This article examines why high-profile corruption prosecutions often deepen political conflict rather than restore trust in democracy. Drawing on examples from democracies and dictatorships worldwide, it argues that anticorruption efforts, although normatively desirable, face three interrelated dilemmas: legal heterodoxy, politicization, and backlash. Because high-level corruption is difficult to prove, prosecutors and judges frequently stretch procedural and evidentiary norms, inviting accusations of lawfare. These perceptions are compounded when partisan publics interpret judicial decisions through political lenses, undermining the judiciary's legitimacy as a neutral arbiter. Overzealous or highly publicized crusades may also provoke institutional retaliation by threatened elites, weakening anticorruption frameworks and eroding democratic institutions. Relying on cases from Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia, the article shows that vigorous anticorruption can paradoxically foster cynicism, polarization, and antipolitics. Ultimately, the article calls for reflection on how societies can pursue accountability without destabilizing democratic consensus.
Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos (Tue,) studied this question.