We live in a state run along bureaucratic lines; this is short for impersonal, distant but professional and fair administration of all state provided services to all members of that state. It is underpinned by the ideals of the rule of law and equality before this law for all and it serves the whim of centralised states. I am tempted to say it also goes hand in hand with democracy but this is not true there are democracies or semi democracies where clientalisum is rife and dictatorships which were bureaucracies indeed draw their power from the perversion of this system.
There are two other forms of social organisations; the first is the cult of the personality or charismatic organisations, and clientalisum a system of organising the state not on neutral, impersonal grounds but on the basis of personal relationships and yes even corruption. Of course those who exist within a client relationship would not see the paying of monies in return for preference not as corruption but merely the way things are done, merely a sign of respect and acceptance of the cost of getting things done.
For some bizarre reason bureaucratic expect all nations, even those who lie beyond the sea of civilised bureaucratic norms, to follow these laws in all their dealings with them. Even more bizarrely bureaucratic societies expect members of bureaucratic society trying to operate in the cliental world to stick to bureaucratic norms. This of course does not happen, businesses men are only business men because they are quick to adapt to different cultural norms and different business environments and thus when face with the need to pay monies to secure deals they will. We should not expect business people to act as cultural ambassadors or moral imperialist spreading the word of anti-corruption across the globe.
I refuse to get into an discussion of morality, paying monies to secure a deal occurs in Britain and whilst I welcome the fact its influence is limited in the sphere of the state, I refuse to label a perfectly functional societal set up as immoral merely because it is alien to the way of life of the state I happen to live in. I also refuse to sacrifice or hamper the business merely because they dear to operate outside the great bastion of bureaucracy or when they do they dear act in accordance with local norms.
The only question of importance to me is weather the state should be complicit in such activity in order to secure international activities. I.e. would it be acceptable for the British state to pay bribes to those countries willing to accept them, in the knowledge that those competing nations are also paying bribes and to this I would answer a solid no. British business or individuals paying monies to gain personal advantage is one thing but the state doing so poisons the state, those civil servants become contaminated with the ideal that money can be exchanged for services. Corruption cannot be allowed to infiltrate that state at any cost; the state must act in this occurrence, better than its people. Now this may mean we will not be able to host various events but this is a small cost compared to the cost of corruption within the state.