Political Corruption is Necessary for Speedy Social Progress

First I restate myself as proponent of the topic, Affirming that "Political Corruption is Necessary for Speedy Social Progress" Next I provide the following definitions: Political Corruption: "The use of political powers in actions that are not in keeping with social standards or for personal gain" Social Progress: "The change of social standards, To be regarded as for the betterment of all people" On to the case itself Political corruption finds itself as one of the most hated realities of modern, And ancient politics. Those corrupt tend to favor only themselves and act only in their own benefit. On the contrary, However, In order to break social norms to improve society, One must first break the social norms within government. My first major argument is that corrupt actions can be used to directly press social progress. An example of this being can be taken to a very gray area, With lobbying and bribing. A meta-debate may be, "is it immoral to break previously established morality, If both the outcome and the intention are good" or "Is lobbying an act of corruption". Bribing can be used to push a political agenda, And simultaneously would be considered corruption. There is no reason that this political agenda can't be in favor of social progress, Especially when that social progress can benefit themselves. When acknowledging this, One can note the history of a beloved United States president, Lincoln. Lincoln and administration had utilized bribery to gain the votes required to pass a morally accepted act, One hailed today as one of the great progress points of the era. So thus is removed the argument that corruption hasn't led to social progress, And given that it has happened, It can happen again. My second major argument is that corruption does not necessarily harm the average person. It is absolutely true that, In general, People dislike corruption, But there is no evidence that states that corruption has to be harmful. Politicians could use office for personal gain, But this may not hurt anyone to a degree, Less those that have harmed others. In fact, In this way corruption can be used in a sense of social justice, Rather than a barrier. Though conceded: "politicians can use corrupt means to create in general harm for society", This does not play back into the topic. The topic clearly notes how corruption is necessary for quick social progress, Not that it cannot be used for personal means. Here clearly thrown out is any vague argument that corruption is bad for the people, Or worsens the lives of people. Third major argument is Social Progress is reliant on social interpretation, Unless it happens legally in which case it can be forced to occur much faster. The implementation of a law can take but a few weeks if people are already in place. On the other hand, People may take generations to change opinions about social topics. Using corruption to prepare for and allow laws to pass in favor of social change is the fastest way to insure the stability of this social change. Allowing natural progression can only permit national recession and naturally being slow. Social progress is reliant on interpretation, So people will only take action only when others will also take action and it is interpreted as morally correct to do so. Because of corruption, Which under some circumstances could be regarded immoral, It ignores this moral bound to slow change. Instead opting in for quick change, Relating and cross applying the argument leading this. The final warrant under this argument is that the false inverse denies. If political corruption is not present, Government will naturally resist social change. This, Logically, Leads to slower social change up until the point where politics come back into play. While standard politics is not necessarily considered corruption, And will not be here, It must be noted that often times the non-corrupt government only switches sides because its convenient for the voters. Government is present to, In part, Rip off the people. This is a clear way to "rip off" the people living within an area. The fourth and final argument is that corruption leads to a demand for change, Even when not directly pushing for it. The corrupt, If discovered, Can be the catalyst for a political or physical rebellion to overtake and change the governing body. People may find that living under a corrupt government is morally repugnant, And decide that they are to be removed. Given that the people would have the physical ability to remove them, It is plausible that so would be done. A change in government has the ability to completely redefine the social standards of the body previously governed. This new group of people can instate the social norms previously accepted, Or wanted, By the people but never received. In overview, Corruption whether considered proper or improper can be the quickest lead to social progress in the eyes of the general populous. On an off debate note, I apologize for any inconsistencies with other debates on this page, I did some searching and this is what I came up with. This is my first debate on this site, And I wanted to bring something up that hadn't been discussed, Even if just to bring it to light. Additionally on a notably OFF DEBATE NOTE, I personally do not believe that corruption is proper, Only that it can, In some ways, Lead to a better world in the long run. Also I apologize for how long this is, I just had to type something, I suppose.