I do not intend to point to any specific political party or ideology in this opinion piece; I simply aim to highlight, from a partially academic and personal viewpoint, that institutional corruption is not an accident, nor a passing madness: it is the result of a chain of decisions in which, step by step, the duty to protect the rights of the demos is ignored in order to protect the personal interests of third parties.
Corruption has a nature that is linked to moral and ethical decay within a society. And it spreads through all its members until it dynamites rights and freedoms, until it brings down the system itself. It can be analyzed from cynicism, even from humor, but it is through knowledge and theory that this problem is deactivated. Because corruption is the real problem of any social and political model. The central thesis of corruption is quite well-known in the academic world. Universal and simple in nature, it states that when people who hold elected (political) and public (public employees) office act with ethics and moral responsibility, citizens enjoy their freedoms and rights with complete security; when these responsibilities are commercialized through action or omission, democracy rots from within and the risk increases in a spiral that ends with the death of the system.
From the perspective of political science, it has been determined that power that is not accountable almost inevitably develops incentives to deviate from the public interest to personal interest. Academic literature distinguishes three solutions: vertical controls (electoral), horizontal (institutions that monitor other institutions through law), and social (media, academic centers, and civil society). When these three layers of "accountability" weaken or become merely decorative, the cost of corruption falls. That is, if it becomes riskier to report than to fail to comply, silence becomes the norm and corruption the usual way of proceeding. Mulgan defined the concept from accountability, in the sense of responsibility, and identified several synonyms such as good governance, transparency, or integrity. On the other hand, Rose-Ackerman determined that accountability aimed to combat cases of corruption, nepotism, abuse of power, and other forms of inappropriate behavior.
This is where the organizational dimension (Organization) comes in, as its deterioration exerts immense influence on accountability. Ashforth and Anand called the "normalization of corruption" in an institution three synthesized processes: institutionalization, rationalization, and socialization. It is what Morrison and Milliken called the phenomenon of "organizational silence": which is nothing more than when speaking has a price and remaining silent has a reward. In the public sector, this pedagogy of silence is lethal for the system because the State is not a private enterprise; it administers rights, freedoms, and public resources. The problem lies in the fact that this normalization displaces costs to third parties. These third parties are the citizens who pay their taxes, accept the laws, and act with the faith that the system will always act fairly and legally. That is why I can say that
corruption kills: it kills when unsafe facilities are tolerated, contracts without oversight, or when people gain access to positions of importance based on affinities rather than professional merit (nepotism, patronage system, etc.).
Here Weber enters, who determined that professional bureaucracy was a requirement to achieve the necessary security in the system. The functional autonomy of civil servants serves to prevent the political hierarchy from turning the law into an à la carte menu. Autonomy is, in itself, accountability to the system and citizens. Technical competence, scrupulous adherence to procedures, and the duty to intervene when the law demands it, which is usually a living reflection of society's morals and ethics, are required. This triad (competence, procedure, action) is what comparative law calls the "duty of protection": it is not enough not to cause harm, it must be prevented when one is a guarantor of the system. And every civil servant and elected official is one. Every time one of these figures looks the other way to avoid discomfort, to avoid "problems," or to obtain personal gain, that duty is betrayed and the rights of third parties disappear.Consequently, denouncing internal corruption is an act of public service. And, nowadays, an act of pure heroism. Literature calls them "whistleblowers," associating their actions with objective improvements in the integrity of the public system. But it also entails dangers: formal reprisals (disciplinary proceedings, transfers, adverse evaluations), informal reprisals (isolation, gossip, career blocking), and, on occasion, strategic lawsuits to silence criticism (the well-known SLAPPs). Consequently, the State that asks its public employees to be guarantors must, for consistency, guarantee protection to those who dare to be so when it is most difficult. There is nothing more corrosive than the contradiction between the discourse that praises bravery when denouncing, and the practice that punishes the brave when they dare to do so.
In 2023, Spain approved Law 2/2023, of February 20, regulating the protection of persons who report regulatory infringements and the fight against corruption, transposing Directive (EU) 2019/1937. The Law obliges all public administrations to create a reporting channel for cases of corruption and other infringements, with internal and external access, in order to combat such a social scourge. The regulation guarantees protection for whistleblowers against retaliation (the provisions of the recent Constitutional Court ruling STC 28/2025 apply, which specifies that any action against the whistleblower is considered retaliation per se, so it is up to the Administration to demonstrate that its actions are not related to the reports filed). The Law determines that any report can be made anonymously or not, and the identity of the whistleblower must be protected; that the Administration is obliged to act and respond within three (3) months; or, that it must provide the whistleblower with technical and legal means of protection, as well as for their family members and close associates who may be affected.
I am sharing here the channels of some institutions on the island and invite everyone to use them: Cabildo: https://cabildodelanzarote.canaldenuncias.aranzadi.es/
Tax Network: https://redtributarialanzarote.es/canal-de-denuncia-externa-y-lucha-contra-la corrupcion/
Arrecife: https://arrecife.sedelectronica.es/complaints-channel.1
Teguise: https://centinela.lefebvre.es/public/concept/1888405? access=szn3ozrIbRGbzEn7%2FJp1Di7vf26kHKcP1L26ALQBp9M%3D
Aunts: https://centinela.lefebvre.es/public/concept/2319461? access=z%2FmeFvo5vBjh0OMj8hDIXRSQpShryFjUskTVIRwEGAY%3D
Yaiza: https://yaiza.sedelectronica.es/complaints-channel.1
Tinajo: https://transparencia.tinajo.es/t/p/1868-canal-de-denuncias
It is also worth remembering that the fight against corruption is not a moral crusade, but a risk reduction policy. Fundamental rights are as robust as the rules and the agents (public employees and elected officials) who protect them. The reality is that citizens do not "enjoy" their freedoms by constitutional proclamation, but because a chain of people does their job uncompromisingly, with integrity: the auditor who does not sign an irregular payment, the technician who does not reclassify land in favor of the politician, the police officer who acts impartially and not out of subservience, the politician who assumes that losing friends is cheaper than losing the integrity of their principles. Wherever that chain breaks, rights turn to smoke and citizens pay the price.
The individual responsibility that arises from each person's ethical and moral values is the only reliable antidote to corruption. Defending it should not be a heroic gesture, but a daily practice. Denouncing its face, when it exists, is not a betrayal, but the highest and most demanding form of loyalty: loyalty to the law, to the citizen, and to the very idea of democracy. Because power that is not controlled soon ceases to protect, and sooner or later someone will end up paying for it. I like to recall the words of Dostoevsky: "He who chose silence has already said everything".
Ultimately, the more agents involved who dare to denounce corruption, the fewer will be those who exploit the system for their own benefit to the detriment of the common good. We are all responsible, some more than others. And if we do not consider responsibility as an obligation, we must accept that one day we may suffer the consequences of that same omission of responsibility ourselves.
ALEJANDRO PÉREZ O’PRAY
GRADUATE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND ADMINISTRATION, UNED. SPECIALIST IN SECURITY BY THE FACULTY OF LAW, UNED. OFFICIAL MASTER'S DEGREE IN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, UNIR.