Source: Danas
Fight against corruption - one of the five objectives of the new government
On the infamous global corruption perception index our country has for years been on disturbingly high positions, which it usually shares with African and Asian countries, and with the marks that worry even more. Even the highest mark which we have received so far speaks about the situation in the society in which “corruption got out of hand and represents a system problem. ” Besides, a large majority of the citizens includes the corruption in the circle of the most serious problems we are facing as a society. The fact that the fight against corruption was underlined in the acceptance speech as one of the five most important points of the new government of Serbia's Programme should be hailed and supported. Of course, the fight against corruption is not a recent topic. Since 2000, there has been a number of moves with the intention to ensure anti-corruption effects. Through the amendments in the criminal legislation, along with the classical criminal offence of receiving and giving bribe, we have also obtained a whole group of corruption criminal offences. We have ratified almost all of the relevant international documents. The country has become a member of practically all anti-corruption associations and initiatives. We have obtained fundamental anti-corruption laws in the area of public acquisitions, financing of political parties, conflict of interest and free access to information. We also have the laws on Ombudsman and state audit. We have adopted the National Strategy for the Judiciary Reform and the National Strategy for the Fight against Corruption. Unfortunately, the expected effects have failed. The practical consequences of the amendments in the criminal legislation are minimal. The gap between the initiated and the achieved demands that we ask ourselves a question - are we perhaps deceiving ourselves? And let's consider the arguments of the experts who criticise the “traditional” concept of the fight against corruption well. Particularly those that point at specific consequences of the fact that this fight in the countries such as ours takes place primarily with the assistance and under the watchful eye of foreign donors and monitors. That is why the visible effects have a “better price” and for that reason the authorities of these countries choose to adopt as many laws, strategies and measures in a short period of time as possible and to “confirm” their anti-corruption dedication and productivity. By that and by setting up various anti-corruption bodies, even without any real potential, they deceive not only foreign monitors, but also themselves. Even those who are particularly prone to accepting positions of the radical critics of the “traditional” concept will agree that they make an unpleasant association with regards to our current situation. That is why it is good to know that the critics of the traditional concept not only have well-founded criticisms, but also have proposals worth paying attention to. One of them, Daniel Kaufman, a World Bank expert, claimed several years ago that empirical research suggests that the corruption rate depends less on the traditional measures than on what is colloquially called transparency of the functioning of the authorities. He claims that the correlation between the corruption and the “traditional” anti-corruption measures has not been empirically confirmed, but that a reduced corruption rate is in quite a direct correlation with an increase in the overview of the authorities' functioning. For this reason he believes that good-quality results in the fight against corruption are primarily achieved through the solutions which ensure an openness to public of all the procedures of the authorities, accessibility of the data on the functioning of the authorities to the media and the citizens, and the training of officials and clerks to act and relate towards the public in an appropriate manner. Our normative and factual surroundings seem to me like a real environment for checking and confirming these positions. Numerous things from the practice of the Commissioner for Information point in this direction. For instance, the fact that the Association of Kidney Patients is denied the contract on the overhaul of the haemodialysis devices because it's a “business secret.” Or the fact that trade unions are for the same reason denied the information on the sale of some enterprise. Or the „highly confidential” public acquisitions. Or the fact that “official secret” is used to hide the data on the thefts on motorway road-toll points. Or the “secret” data on the salaries and representational costs of the management of state-owned enterprises. Or the “confidentiality” of all the information from the concession agreement... Of course, corruption is not always and certainly behind each of these examples. But, this opens up the space for a doubt which, when not contested, acts discouragingly upon the creation of a social atmosphere necessary for additional anti-corruption efforts.The author is the Commissioner for Information
