History is brutally consistent on this point:
when the masterminds of a syndicate remain protected, tragedy does not strike upward—it falls on the smallest and weakest players.
It is a documented structural dynamic seen across criminal networks, corrupt political systems, and captured institutions.
What we are witnessing in the flood control scandal follows this exact pattern.
WHAT RESEARCH AND HISTORY HAVE LONG ESTABLISHED
Criminology and political science describe this phenomenon as ASYMMETRICAL ACCOUNTABILITY—a condition where decision-making power and protection concentrate at the top, while risk, punishment, and exposure are displaced downward.
Studies of organized crime, from the Italian mafia to Latin American cartels, reveal a consistent structure:
• Masterminds remain insulated through political connections, legal buffers, and distance from operational details.
• Mid- and low-level actors absorb the danger. They are arrested, silenced, sacrificed, or eliminated when pressure intensifies.
• Silence becomes a survival strategy, not a moral failure.
Sociologist Diego Gambetta showed that violence and retaliation in such systems almost never move upward. They move downward, where resistance is weakest and consequences are cheapest.
This is exactly why the people closest to the wrongdoing are often the most afraid and the most vulnerable.
THE POLITICAL PARALLEL: CORRUPTION AS A SYSTEM
This dynamic does not belong only to criminal syndicates. Political history shows the same pattern in authoritarian and semi-democratic systems.
Hannah Arendt, writing on systems of domination, observed that fear-based systems do not rely primarily on constant repression from above. They rely on uncertainty below—on making people unsure when, how, or why they might be sacrificed to preserve the hierarchy.
In these systems:
• leaders remain publicly untouchable,
• institutions shield those at the center,
• and expendable figures absorb blame, pressure, and risk.
The tragedy is structural.
THE FLOOD CONTROL SCANDAL
In the flood control scandal, the architecture is painfully familiar. Those who designed, approved, and allegedly profited from the scheme remain distant, insulated, and politically protected.
Those who handled documents, processed releases, signed vouchers, or witnessed irregularities are the ones exposed to unbearable pressure, forced silence, legal vulnerability, reputational destruction, and in extreme cases, personal tragedy.
People who know where the money went, and who led it there, carry a burden that is impossible to bear alone.
If they stay silent, the truth will eventually surface anyway… and implicate them. If they speak alone, the system can easily crush them. This is how captured systems maintain control.
WHY INDIVIDUAL WHISTLEBLOWING IS OFTEN A DEATH SENTENCE
Behavioral and organizational research on whistleblowing (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin) consistently finds that individuals are least likely to come forward when:
• the accused are powerful,
• institutions meant to protect whistleblowers are weak or compromised,
• and retaliation is credible and observable.
In these environments, silence is not enforced by direct threats, but by example. One person suffers consequences—legal, professional, psychological, or worse—and everyone else learns the rule instantly:
The masterminds are protected.
You are not.
WHY COLLECTIVE WHISTLEBLOWING IS THE ONLY RATIONAL PATH
This is where history also offers a counter-lesson.
When accountability systems fail, collective exposure becomes the only viable form of protection.
Political economists call this risk redistribution:
• when many speak together, the cost of retaliation rises;
• when evidence is released collectively, suppression becomes harder;
• when the public stands guard, institutions lose the ability to isolate and silence.
This is why some of the most consequential exposures in history, from corruption scandals to authoritarian abuses, did not begin with lone heroes, but with networks of witnesses protected by public attention.
PEOPLE AS FIREWALL
In healthy systems, accountability flows upward.
In captured systems, it is forced downward, unless interrupted.
When institutions repeatedly shield the powerful while small players absorb the consequences, society reaches a turning point.
At that point, silence is no longer prudence.
It becomes participation. And protection can no longer come from inside the system. It must come from the people themselves.
THE HARD TRUTH
Tragedy among small players is rarely random.
It is often the price of protecting the powerful.
And when those who know the truth are trapped between being silenced by the system, or being crushed by the weight of what they know, the responsibility shifts.
It is no longer just their burden.
It becomes the nation’s responsibility.
Because a system that produces fear downward and safety upward is not merely unjust. It is unstable.
And when that instability breaks, it does not spare anyone—not institutions, not leaders, and not the country itself.
•••
OPINION | ROB RANCES
Disclaimer: This commentary is an analytical and educational discussion of historical, sociological, and institutional patterns observed in corruption cases and governance failures. It does not allege criminal guilt, wrongdoing, or liability by any specific individual or entity. References to events or issues are based on publicly discussed matters and are framed to examine systemic risks, not to make factual determinations of culpability. This piece is intended to encourage public understanding, accountability, and civic reflection, and should not be construed as an accusation or substitute for judicial or investigative findings.
Pinoy Edmonton News 