The point isn’t whether there is corruption or not. In any government there is always some degree of perceived corruption. The point is the prevalence of corruption. Without some form of objective measure claiming corruption is largely meaningless, because there is nothing specifically identifiable to change.
> The point is the prevalence of corruption. Without some form of objective measure claiming corruption is largely meaningless, because there is nothing specifically identifiable to change.
This is particularly tone deaf in light of the subject matter of the article. I can point to specific things that happened and say "that should not be permitted" or "this is evidence of a corrupt system that is not holding itself to account." I can do this before I know precisely how often it's happening, and it would be wrong not to do that.
