Politika
This year, as usual, by the beginning of autumn, the attention of the public has been attracted by publishing of already famous Global Corruption Perception Index (CPI). Not by chance, because this ranking list of Transparency International covers almost all the countries of the world and represents on the global level the top authority document on the status of corruption in the world.True, there are those challenging that authority, claiming that the CPI isn't always realistic. And it might be that some of the countries have been given really too bad marks. That could be, so to say, a result of certain prejudices. However, that possibility should not be overestimated. Evaluation presented in CPI is a result of synthesizing several researches, that is, remarks by international investors and risk analysts, World Bank experts and residents, business people and experts, expressed in marks from 1 (total corruption) to 10 (lack of corruption). The accent is not on absolutely objectivistic (otherwise impossible) measuring of corruption, but on perception. And because it is the perception by relevant factors, it shouldn't be underestimated. The Index is an important factor for international investors when deciding where to place their capital, and for the countries facing large corruption, CPI has a warning value and (should) supports quest for more efficient measures in fight against it.
This year Serbia has received mark 3.0, and it features between the places 90-92nd on the ranking list. The value of the mark and placement is obvious already at first glance. Primarily, it is good that this year's evaluation confirms continuous growth trend. Besides that, of course, the mark 3.0 is better than the last year's 2.8. Finally, it follows the places between 90th -92nd are better than 97th -103rd. But is it sufficient?
Trend of improving the mark is of course, always the good thing. Even this snail-rate progress ( 2004 - 2.7, 2005 - 2.8, 2006 - 3.0), is still better then the opposite. Still, it is obvious that with this dynamics we would need decades for a mark that could be satisfactory.
Mark 3.0 is better than the last year's, but still speaks that we haven't yet crossed the most critical limit. Mark 3.0 and lower is given to states where the corruption is beyond control. We are far away not only from the states with marks of 8.0 or more, speaking that they in an extremely efficient manner fight against corruption, but also from the countries marked with 5.0, meaning corruption brought down to acceptable dimensions.
On the scale between 97th -103rd place in 2005 and 2004, we were mostly accompanied with African and Asian countries. This year we share the 90th -92nd place with Gabon and Surinam. Without underestimation, one could say that another company, that is, comparison should sound more logical. How would, for instance, look the list of ex-socialist countries of Europe? The top belongs to Estonia with 6.7, Slovenia with 6.4 and Hungary with 5.2, and the worst have faired Albania (2.6), Russia (2.5) and Belarus (2.1). We would fair in the lower half, on the thirteenth out of twenty places, with marks slightly better than the worst, but significantly lower than the best ones.
So, regardless of some positive changes, not only CPI, but much more, everyday encounters with results of devastating effect of corruption on the material, moral and every other plan ultimatively require far better results in the fight against corruption.
That, however, has not been challenged by anyone. On the contrary, we are constantly talking about that, we adopt strategies, laws and regulations, we plan new institutions and activities. Yet, desired effects are missing, which might trigger in many a feeling that we're facing an irresolvable problem.
Of course, the problem can be resolved. But the solution can not be achieved based on wishes and paroles, nor can it be procured by witch-hunting, or wind-mill fights. The solution understands full identification of all factors inducing corruption and adequate influence, that is pressure of society and state exerted on them. Specific preventive and repressive measures, confirmed in the world, have to be implemented, having in mind realistic, not projected, virtual context. Sole mentioning of the realistic context necessarily reminds us that we have become a pluralistic society. Whether one likes that or not, political parties are the factor dominantly influencing practically all public works. And the method by which that influence is effected often confirms the contemporariness of the opinion which has been articulated long time ago, in a similar context by Slobodan Jovanovi: Due to the lack of beliefs and principles, the parties try to be successful only for the sake of success, trying to come to power as soon as possible, and to keep it as long as possible. They become enterprises for exploiting the power and as each group lead by egoistic motives, spread corruption around themselves .
It is not realistic to expect a more serious result in the fight against corruption, until (at least some) relevant political parties do not raise the fight against corruption on the level of fundamental principle of their political operations. Of course, it shouldn't be verbally, because they all do so, but showing it practically, consistently, and primarily through the relationship towards their own people in all cases of nepotism, abuse and corruption.Commissioner for Information
