AnonymousHe discovered that the promise was broken, schools were d[ e ]stroyed, people had gone to other lands, and the leaders had become corrupt.
How about here??? Why use a past perfect in one and not in the other??
Excellent question.
This has to be read as an enumeration of four states that were discovered.
1. The promise was (in the state of being) broken. (Not the event: Someone broke the promise.)
2. Schools were (in the state of being) destroyed. ( Schools appeared to be in ruins. -- Not the event: Someone destroyed schools.)
3. [ People were not there anymore (state, the result of an event, not an event) because ] they had (previously) gone to other lands. (event)
4. [ Leaders were corrupt (state, the result of an event, not an event) because ] they had (previously) become corrupt. (event)
It was simply the choice of the author to present the facts in this way. We may disagree about whether this was the clearest, most effective way to present the facts, but that is the way he chose.
CJ