought.

Javier Marzal
Chair of the International Association to Change the World



PDF: Article "They are deceiving us with corruption"