The imbroglio over Paul Wolfowitz ended strangely on Thursday with the announcement that he would resign the presidency of the World Bank in June. For days now, it has seemed that Mr Wolfowitz’s most ardent detractors were making the best case for him to stay, while Mr Wolfowitz was lobbying for his own dismissal. Both sides claimed to have the good of the bank at heart. But the good of any institution is the good as an interested party sees it; those who invoke it often wind up showing their own side’s most serious flaws.

Mr Wolfowitz’s foes charged him with corruption, with using his position to win salary increases for his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a British staffer. The denouement of the affair shows these charges to have been flimsy. Ms Riza could not remain at the bank once Mr Wolfowitz was hired. Mr Wolfowitz asked to recuse himself from Ms Riza’s salary and job arrangements. Once the board rejected that request, he could claim a certain leeway to find her employment at the State department. It was the Washington Post’s leak of Ms Riza’s salary – $193,590 – that made the controversy public.