An Interview with Amalia Kostanyan
Chairwoman, Center for Regional Development / Transparency International Armenia
OK: Did the Armenian Government decide to draw up the anti-corruption strategy or was there pressure from international structures such as the Council of Europe or the World Bank?
AK: In February 2002, the World Bank gave about $300,000 to the Armenian Government to put together a group of experts to draft the strategy. In July, there was a conference where the strategy was introduced to NGOs and the media. Then, they revised the strategy and if I'm not mistaken, in January of 2003 it was presented to the international community which expressed their concerns.
However, then campaigning for the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections started and the issue was frozen until afterwards when a new coalition Government was formed. Obviously, there is no consensus among the parties of the Coalition as to how to fight corruption in Armenia.
For example, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaksutiune called for the creation of an anti-corruption agency but others didn't agree. So, the question of having a body in charge of implementing the strategy was left open. The lack of a common approach can also make the strategy very ineffective.
OK: Even while the PRSP was being prepared, the interim PRSP was available for many years on the Armenian Government's web site. Was the initial anti-corruption strategy made available to the public? I know that on 16 July 2003 you wrote a letter to the Prime Minister requesting access to the paper.
AK: As I said earlier, the initial draft of the strategy was given to NGOs in July 2002, and that’s it. Yes, I sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking about the strategy and also to offer our assistance in organizing public discussions but I never received a response.
OK: Regarding the anti-corruption strategy, while there are declarations made about corruption in the tax, customs, educational, political and judicial fields, you recently raised concerns that other areas such as corruption in the military and the environment were not included.
AK: Yes, and this is also true regarding the earthquake region and in fact, other areas. The environment was included in the previous draft but in the final version there are only some measures in the action plan. Also, not enough attention has been paid to areas such as local government and political corruption. However, the point is not whether this version is better or worse than the last one. The point is that even a good strategy can be ineffectively implemented, as was the case in Georgia, for example.
OK: If there is no political will to fight corruption, for example.
AK: Unless I see evidence, I cannot trust any declarative statement.
OK: There was significant media coverage of the first signs of a division in the coalition government when Dashnaksutiune raised its concerns about the strategy and even approached the opposition for their support in calling for changes to the strategy. What changes were made?
AK: I have no such information. What I do know, however, is that the strategy is the result of political bargaining and that representatives from Dashnaksutiune have said several times that in the coming months the paper will be revised again. However, there has been no official Government statement on this matter.
OK: Was Transparency International ever involved at any stage?
AK: As I mentioned before, in July 2002 we were invited to the workshop where we were given an old version of the strategy paper. When we raised questions about certain aspects of the strategy we were told that it had already been changed. What we had been given was about three months out of date.
Nevertheless, eight NGOs including ourselves sent our comments on the strategy but only received a letter thanking us from the expert who was responsible for the sections on customs and tax. However, for your information, in July 2002 there was another workshop supported by the Council of Europe and I remember that there was a representative from GRECO also in attendance.
They spoke about the creation of an anti-corruption body and had invited a lady from the Lithuanian anti-corruption agency to specifically focus on this issue. Maybe the Government considered that this was public discussion and that was it. However, we had no involvement with the new strategy at all.
OK: The Government has at least acknowledged that civil society and the media should play an important role in the implementation of the anti-corruption strategy. However, some news reports suggest that one of the biggest problems facing the successful implementation of the strategy is the fact that officials are unwilling to even acknowledge that corruption exists in their area of Government.
AK: Yes, and that is quite typical. After officials stood up at the presentation of the strategy on 16 January 2004 and said that corruption was a great danger to the nation, they were later approached by a journalist in attendance who asked about the extent of corruption in their ministries. As the media reported, all denied that there was any corruption in the areas they were responsible for.
We had a similar situation when we asked a selection of public officials the question, “who initiates corruption in Armenia?” The majority pointed to state institutions but when asked about corruption in their own departments, only a few admitted that there was any. What they were saying was that the system is corrupt but not individuals. However, who is responsible for that system?
Of course, they say this because if they admit that there is corruption the next step will be to launch an investigation. In fact, there is no sector in Armenia that is free from corruption.
OK: When I speak to some people in the Diaspora, one response is to dismiss the significance of corruption in Armenia and to say that the problem exists everywhere. Some even argue that there is more corruption in the United States.
AK: Let's look at the situation from a global viewpoint. Of course we're all concerned about Armenia because we're Armenians, and yes, corruption exists everywhere. But how much does it influence the average citizen in, say, the US? Unless corruption directly affects someone's life, it generally doesn't concern them that much.
Now, what about the poor, or the children and the pensioners in Armenia? They're not that well informed about the extent of corruption here but they do know that they suffer. They know that senior officials are better off while they live in unfavorable circumstances.
Of course, I'm not against senior officials living good lives. In any normal, civilized country, it is to be expected. However, when people perceive officials to be living a better life at their expense through the open abuse of power that remains unpunished, and when there is no protection of citizens’ rights through the judiciary and legislature, why should people be willing to suffer when public servants are not?
Perhaps people don't care much about corruption in developed countries because while there might be a problem, there is at least diversity in the media and among political interest groups. As a result, there is a risk associated with corruption. That is, the risk that they will be discovered, scandalized and punished. The problem in Armenia, however, is that there is a very low risk associated with corruption.
In any case, corruption in developed countries does not have such a devastating effect as it does here. In Armenia, we are destroying whatever we attempt to create. That is why the issue of corruption is critical for countries like ours and why we need to understand that it is our responsibility to demand radical changes in the way we think and live as a nation.
OK: When people attempt to rationalize corruption, they appear to forget that the average citizen comes face to face with corruption on an almost daily basis. It defines the education and health sectors in Armenia, for example. However, the danger in focusing on these specific areas is that only the 'easy options' get targeted.
AK: I don't agree with this approach because corruption exists from the very top to the very bottom and you can't just make changes at the lower end. Both are dependent on each other and the internationally recognized method of fighting corruption is to detect and prevent corruption at all levels, regardless of position, title or income.
The Armenian Government's Anti-Corruption Strategy Plan can be found online at http://www.gov.am/en/gov/anticorruption/
This interview is one of a series on corruption in the Republic of Armenia. An interview with Sona Ayvazyan, Environmental Policy Expert/Project Director, Center for Regional Development/Transparency International Armenia is also available [click here].
Published by the Armenian News Nework — Groong, 2004.
|
