Politicians often manipulate and abuse electors and taxpayers (instead of working for them) to serve their own interest first, and then the interests of their cronies (eg, powerful businesspeople).
Businesspeople often manipulate and abuse investors, employees and customers (instead of working for them) to serve their own interest first, and then the interests of their cronies (among them, politicians).
Politicians and businesspeople aren’t so different after all.
The main difference is that everyone is forced by law to be a taxpayer in a particular nation (and is usually given the right to vote in return), while nobody has to be a client of any specific company or buy any specific products or services.
Because of that, private companies succumb easily to non-violent coordinated efforts (boycotts, strikes, takeovers), market forces, trends, technological change and their own irrelevance or incompetence. On the other hand, a State and its political institutions are, quite literally, bullet-proof: radical change happens rarely in history. In particular, non-violent reform brought about by its subjects (which is the kind of reform good citizens aspire to) is extremely difficult to achieve — often impossible using only the legal tools provided by the State itself.
Thus, the kinds of accountability we demand to those two categories of people are essentially different. Not because one category is per se more virtuous, or more corrupt, than the other — but because the source and legitimacy of their respective powers is so different.
That is not to say that corruption, deliberately lying to stakeholders (read: “taxpayers” or “investors”), abuse of power or other similar infractions can be condoned in either case. Public servants and company-owners alike are liable and should be responsible for that before the law, as is everybody else. But I would argue that in realms outside the law (private morality, religion, political views), politicians are subject to public scrutiny and public action, while business people are not.
Precisely because we are all taxpayers (under the threat of confiscation or prison), we all should have a say in the ideas expressed, and decisions taken, by our rulers: what they think about moral questions, how they spend our money, what their objectives are, etc.
Business owners answer only before their investors, employees and customers — and in that order. Those three groups of people have mechanisms to get their voices heard and their interests taken into account by their respective administrators/bosses/vendors/providers. Those mechanisms are perfectible, no doubt. But they ensure a certain accountability of the leaders, strictly before those who will be directly affected by their business decisions.
However, as a consumer/client, you don’t have the right to impose your view of the world upon the owners of businesses you don’t have a relation with. Once you retire your support for a company (by not using their services or products), you are not part of that corporate environment any more.
Private companies espousing or promoting ideas and behaviours that you consider abhorrent (while within the law) can’t be legally compelled to change their practices or their leadership. Retire your own support for them as a consumer or client, sell your stocks, do a career move, and spend as much effort as you want educating your fellow citizens about the convenience of following suit. Just don’t expect the State or its laws to endorse your position nor to act against a particular person or private company because you happen to hate their worldview.
