A Duchess makes the news
This week saw revelations in a Sunday newspaper about a “Sting” operation, where a journalist pretended to be an international businessman and recorded the Duchess of York “selling access” to her former husband, Prince Andrew – who has a sort of “roving ambassador” for British Trade and Industry. For some five hundred thousand pounds, it was reported, she would arrange to open doors for the businessman so that he could make contacts and “do deals”.
As a Brit, I am often asked for my “take” on various stories about the United Kingdom which appear in the news. Most of the time it is a question about football, (such as: what do I think about Chelsea becoming League Champions), but in recent times the topic has been as varied as the extreme weather conditions, or the results of the general election.
I was surprised, therefore, that the MP’s expenses scandal in the UK actually raised little interest, here … just once twice I had to field wry comments about “politicians on the make” and “there’s corruption everywhere”. Whenever the topic does come up I have to admit that there is corruption everywhere – even in the UK … although people here seem to think and act as if it is a specifically Kyrgyz phenomenon.
Consider a few names: Ivan Boevsky, John De Lorean, Enron, Nick Leeson, Lehman Brothers, Bernie Madoff, Robert Maxwell, John Poulson, … and that’s just a sample …
To be fair, although the Duchess apparently said that Andrew had told her to ask for 500,000 … she also said that he “never took a penny” and was “whiter than white” … so, it would seem that she knew what she was doing at the time. Afterwards, she “came clean” straight away – apologized and said how she regretted her “lapse of judgment”. As soon as the affair became public, that is … when all could see the video of the “transaction” over a bottle of red wine. What a pity it had come to that.
Once again, I steeled myself and prepared to answer questions and deal with jibes about “perverse Albion”. Once again, I was spared any embarrassment by the apparent lack of interest in the story. The people here were too busy considering their own, Kyrgyz, scandals than worry about one woman, who admitted that her finances were in a poor state.
You see, the story broke at about the same time as the Telephonegate scandal here in Kyrgyzstan, with speculation about matters like four hundred thousand dollar bribes; phantom, non-existent, transfers of money into the bank accounts of leaders of the interim government; “appropriation” of a million dollars … and so on. As a result of these various revelations that seem to come in a constant stream, and as a result there has been s lot of discussion and comment here about the prevalence of “corruption” in the country.
There are many definitions of the word “corruption”. To many people, the word is synonymous with “bribery”, but in fact this is only one aspect of corruption. Corruption can involves doing something, (or not doing something), with a view to private gain – especially using a public office to influence events in favour of one party in return for some advantage – not necessarily financial.
Corruption can take several forms, such as: the public official (traffic policeman, tax inspector, etc.) pretending to find an infringement of some rule (which is not necessarily that difficult given the way some laws and regulations are phrased) and then accepting a payment (bribe) to overlook the offence; or the public official expecting, (demanding), and accepting payment for signing a particular document (license, permission, etc.), or to decide a question in favour of the person making the payment; the official who uses information gathered in the course of his employment for other purposes; the official using the power and prestige of their office to obtain favours, property etc. that would not others be given to them … and so on.
There is a general impression that corruption is rife in Kyrgyzstan. An article on the subject in one of the local (government), newspapers, (Slovo Kyrgyzstana – the Word of Kyrgyzstan), ran under the headline “When was the last time you took a bribe?, … or paid one?” I found that quite interesting … not just the fact that corruption seems to be an accepted fact of life – but that someone was thinking of it as involving two people – the person who “took the bribe” … and the one who gave it. Technically, here it is not only against the law to take brides, it’s also illegal to pay one.
It has been said that court decisions can be bought, that official posts (tax and customs posts, even governors of oblasts) are “sold” by those in authority. It was allegations such as these, amongst other things, which helped to bring the regime of President Akaev into disrepute and led to the Tulip Revolution which overthrew his government and led to the Easter Revolution which overthrew his successor, Kurmanbek Bakiev.
My personal experience in this respect is, fortunately, fairly limited … perhaps because, basically, we don’t pay bribes. If I am asked, or if it looks as if I am going to be asked about a bribe, I always explain this policy by saying that we don’t have a “Chorniy Kassa” – a “black account”. We only have one set of accounts – official accounts. Any payment has to be accounted for properly. Therefore, I don’t have a “slush fund” that I can use to make such payments. This is not the whole story, of course, apart from the fact it is illegal – and basically just “wrong” – it also seems to me to be pretty stupid, because if you pay once, then you end up having to pay over and over again … However, this “practical” excuse usually serves the desired purpose …
I think that, now, we are known for trying to do things “by the book”, and so people don’t even bother asking about the subject, or even hinting (there’s always a story … a hint … never a direct request or demand) … as they know what the answer will be. Our staff know my attitude and so, even if they know that something could be “fixed” with an “official payment”, the most they will do is tell me that this is what a local person would do …
A particular problem always arises with the “grey questions” … the “thank you” for doing something quickly … a box of chocolates or bottle of Champagne for the minor official who moves the application from the bottom of a pile, where it will, otherwise, sit forever. The Americans call these “facilitation payments” … and they are not deemed as serious as a payment to, for example, a senior official. A local survey has also shown that most people here do not think of these as “corrupt”.
Actually, the problem is not always a question of whether corruption exists … rather there is a much greater psychological one … the fact that there is a perception that it exists, that it’s accepted as a fact of life, which is learned even in the early days of school. I hear, for example, stories about schoolteachers and university lecturers who will give a good mark whether or not the student was in class … in return for a certain consideration. Is it any wonder that employers always look twice at any diploma?
Anyway, each year since 1995, the organization Transparency International has conducted surveys to asses the extent of corruption around the world. The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) is a benchmark which combines the results from 16 different surveys to obtain a Index of how corrupt a country is perceived as being. A score of 10 represents a “highly clean” society whereas a score of 0 indicates a highly corrupt one. In some countries, it not possible to apply all the surveys and so a minimum of three is required for the country to be included in the annual survey’s published results. For several years the Kyrgyz Republic were omitted from the table of rankings, but in 2005 the country occupied joint 130th place in the CPI with a “score” of 2.3, (on a basis of 5 surveys) along with Burundi, Cambodia, The Republic of Congo, Papua New Guinea and Venezuela. Although this represented a slight improvement on the score obtained in 2004, (2.2), the country slipped from joint 122nd place in the overall table of rankings.
There are other surveys and attempts to identify the scale of corruption in the country. The Investment Round Table and other non-government organizations have organized various activities and surveys within the country. A World Bank report issued in 2006 found that corruption had increased in the period 2002-2005. About half the firms surveyed said that bribes were common.
Measures being undertaken to combat corruption – especially in public life. Public officials – and members of their immediate family – have to report on the level and sources of their income. Laws are in place under which officials who act inappropriately to their official duties can be prosecuted – but the World Bank survey reported that there had been no such prosecutions – although there have been some very high ranking cases and Feliks Kulov was convicted and imprisoned for corruption but when he became the Prime Minister, the conviction was quashed. The local press sometimes reports cases being investigated and individuals either resigning or being dismissed.
The emphasis, however, seems to have been on establishing a legal framework rather than the implementation of measures to combat corruption. However, in 2006 a new “coalition” against corruption was established by the government and a number of Associations have joined with it, committing themselves to providing information, running information and educational campaigns and other measures.
Its not clear how effective such measures are … but, judging by the general impression that people have here, and abroad, (as measured, for example, by the TI survey) … not much.
Then again, we have a new government – albeit a temporary, provisional, interim government. If they can get their act together, then, who knows, it could be the start of something new … Kyrgyzstan has the chance to make a new start, a new beginning … but that will require more than a few training sessions, educational campaigns, and so on. It needs a change in psychology, a change in society that makes any form of corrupt practice unacceptable … and that in turn relies on a general improvement in living standards.
Perhaps, because everyone’s attention has been concentrated elsewhere and there has been so little comment of discussion of the Duchess’ antics here in Kyrgyzstan, I haven’t had the chance to discover what the general opinion is about the deal that she was trying to broker. I suspect, however, that people wouldn’t be that surprised … as I said, this sort of thing is taken for granted here.
Bishkek