[HPforGrownups] Money, bribery and corruption in the wizarding world

[Ladi lyndi]

No: HPFGUIDX 127353

Emma  wrote:
 
However, it is revealed that Arthur Weasley did not actually 
have to buy his tickets - they were donated by the dodgy Ludo Bagman (whose very name reeks of implied bribery). 

'I like Ludo... He was the one who got us such good tickets for the 
Cup.  I did him a bit of a favour: his brother, Otto, got into a spot 
of trouble - a lawnmower with unnatural powers - I smoothed the whole 
thing over.'3

      Small gifts and favours of this sort seem to be constantly 
traded among wizards.  In The Prisoner of Azkaban Arthur borrows a 
car from work.  In The Goblet of Fire a friend of his attaches the 
Dursley's fireplace to the floo network as a favour.  Arthur says, 
'I've got a useful contact at the Floor Regulation Panel and he fixed 
it for me.'4 
      This suggests, disturbingly, a culture of daily, petty 
corruption in the Ministry of Magic.  This presents the possibility 
of further, more sinister, corruption. 
 
Lynn:
 
I disagree with some of the assumptions and conclusions from this post.  First, the assumption that the World Cup tickets were 'donated'.  Canon does not say that, what is says is "He was the one who got us such good tickets for the Cup."  It could mean that Bagman paid for them or it could mean that Bagman "upgraded" the tickets.  It may also be that these were some of the "freebie" tickets available to VIPs.  At basketball games the guys are each given some tickets to give to friends and relatives and frequently trade with each other when extra people are in town.  After all, the Malfoys didn't pay for their seats either.  Perhaps their seats were Fudge's freebies while Bagman was able to round up some others for the Weasleys?  Just because the Bulgarian Minister wanted another ten seats doesn't mean that he was short of seats, just that he wanted more.  The players came down the middle aisle so we don't know who was on the other side of the aisle.
 
Second, I believe it is a stretch to say that Arthur Weasley borrowed the ministry cars in POA.  He might have borrowed one, but 2?  With chauffers?  No way.  That was the Ministry's doing just as I bet the Ministry paid for the Weasleys to stay at the Leaky Cauldron that night.  It was to protect Harry and how better to protect him without his knowing than have the Weasleys show up and then have Arthur "borrow" a couple of cars.  After all, the following year, when Harry was no longer deemed to be in danger, Arthur couldn't "borrow" cars anymore.
 
Why quibble?  While I agree that there is evidence of corruption/bribery/graft in the WW, I think it is wrong to associate favours one does for friends and colleagues as bribery, graft or corruption.  It must be the sorry person who has never done a favour for a friend.  If it is in one's power to grant a wish, do a favour, help out a bit, then why is that wrong, so long as there is no ulterior motive?  Arthur didn't go to help Moody because he expected something in return, he did it to help someone.  I'm sure he didn't help Ludo's brother with the thought that down the line Ludo would be buying expensive tickets for the whole family to the World Cup.  Rather, he was helping out a friend.  Seems to me, if he was looking for a tit for tat then he could have called in some favours when it came to light that the Ford Anglia had been bewitched.
 
These types of favours aren't petty corruption, they are daily life in every day society.  It's called helping each other out to get through life.  Donating money to buy influence?  Now that's corruption.  Doing things you wouldn't normally do simply to get something?  That's corruption.  Doing something to help someone with no expectation of a return of any kind?  That's the kind of person I like to know.
 
Lynn
 


 

test'; ">
		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]