An Interview with Amalia Kostanyan
Chairwoman, Center for Regional Development / Transparency International Armenia

The Center for Regional Development/Transparency International Armenia (CRD/TI Armenia) is a non-governmental organization that focuses on promoting an accountable and transparent governance system, increasing public awareness on reform processes and encouraging civil society participation in policy decision-making.

The activities of the organization are implemented through close cooperation with other NGOs, government institutions and the international community in Armenia and the region.

CRD was established in July 2000 and was officially recognized as Transparency International's contact/partner organization in Armenia in November 2000. In May 2001, CRD was given the status of a Chapter in Formation and in October 2001 it became a fully fledged National Chapter of Transparency International.

This interview was held at the CRD/TI Armenia office on 3 December 2004 in Yerevan, Republic of Armenia.

 

ONNIK KRIKORIAN: How would you assess 2004 in terms of the general fight against corruption and CRD / Transparency International's work in Armenia ?

AMALIA KOSTANYAN: It has been a very active year in terms of "fighting corruption" and at first glance, much has been done. To begin with, Armenia joined the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and an anti-corruption council headed by the Prime Minister was established. An anti-corruption commission was also formed with the involvement and participation of NGOs as well as representatives of the legislative and executive branches of government and a special anti-corruption division was created inside the General Prosecutor's Office.

The year has also been very active with various NGOs and other organizations including political parties declaring their willingness to fight corruption. Several studies and public surveys on corruption-related issues have been published and a number of seminars, round table discussions and international conferences have been held.

It has also been a very active year for CRD / Transparency International. We completed a number of projects in the field of education and the environment as well as a report on the National Integrity System in collaboration with Transparency International in Berlin and the Teesside Business School in Great Britain . However, while it was a year when something happened, it is still difficult to really evaluate or distinguish what was positive or constructive and what was not. Therefore, it is still difficult for us to understand whether the fight against corruption is something genuine rather than declarative and if it is difficult for us, it must be even more so for the general public.

Nevertheless, because there was more information and development in this area, the year was actually quite intense. In the past, for example, opposition newspapers occasionally touched upon corruption issues but now, because it's a state priority, it's as if everyone has been "given permission" to report on these issues. However, while providing society with an opportunity to discuss corruption is a start, it is only one way to deal with the problem and something else also needs to happen.

OK: Do you think this increased media coverage is having a positive effect?

AK: Yes, because first of all, we need information. However, the issue is often politicized in Armenia because we have such a polarized media that takes extreme positions in support of the opposition or government or along lines dictated by party-affiliation and business interests. Therefore, if you want to form an accurate picture of what is happening in Armenia , you need access to at least ten different sources of information. Only then can you analyze everything you've read to form a clearer picture of what is actually going on.

Because of this, I have to mention with great regret that there is still very little professional coverage of specific cases of corruption in the media and that's a pity. Instead, the media is used quite openly to attack political opponents. Therefore, people need to be able to distinguish between what is demagogical and against whom accusations of corruption are made. If not, there is the danger that people might get fed up by the end of the year because the public also expects action.

OK: There have been some very public accusations made by the Speaker of Parliament, Artur Baghdasaryan and Arshak Sadoyan against the Minister of Justice, David Harutyunyan, and by Dashnaksutiune against the Republican Party. All of this is probably politically motivated but do you think that this is how all anti-corruption strategies work? Maybe anti-corruption strategies always serve a political purpose and somewhat ironically, maybe it's this that determines where they're successful or not?

AK: Anti-corruption strategies are not intended to serve such a purpose but of course, if you are in politics, you use any means at your disposal to attack your opponents. Some say that Dashnaksutiune are very eager to promote anti-corruption initiatives for whatever reason but they are also showing the public their commitment in this area. Such a situation is unavoidable because it is obvious that these mutual accusations are being made within a coalition government that was not naturally formed and which cannot reach a consensus on many important issues. Yes, some experts claim that this internal struggle can result in something positive but let's see.

OK: We've had lots of structural reforms and mechanisms implemented in the fight against corruption but do you think that the past eight months since I last interviewed you has been too short a period of time to expect concrete results?

AK: Yes, eight months is probably too short a time for even established and very democratic countries because there also needs to be the political will to start fighting corruption and the support and participation of the public as well as its trust. There are also other factors such the need for institutional capacity, financial and administrative resources, an independent media, a competitive business sector, developed NGOs, independent institutions and an independent judiciary...

I think we need at least one year to see some real progress made in any fight against corruption and that's assuming there's the political will, We need one year during which we can assess whether the government is really committed to this fight or simply concerned with just adopting a number of legislative reforms and establishing the framework for anti-corruption reforms. All of this is necessary but not sufficient.

For example, Armenia is a very small country and Yerevan is a very small city. We all know each other and how people are living. We know what car is driven by whose son or daughter, in what apartment or house they live, what kind of clothes they wear and where they go on vacation. As a result, it's very easy to see whether a particular official is living in the way he or she should based on the salary they receive.

It's obvious that something is wrong and as a result, investigations could be launched by authorized bodies but that assumes that there is the willingness to stop the practice of protecting the interests of a group of people or clans. Although I am not in favor of only coercive actions -- I am also for simultaneous detection, prevention and education -- we need to show people that concrete actions have been taken to rehabilitate their trust.

OK: The Presidential Advisor on Corruption, Bagrat Yesayan, recently visited the US and gave a series of public talks to the Diaspora on the anti-corruption strategy. From reading what few reports there have been, he seemed more concerned with highlighting progress in the area of the structural reforms necessary for the fight against corruption rather than speak about how corruption manifests itself in Armenia . How do you view the work of his commission of which you're a member?

AK: Firstly, we monitor the media and I haven't seen any coverage of his visit in any of the local papers but as for the commission, it was formed in June or early July and since then, there have been two sessions. The first session was introductory and the main achievement has been in the formation of twelve working groups made up of about 150 NGOs which are coordinated by members of the commission. They are supposed to monitor how the anti-corruption strategy is being implemented.

However, according to the regulations of the commission, and although it can apply to government structures for information, it is simply a consultative body with no authority to enforce the law or take any necessary action. The commission will make recommendations in some kind of report that should be available by the end of the year but as Mr. Yesayan has repeatedly said, it will then be up to the government to decide whether to act on those recommendations or not.

As for our involvement, when the strategy was adopted in November 2003, we criticized the government for the lack of public participation in drafting the strategy and so, we decided to become part of the commission when the opportunity arose. Through the commission we can monitor whether the strategy is working but it has to be said that so far nothing concrete has been achieved. Probably, we will have to wait and see what happens when the recommendations to the council are made.

However, I want to touch upon the very sensitive issue of NGO participation. This is progress when compared to last year because 150 NGOs are now involved and this is at least one step forward. Once the strategy was adopted many NGOs became active because they were encouraged although others were already dealing with corruption-related issues. Nevertheless, because it's difficult to reach a consensus among such a diversified collection of NGOs, and because not every organization has the capacity to make the necessary legal assessment, I believe that monitoring should really be independent.

Therefore, I would like to see donors help build the capacity to monitor anti-corruption activities in Armenia . NGOs should be independent from political parties, the government, the state commission and probably donors as well. Although none of the NGOs receives financial incentives to monitor the anti-corruption strategy, when the government or donor does gives money it is important that it does not affect the result of the monitoring.

For example, in other countries there is the practice of governments giving money to NGOs to provide social services but I wouldn't support this idea in the area of anti-corruption monitoring in Armenia . This is a conflict of interests that is generally not understood by many Armenians because we are almost always relatives, classmates or neighbors and it's considered customary to help those people around you. It's "normal" to have your sister, brother, sister-in-law or stepmother working in your NGO, your state organization, political party or foundation.

There is also no respect shown from the state structures towards NGO because not every official can take bribes. They are therefore very jealous of NGOs making money from grants to support programs that they do not consider as being of any use in Armenia and as a result, some state officials have now created their own NGOs which are not registered under their own name and which simply exist to receive money.

So, when the government talks of "grant-eating NGOs," I would like them to remember that many of these NGOs are actually protected, patronized and even created by state officials as an alternative source of income. Nevertheless, I do believe that NGOs can provide some feedback and more importantly, make it public.

OK: Do we also need a leader to slam their fist on a table and say "enough?" For example, in recent months I've heard many albeit unconfirmed reports that the late Prime Minister Vazgen Sarkisyan -- a man considered to be at the top of the pyramid of power and wealth in Armenia -- did just that during a cabinet meeting in 1999.

AK: Absolutely, and this is very Armenian. I've also heard these stories as well but, of course, we'll never know if they're true or simply a myth. Given the political situation in Armenia , and given the situation with corruption which is basically a systemic phenomenon, can you imagine that an honest leader can come to power in Armenia ? In a corrupt system you cannot come to power by staying clean but you also can't clean the system unless you are in power.

Unfortunately, the situation will stay this way until we can prepare the necessary conditions in society for a new generation of leaders. Eventually, society and our leaders will be less corruptible or we will have a leader that that has strength and the respect of the people.

Page 1 of 2