The second question concerns how a liberal society should go about combating corruption. Does it really make sense to leave the fight against corruption entirely in the hands of the government? However good the administration may be, a society that subscribes to the ideals of liberty should never lose its innate wariness of government authority.
Since the mid-1990s, the international community has adopted a number of conventions against corruption. These include the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (1996), the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (1997), the United Nations Convention against Corruption (2003) and many more. Although they have undoubtedly made a valuable contribution, they are nonetheless still agreements concluded between national governments. Moreover, even the conventions themselves call for measures to promote the involvement of civil society.
The involvement of civil society is always a fine-sounding phrase in whatever context it is used, but it is important to find ways of making it happen. This is because people who have lived under the yoke of corruption for too long can sometimes be rather apathetic and may lack the wherewithal to stand up for themselves. Once again, the theory of enlightened self-interest that was postulated by Tocqueville (1835) and was also implicit from the start in the doctrine of Adam Smith (1759) could provide a basis for more specific incentives.