Little better is just not good enough

Source: Danas

On the eve of publishing this year's Index of corruption perception

Rodoljub Sabic

Personal attitude

At the end of the month global anti corruption network non governmental organization Transparency International will publish its yearly “Index of corruption perception”. This event-simultaneous publishing of this respectable specific ranking list of corruption in many countries- always attracts great attention of the general public and media, as well as authorities. With a good reason, since the position of a country relating to index, and particularly its ranking, does not carry a mere abstract significance to it. For many, especially poor transitional countries, it is of utmost importance that the good position and ranking on the Index, is not only carried over to the international improvement of country's reputation but also onto the field of foreign investments    

At this ranking list, we shared position 90-92 with Gabon and Surinam with evaluation mark of 3, 0. This mark (on a scale from 1-10) signifies corruption as a systems problem, which is out of control. Naturally, this ranking and mark are far from good. On the contrary, obviously they are such that they are not to be approved of. Unquestionably, we should work towards substantially correcting both of them, particularly the mark.

What are our ranking and mark going to be in this year's list?

It is very important that we make the final step over the 3.0. For objective and psychological reasons, we must leave behind the mark which is at the limit of critical, in the worst zone. It is very good that we can hope this year to be able to succeed in this. The hope is not only an object of a wish, but a realistic supposition. To substantiate this, we can name a few big police actions against corruption. And some obvious results, of the improved system of public procurement, though still imperfect. As well as some, still unfinished legal cases. Also, certain minor steps towards improving free information access.

So, there are realistic chances to get a better mark than 3.0 this year, which is of course good .But, we need to be realistic. In case of a better mark, it would still be of concern. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate reasons and consequences of laisser- faire attitude towards improving chances to better our mark on the Index, among other things. It is a question of achievable pragmatic tasks, the failure of which is difficult to justify. Regrettably, there are many such unfinished tasks both from the international community, as well as the ones we have set out to achieve ourselves.

In the fall of 2006, the biggest anti corruption state -GRECO, sent us 25 suggestions for advancement of anti corruption mechanisms with execution date to the end of the year. Needless to emphasize that monitors of GRECO, while establishing recommendations and deadlines, had in mind realistic suggestions that were not only useful to us, but acceptable, i.e. achievable. And yet, the majority of recommendations, is not, or is partially fulfilled. It is clear, that this attitude does not contribute to the seriousness of anti corruption efforts of our government. These GRECO recommendations are binding, and no member of the Council of Europe, especially not the presiding one-being Serbia at the moment, should without damage to the image, allow it to disregard them. Already in the fall of 2005 we introduced laws in which we included in our legal system Government auditing institution and a civil right advocate, two government bodies which all over the world represent significant contribution in the fight against corruption and abuse. Even though according to law they were supposed to be in function a year ago, they are still not. No comment necessary. Regardless of the probability of finding justifications for such mishaps or not, we should admit the reality of missing out opportunity to improve our mark in the Index of anti corruption.  However, as a comfort, with a mark of just over 3.0 we would be able to move away from the critical zone, and to confirm a positive trend along the way. Namely, since we have been observed and monitored by Transparency International, there is somewhat of an improvement trend. From 2001, since we have been evaluated, in the catastrophic period of Milosevic, at inherited 1, 3 via 2, 3 2, 7 2, 8 we have arrived at last year's 3, 0. No doubt that, especially in the last few years, the advancement was slow, but this is surely better than stagnation or regression.

It is certainly not unimportant to confirm this positive trend, this year as well. For a more complex image of us, this positive trend, or positive tendencies, under certain conditions, could be as important as the evaluation of the situation.

In any case, good chances are that our standing in the Index of corruption perception will be better than last year's. Yet, we should not disregard the fact, that the improvement in the Index in the previous three years was a mere 0.3. Therefore, the result and a mark, slightly better than last years, other than a reason for content should also represent an opportunity to ponder on the question asked, third year in a row.

How long will it take to reach the bearable 4, 0 or acceptable 5, 0?

Could we go faster? Generally, it is not advisable to answer a question with a question; this is the situation however where it seems logical. How much is our general public informed on what is hiding behind numerous business and official secrets? What do they know about confidential public procurement including the ones done by system of direct deal? How much is the information on privatization or foreign investment in the public resources accessible to the public? What do they know about marketing and advertising expenses of public companies? What is known about donations and gifts paid for by the public funds? No further examples necessary. The length of the list of similar interesting questions leads to an answer at hand. Such answer long time offered by numerous experts and good anti corruption experiences of other countries is-we can work better and faster, provided that we radically expend access to all information regarding the spending of the public money and goods.