Media review: How Democracies Fail to Confront Corruption

 At the Edge of Accountability 

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump, who himself has faced 88 criminal and civil indictments and was nonetheless elected to a second term, issued a public demand that Israel’s judicial system drop all charges against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump called the trial a “travesty of justice,” labeling the Israeli legal proceedings a “witch hunt,” and implied that U.S. aid to Israel might be contingent on ending Netanyahu’s prosecution. This unprecedented intervention—an indicted American leader defending an indicted Israeli leader, who is also facing war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court—raises a profound question: How does democracy, if it is to be taken seriously as a system of values and not merely of process, guard against corruption and the rise of authoritarian figures cloaked in democratic legitimacy? This moment is not just politically volatile; it exposes uncomfortable contradictions within how democracies perceive themselves and others.

The indictment of elected leaders in democracies such as Israel and the United States raises difficult and urgent questions about the integrity of democratic systems. When prime ministers or presidents face criminal charges—whether for corruption, abuse of power, or other serious offenses—it is natural to wonder whether democracy has failed to produce ethical and responsible leadership. But while such developments highlight vulnerabilities in democratic practice, they also reveal certain institutional strengths. Democracy does not guarantee virtuous leadership; it guarantees the opportunity for accountability. Whether that opportunity is seized—or manipulated—depends on the strength of institutions and the moral commitment of both leaders and citizens.

One of the core principles of a functioning democracy is that no one, however powerful, is above the law. The fact that legal institutions in places like the United States or Israel can bring charges against sitting or former leaders speaks to the resilience of the rule of law. In authoritarian systems, leaders often operate with impunity; in democracies, they may still face scrutiny and legal consequences. In this respect, the indictment of a head of state can be viewed not as a failure of democracy, but as evidence that democratic institutions are, at least in part, doing their job.

However, this view becomes more complicated when we consider how democracies respond to similar situations in different parts of the world. When elections in the Global South produce leaders with questionable records or populist agendas, Western democracies are quick to dismiss those outcomes as the result of “sham elections” or “corrupt processes.” Yet when similarly compromised figures rise to power within the West—figures under indictment, or credibly accused of serious misconduct—those same governments often insist that the outcome must be respected as the will of the people. They demand deference to the democratic process at home, while undermining or delegitimizing it abroad. This double standard reveals a deeper truth: in many cases, democracy is treated less as a value system than as a political instrument—embraced when convenient, disregarded when not.

Such inconsistencies are damaging not only to international credibility, but to democracy itself. If democratic legitimacy is defined not by values—such as accountability, justice, and equal representation—but by outcomes that serve particular interests, then democracy becomes hollow. The insistence that democracy must be respected when it produces indicted or corrupt leaders in Western nations, while being denied that legitimacy elsewhere, exposes the erosion of democratic ethics. It becomes clear that the principle of democracy is sometimes wielded more as a shield for power than as a reflection of shared values.

Moreover, in deeply polarized societies, even the mechanisms of accountability begin to fracture. Voters may see legal indictments not as a signal of wrongdoing, but as a partisan attack. In such an environment, democratic institutions remain formally intact, but their moral authority is weakened. Leaders who are under investigation—or even convicted—may be rewarded with public support rather than rejection. Far from being disqualified, their defiance becomes a badge of honor. This speaks not only to the failings of political elites, but to a broader cultural crisis in democratic societies: the erosion of civic norms, the rise of partisan loyalty over public ethics, and the loss of a shared commitment to the common good.

While the indictment of elected leaders does not necessarily prove that democracy is broken, it does serve as a warning. It reveals the tension between democratic form and democratic substance—between holding elections and cultivating a culture of accountability and ethical governance. The fact that such tensions are more readily condemned in the Global South than confronted at home suggests that democracy, in the hands of powerful nations, is often invoked more as a geopolitical tool than as a universal standard.

Ultimately, the health of democracy cannot be judged solely by whether elections occur, or whether leaders are indicted. It must be measured by the integrity of institutions, the honesty of public discourse, and the degree to which citizens demand responsibility and justice from those who govern them. Democracy may still provide the tools to hold leaders accountable, but those tools are only effective if people are willing to use them—not selectively, not cynically, but consistently, and in defense of the values democracy is supposed to serve.