The only reason why I would say that internal checks and balances are as good as none is primarily because of the very innate nature of human beings.

While the idea of an internal system of checks and balance is plausible in theory, practically, it is not plausible because it’s too easy to abuse the system. Without a third part watching, partisanship, biasness or even corruption can creep in much more readily. When something is done internally, it is easy to cover up anything because it will not be brought out onto the public domain.

What’s the big deal about bringing things out on the public domain? My opinion is simply, the fear of being publicly judged. If there is one thing that humans value more than their life, it is their reputation. No one likes to be remembered for being a villain. I contend that everyone would like to be remembered, to varying degrees, as a martyr of sorts.

For some people, the approach to being remembered as a martyr is to lead a clean and honest life as far as possible. For others, the approach is to appear to lead a clean and honest life as far as possible by concealing their trangressions and mistakes. It is precisely because of the existence of the latter that internal checks and balances don’t work. In order to ensure that people do not turn corrupt, it is necessary to exploit the fear of reputation ruin.

This is why companies are required by law to hire external auditors. Internal audits will never suffice, because it is not in the interest of the internal auditor to present ugly information that would affect his bonus, or even his job. As unfortunate as it may sound, human beings need some form of deterrent to prevent them from stepping out of the line. This probably explains why laws and legal systems were developed.

While companies can be regulated by law, it is perhaps harder to regulate governments, since they are the ones with the power to make the law. Corrupt governments will tailor the law to their own advantage to prevent misdeeds from getting out onto the public domain while maintaining a clean facade. While institutions or committees can be set up to investigate corruption, it is still easy to cover things up, since both the target and the originator of investigation are one and the same.

In my opinion, the best way to weed out corruption in governments is not to do it with a strict set of internal rules, but rather, with a democracy. In a true democracy, most political parties have a fair chance of being elected, and this is the beauty of the system in fighting corruption. Let’s take the United States as an example. The two big parties are the G.O.P and the Democratic party. The balance of power is so delicate that one party seldom has a huge advantage over the other. The balance can easily tip from one side to the other side every few years.

The ease in which power can shift is the best corruption deterrent. When one party falls out of power, you can bet that the incoming party will scrutinise what’s left carefully. This is because firstly, it is dumb to take the fall for someone’s misdeeds and secondly, it’s a political gain to find evidence that your opponent has engaged in corruption. These motivations are superior to having graft fighting institutions.

Another way to keep corruption in check is a free press. A press that has no fear on reporting is a huge deterrent because once a story is published, it can affect public opinion. One’s reputation can easily spiral upwards or downwards. There will be huge motivation to be clean and honest because of the power of the press to influence public opinion.

If one is truly sincere in fighting graft and corruption, the best way to do it is probably through the establishment of a true democracy, where freedom of speeech is protected. It’s also a much cheaper way than to set up and maintain corruption fighting institutions and legions of graft busters.