Dear Editor,
Recently, an interesting discussion arose among students in my HAVO 5 class. The question was simple to ask but turned out to be quite complicated: Is setting a precedent the same as corruption?
My initial answer would be no. Setting a precedent is not, in itself, corruption. A precedent means that a decision or course of action can serve as an example for similar situations in the future. This happens regularly in the legal system, government administration and society.
But that is precisely where the interesting discussion begins. What happens when someone deliberately establishes a precedent to justify an exception? What happens when a person in a position of authority makes a decision knowing that others may later use that same decision to justify similar actions?
And what happens when the decision is not made in the public interest but instead benefits a friend, family member, political ally or even the decision-maker? That is when we enter a very different discussion.
A precedent can be legitimate when a decision is made carefully, transparently and in accordance with established rules. However, precedents can also be used to gradually push boundaries.
Imagine a government official or political leader making an exception for a particular individual. Perhaps there is a valid reason for doing so, and the decision can be justified.
But when someone later argues, “We allowed this before, so we can allow it again,” a new question arises: Was the original decision actually fair and consistent with the rules?
An improper decision does not automatically become legitimate simply because it was made in the past. This is an important distinction that, in my opinion, we must teach our young people.
When people hear the word corruption, they often immediately think of bribery, money changing hands under the table or envelopes filled with cash. But corruption can take other forms. In legal and governmental contexts, corruption generally involves the abuse of entrusted power or public office to obtain an improper or illegitimate benefit.
That is why we must also examine conflicts of interest, favouritism, nepotism and abuse of power. Nepotism, for example, occurs when family members receive preferential treatment instead of individuals being selected based on merit, competence and equal opportunity.
At the same time, we must be careful when using the word corruption. Not every instance of favouritism or conflict of interest automatically constitutes corruption under the law. Reaching such a conclusion requires concrete facts, an examination of the circumstances and supporting evidence.
Nevertheless, these practices can damage public confidence in government even when they do not meet the legal definition of corruption. And that public confidence is essential to a democratic society governed by the rule of law.
One of the most dangerous arguments in any society is: “But this has happened before, hasn’t it?” This is how an improper decision can gradually become an accepted practice.
First, an exception is made. Then, that exception becomes a precedent. Over time, the precedent becomes a habit. Eventually, people begin to say, “That is simply how we do things here.”
At that point, citizens, and particularly politicians, government leaders and public officials, must ask themselves an important question: Is what we continue to do actually fair, transparent and in the public interest? Repeating an unjust action does not make it just.
I believe what we teach our students is even more important than answering the original question. We must teach young people to ask more than simply, “Is this allowed?” They should also learn to ask: “Is this fair?” “Who benefits from this decision?” “Who might be disadvantaged?” “Would I accept the same decision if it were made by my political opponent?”
And perhaps the most important question of all: “What would happen to our society if everyone started following this example?”
These questions go far beyond memorising laws and regulations. They encourage young people to think critically, understand democratic principles and recognise the responsibilities that come with exercising power. That, in my view, is what democratic education should accomplish.
Establishing a precedent can be a positive development. A carefully considered and well-founded decision can provide clarity for others and contribute to a fairer and more consistent system.
But precisely because precedents can influence future decisions, those who establish them carry considerable responsibility. A decision made by someone in authority may have consequences extending far beyond the individual case.
That is why I would like my students to understand one essential principle: Setting a precedent is not the same as corruption. However, a precedent deliberately created to circumvent rules, favour certain individuals without legitimate justification or use authority for an improper purpose may indicate an abuse of power or a conflict of interest. Depending on the facts and circumstances, it may even amount to corruption.
Therefore, we should not examine only the decision itself. We must also ask why it was made, who benefits from it, which rules were applied and, most importantly, what happens when others begin following the same example.
A democratic society is not protected by laws alone. It is also protected by people who are willing to question decisions that may appear legally permissible but are not necessarily fair or just. And I believe that is precisely the life lesson our students need to learn today.
If I am wrong, please correct me.
Eugène Maduro
