An Interview with Amalia Kostanyan
Chairwoman, Center for Regional Development / Transparency International Armenia
OK: Let's talk about the nationwide public survey that you conducted from February-March 2002. According to the survey, 80% of respondents acknowledged that there was a problem with corruption in Armenia. When asked who could tackle the problem, 77% of respondents said that the President could, 46% mentioned the Government, 42% said the law enforcement agencies and 13% referred to the Church. Only 9% considered that the Diaspora could play a role. However, the point that you make is that almost none of the respondents considered that they themselves could be instrumental in fighting corruption in Armenia. Is changing people's mentality a key objective for CRD/TI?
AK: Absolutely, and it is a very long-term process. Unfortunately, a significant amount of time, energy and resources will be needed because what we have at the moment in Armenia is a huge gap between the state and the people.
You can argue that this is because we lost our independence many centuries ago or that in Soviet times it was the Communist Party that decided everything but whatever the reason, people do not associate themselves with the state and this is a very critical problem for the current path of development in the country.
People instead lay the blame on the authorities rather than themselves, which is understandable but not very productive. No doubt, it is very difficult to build a newly independent state but alas, people don't see themselves as part of the process of nation-building. Most people instead think that politics is a very dirty business and are unwilling to get involved.
On the other hand, people also don't believe that they have the power to change anything or even that their voice will be heard. Political and economic power is mainly considered as a way to private gain and not as an opportunity to help build the nation. Besides, twelve years have passed and people are disappointed.
They have seen an increase in the level of corruption, the falsification of election results, the concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people, social inequality and the conflict over Nagorno Karabagh.
Armenians are hard-working people and given the right opportunity, they wouldn't leave for abroad. But instead, the country is not following a path of natural development. Of course, you can still see many new hotels, restaurants and boutiques in Yerevan, and this is fine, but the average citizen of Armenia does not see how they can benefit from this. Some may because GDP is increasing, but others are more concerned with seeing visible changes in their day-to-day life.
OK: In Tbilisi you can also see many hotels, restaurants and boutiques so I'm not entirely sure that I view these as being indicative of any significant change. Instead, I would look to signs of any improvement in the democratization process, for example.
AK: Let's look at Georgia. Shevardnadze was the first leader in the South Caucasus to start this declarative war against corruption because he could receive money from international donors and probably because he also had his own political reasons for doing so.
OK: You don't think that he understood that corruption was an obstacle to Georgia's development?
AK: He might of, but he didn't have the power to really implement reform. Probably he understood that corruption has a devastating impact on countries like ours but I don't think he really thought that he could do anything about the situation without making radical changes.
OK: However, Georgia developed its anti-corruption strategy in 2000 -- nearly four years before Armenia unveiled its own -- and on 17 January 2004, Armenia joined the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). Somewhat ironically, Georgia joined GRECO in 1999 and yet, even so, their struggle against corruption failed.
AK: Neither the adoption of the anti-corruption strategy nor membership of any international structure can guarantee any real progress in this field. Of course, we welcome membership of GRECO but as one very prominent representative of the international community in Armenia said to me some time ago, you shouldn't expect any change to occur from outside. People inside the country have to want it themselves.
Until we understand that, any anti-corruption strategy is only declarative and I don't believe that by simply joining GRECO we can say that there is now the political will to fight corruption. Instead, to receive some benefits from membership of the Council of Europe or whatever other influential international structure or organization, a developing or transitional country has to adopt certain legislation.
However, it is not easy to implement that new legislation and we now find ourselves in a situation where, without the political will and institutional capacity to implement reform, even a perfect anti-corruption strategy will just remain something that exists only on paper. That's the problem that exists in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Incidentally, in terms of regional development, some argue that it was Shevardnadze's failure in the fight against corruption that was partly responsible for the November 2003 events in Georgia. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the new Georgian president has already stated that the fight against corruption is one of his main priorities.
OK: In fact, Saakashvili resigned from his post as Minister of Justice in 2001 and became opposition to Shevardnadze precisely for that reason.
AK: Of course, we cannot directly compare the Georgian situation with that of Armenia but it is still quite dangerous to play with anti-corruption rhetoric if you have no intention of implementing reform. Your opponents can use it, for example, when the population becomes more frustrated and also, more politically active.
Now, do you really think that authorities that come to power through political corruption can fight against it? I don't think so. They can adopt as many strategies and laws as they like but if there is no true desire from the top of the governance system to start fighting corruption in Armenia any strategy and law will fail.
OK: What seemed to happen in Georgia was that there were some reform-minded people in the Georgian Government but when it came to the implementation of the anti-corruption strategy, Shevardnadze had to make a choice. He had to choose to align himself with those with money and power, or those who wanted change. He chose the former.
AK: There must be some individuals in the political arena who really understand the need for change in Armenia but probably, they cannot take the risk or are few in number and are anyway prevented from doing so. It's a dilemma for those active in politics -- do you achieve power first before doing the right thing or the other way around?
There is also another problem with the dominance of the executive branch of power in Armenia -- and in fact, other countries in the region -- who will not allow the other branches of government to make revolutionary changes. There are no checks and balances and no separation of power, and as a result the present political-administrative system allows corrupt practices to flourish.
Of course, if we compare the situation with other, more autocratic and highly centralized systems, maybe we are doing relatively better. Even so, I would prefer to compare Armenia with more democratic countries.
OK: If Armenia fails in its attempt to combat corruption, membership of GRECO might also result in a less than favorable image for the country when it comes to attracting foreign investment.
AK: It is already a problem. When I was studying in the US, many Armenians in the Diaspora told me that they would be happy to come to Armenia to invest but only if there was less corruption and less bureaucracy. Why should a businessman from the Diaspora risk his money in Armenia when the conditions are less than favorable?
However, it's not only about investment. It's also about our position in the region and the world. It is also about the future of our nation. We have survived many difficult periods throughout our history so why are we destroying our nation now? I understand that during transition there are many difficulties, and we need to overcome them together, but as an Armenian, I cannot accept the reasons why most people in power put their personal well-being above that of the nation.
OK: Before we talk about the Government's anti-corruption strategy, let's talk about Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index (CPI).
AK: Firstly, let me say that corruption is very difficult to measure and the CPI is not an indicator of how much corruption there is in a particular country -- it is simply the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist. Incidentally, for the Corruption Perception Index, you need to have at least three independent sources of information which is why Armenia wasn't included until recently.
OK: Because Azerbaijan and Georgia were ranked joint 124th (along with Angola, Cameroon and Tajikistan) in the CPI for 2003 and Armenia was ranked joint 78th (with Iran, Lebanon, Mali and Palestine), some people conclude that corruption is therefore not much of a problem here.
AK: First of all, it's a problem because the index we received is typical for very corrupt countries. Yes, according to the CPI results, corruption is higher in Georgia and Azerbaijan but that is not to say that we are doing well.
OK: Yet, in the Armenian Government's Anti-Corruption Strategy Paper, it says that there are signs of a "decline in the level of corruption" even though the Council of Europe stated last week that levels have now become intolerable.
AK: First of all, there is a reference to the BEEPS (Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey) findings which concerns the opinions of businessmen on how corruption affects them. Secondly, in 2002, our respondents said that corruption has increased in the past 5 years and if they were asked today, especially after the recent elections, I would imagine that they would now refer to the high level of political corruption as well.
As for the national anti-corruption strategy paper, a working group formed by a new coalition Government in June 2003 changed the initial strategy in a very non-transparent way and without any public consultation. The strategy was published in December 2003 only after it was approved a month earlier.
OK: One would have hoped that an anti-corruption strategy could have set an example for transparency.
AK: For some reason, even after the positive example of the participatory drafting of the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP), the Government did not follow the key principles of participation and transparency outlined in the anti-corruption strategy itself. In fact, this strategy by comparison has not received much serious attention at all.
It is just one declarative document and a list of measures that are not always consistent within the context of the strategy paper. There are no mechanisms for public participation and certainly no mention of any coordination. The Government needs to revise the strategy after broad public discussion if it is to be considered credible.
|
