Source: Glas javnosti
The exceptionally long pre-election campaign has just ended. Over twenty political parties or coalitions with the lists of nearly 4,000 candidates for members of Parliament, worked very hard for over two months to convince the voters that the right, the best, even the only answer to all our questions is to vote for their list. We will soon be able to see the effects of their campaign. And soon after that, we will be able to see how the promises made in the campaign are kept. For many Serbian citizens, the promises regarding anti-corruption action, which dominated the campaign, are particularly interesting.
Considering the good will that was expressed in relation to anti-corruption action, we might say that we shall meet the end of 2007 on a much better position on the Global Corruption Perception Index than the last year's no. 90-92, with Gabon and Suriname. This, of course, provided all or at least most of the given promises are kept. Everybody knows that their value, i.e. the likelihood that they will come true, is relative - to say the least.Nevertheless, it is normal for Serbian citizens to expect that at least some of those promises are kept and this expectation should not be regarded as naive but as a normal, legitimate wish to live in an ordered, responsible society. It is, indeed, not only their wish, it is their right. This is why we should not forget that the campaign is financed from the Budget, i.e. the tax-payers' money.
For this campaign too, over 323 million Dinars were provided from the Budget. One fifth is for all participants in the elections, and four fifths will be shared by the parties or coalitions that have made it to the Parliament, proportionately to the number of the mandates that have been won, to cover their real costs. In our circumstances, this is a lot of money. However, experts say that the campaigners' expenses are much bigger and that some individual campaigns probably cost a few hundred million.
So, the campaign needed a lot of money and it needed it immediately. Few were those who had it, and even fewer were those who were willing to give it away. Those who were able to give such huge amounts may have used a “vow” of the other party that the money, if and when the opportunity arises, will be used in their interest. And those 323 million Dinars of tax-payers' money were provided precisely to prevent this. Are then Serbian citizens entitled to expect that they will get the value for the money?
Was the amount provided sufficient? Should we look for the answer in the environments of those who are spending or those who are providing it? When we divide 323 million by 250 (the number of MPs) we get 1.3 million or so, which is, roughly, the amount that corresponds to four average annual salaries in Serbia. In the country with nearly a million people who are unable to earn any salary, this is something that should not be underestimated.
Campaigners will soon be able to show their (in) correct attitude towards this fact. Their willingness to show their exact costs during the campaign to be covered from the Budget will show how (un) truthful those anti-corruption commitments were. Moreover, they will show the good will to make all other expenditures - and, especially, the sources of financing - available to the public.
