International Anti-Corruption Day – 9th December
Yesterday, December 9th, was designated by the United Nations as “International Anti-corruption Day”, as long ago as in October, 2003, when it passed the United Nations Convention against Corruption. I don’t think it has been well advertised and, to be honest, I almost missed it this year. The first I knew was when I saw a post on Twitter from one of the prominent younger Kyrgyz politicians, congratulating his “followers” on the occasion. I have made sure to write it into next year’s diary already so that this doesn’t happen again. The convention was originally signed by 140 countries, (including Kyrgyzstan), and it has since been ratified by a total of 148 – which means that some others have also adopted it. – especially as some of the original signatories still haven’t, as far as I am aware, done so. It contains chapters with provisions on:
- the prevention of corruption, (with attention to the involvement of public and private sectors, non-government and community based organizations),
- the criminalization of corrupt practices, (requiring states to establish criminal and other offences to cover a wide range of acts of corruption, if these are not already crimes under domestic law, covering not only basic forms of corruption such as bribery and the embezzlement of public funds, but also trading in influence and the concealment and laundering of the proceeds of corruption.);
- International cooperation, (for example in the prevention, investigation, and the prosecution of offenders) and
- the recovery of assets, (which is, as the UN website points out, “a particularly important issue for many developing countries where high-level corruption has plundered the national wealth, and where resources are badly needed for reconstruction and the rehabilitation of societies under new governments”, such as the situation in which Kyrgyzstan finds itself following this year’s April Revolution) .
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?” 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.
Every year since 1995, the organization Transparency International has conducted surveys to assess the extent of corruption around the world. The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) is a benchmark which combines the results from a number of different surveys, (in 2010 there were 13 such components), 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.
In this year’s survey Kyrgyzstan occupied the 164th place, out of 178 countries, (together with the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea and Venezuela), with an overall score of 2, (on a scale of 0 to 10).
This is almost the same as in previous years and shows that little seems to have changed over the years.
The report comments that: “With such level and volumes of corruption, Kyrgyzstan cannot progress, can make neither economic, nor scientific, nor technological, nor social breakthrough. Corruption, remaining as it is now, will continue eating up the resources that could be invested in the future of the country.”
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 – and there have been a few high ranking cases such as that of Feliks Kulov, who was convicted and imprisoned for corruption but following the 2005 Tulip revolution, the conviction was quashed.
The general impression is, however, that low level employees are sometimes caught and prosecuted, whilst their high ranking superiors are rarely ever. The local press does, however, sometimes reports cases being investigated and individuals either resigning or being dismissed. Despite this, the emphasis seems to have been on establishing a legal framework rather than the implementation of measures to combat corruption.
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.
In its Mission Statement, the International Business Council, (IBC), states that it : “supports the ten principles of the UN Global Compact, setting core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, environment and anti-corruption” and that it encourages members to embrace, support and enact these principles within their sphere of influence.
Yesterday, Roza Otunbaeva reaffirmed the government’s commitment to eliminating corruption in a video address to the participants of a round table discussion on monitoring the hot lines of government agencies. She pointed out that ”public supervisory boards” are being piloted in 10 government agencies, which will oversee work of agencies and how public funds are spent; that civil servants are now being hired only on a basis of open competition; that “lie detectors” are used in State Tax and Customs Services; some of the biggest companies – particularly in the energy sector – are being audited “for the first time”.
Bishkek