ANTI-CORRUPTION in SOUTHEAST EUROPE: FIRST STEPS and POLICIES the Southeast European Legal Development Initiative (SELDI) Was Launched in Late 1998
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
S O U T H E A S T E U R O P E A N LE G AL D E V E L O P M E N T I N I T I A T I V E w w w . s e l d i . n e t ANTI-CORRUPTION IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE: FIRST STEPS AND POLICIES The Southeast European Legal Development Initiative (SELDI) was launched in late 1998. It was initi- ated by the Center for the Study of Democracy and the International Legal Development Organization, Rome. The Southeast European Legal Development Initiative brings together the efforts of various gov- ernment organizations and experts from different countries of Southeast Europe. It creates opportuni- ties for cooperation between the most active public institutions and public figures, the governments, and international agencies in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, and Yugoslavia. ISBN 954-477-103-4 © 2002 Center for the Study of Democracy All rights reserved. 5 Alexander Zhendov Str., 1113 Sofia phone: (+359 2) 971 3000, fax: (+359 2) 971 2233 www.csd.bg, [email protected] CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 5 II. THE BACKGROUND: ORIGINS OF TRANS-BORDER CRIME AND CORRUPTION IN SEE 11 III. REGULATORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANTI-CORRUPTION 27 IV. INSTITUTIONAL PREREQUISITES FOR ANTI-CORRUPTION 51 V. JUDICIAL REFORM 93 VI. CORRUPTION IN THE ECONOMY 115 VII. CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE MEDIA 147 VIII. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 165 3 Acknowledgements The Southeast European Legal Development Initiative (SELDI) would like to thank the following per- sons and institutions for contributing to the development of this report: Auron Pasha, Institute for Development Research and Alternatives (IDRA), Tirana, Albania Elton Babameto, Institute for Development Research and Alternatives (IDRA), Tirana, Albania Boris Begovic, Center for Liberal Democratic Studies, Belgrade, Yugoslavia Lazar Antonic, Center for Liberal Democratic Studies, Belgrade, Yugoslavia Boris Divjak, Transparency International, Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, BiH Danijela Vidovic, Transparency International, Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, BiH Dragan Tumanovski, Supreme Court of Macedonia, Skopje, Macedonia Ioana Veghes, The Gallup Organization Romania Ltd., Bucharest, Romania Ivana Aleksic, Center for Policy Studies, Belgrade, Yugoslavia Kreshnik Spahiu, Albanian Center for Economic Research (ACER), Tirana, Albania Mura Palasek, Agency Puls, Zagreb, Croatia Predrag Bejakovic, Institute of Public Finance, Zagreb, Croatia Sorin Ionita, Romanian Academic Society (SAR), Bucharest, Romania Sterjo Zikov, Public Prosecutorsí Office, Skopje, Macedonia Vanja Mihajlova, Consultant, Skopje, Macedonia Zef Preci, Albanian Center for Economic Research (ACER), Tirana, Albania Zoran Jacev, Center for Strategic Research and Documentation FORUM, Skopje, Macedonia Editors / Contributors Alexander Stoyanov, Director of Research, Center for the Study of Democracy Boyko Todorov, Program Director, Center for the Study of Democracy Emil Tsenkov, Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Democracy Maria Yordanova, Director, Law Program, Center for the Study of Democracy Marko Hajdinjak, Research Fellow, Center for the Study of Democracy Ognian Shentov, Chairman, Center for the Study of Democracy 4 I. INTRODUCTION Corruption has become a major issue, particular- sectors constituted fertile ground for both ly in the countries of transition. It has become an petty and large-scale corrupt practices. accompanying phenomenon of the transition from state-socialism to market capitalism and These features, which originate in the recent past, democracy in Southeast Europe (SEE). The com- however, cannot alone explain the extraordinary mon problems that post-communist societies scale of corrupt transactions in the new Balkan face contribute to this fact significantly, but there democracies. The process of transition of state- are also a number of characteristics specific to the owned economy into private ownership through countries in SEE: privatization, in addition to the restitution of prop- erty, created huge opportunities for the misuse of Public sector operations are non-transparent, public power at the expense of the public. performance is poor and distrust of the citi- Another often ignored sphere of systemic corrup- zens towards public officials is high. tion is the de-facto privatization of cross-bor- der transactions through bribing state officials The collapse of the Communist regimes left at the customs, border police and other regulato- behind an over-extended public sector and ry and law-enforcement bodies. Given the open high expectations in the population that it will nature of the Balkan economies, cross-border receive assistance in all walks of life (a “pre- transactions constitute up to 2/3 of the GDP for mature welfare state”, as it was called) any single country, hence they generate even more dirty money, then privatization itself. The combination of weakness, lack of trans- parency and overburdening in the SEE public Table 1: Main problems in the countries of SEE Albania Bosnia and Bulgaria Macedonia Romania Croatia Serbia Montenegro Herzegovina 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 Unemployment 44.4 44.8 60.9 60.9 67.8 68.9 75.3 58.2 39.5 33.9 66.0 78.5 30.3 38.0 53.1 51.1 Low incomes 39.3 40.8 39.6 39.3 49.0 47.0 62.0 26.7 41.3 49.4 39.1 44.2 39.2 33.6 35.6 37.2 Poverty 24.4 28.2 29.8 31.9 41.5 42.7 1.1 43.9 50.6 57.4 31.6 28.7 39.7 44.4 34.8 43.4 Corruption 60.8 68.4 47.6 48.3 37.5 35.1 35.1 31.2 59.9 59.9 41.7 41.1 37.2 37.3 30.8 35.9 Crime 36.0 24.6 32.9 32.8 25.7 32.9 27.6 23.9 10.2 12.5 33.5 30.4 44.1 41.4 31.5 30.1 High prices 24.0 23.3 10.9 13.9 22.4 20.9 25.4 7.8 35.6 35.6 27.3 18.4 24.7 24.0 21.2 17.7 Health Care 3.7 2.3 9.9 9.5 14.0 17.2 7.2 1.7 17.4 15.4 7.1 8.9 8.7 9.8 4.0 2.0 Political instability 49.6 46.0 37.0 33.9 17.0 13.1 33.2 55.9 29.9 11.6 20.1 28.7 47.8 35.3 59.3 57.7 Education 3.9 3.2 4.6 4.8 2.1 1.8 3.7 0.8 7.9 8.8 4.4 4.1 6.3 7.8 4.5 3.9 Environment pollution 5.2 3.6 3.8 3.1 2.7 1.5 6.0 1.0 1.6 3.2 2.8 3.5 2.5 5.6 4.8 2.7 Ethnic problems 3.0 2.415.6 17.1 1.7 1.414.940.7 2.4 1.6 7.0 3.6 10.2 8.2 8.6 5.2 Other 0.9 4.4 1.8 1.3 1.9 4.5 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.5 2.1 3.1 0.6 1.8 1.5 3.0 DK/NA 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.7 1.6 0.5 3.0 1.2 0.2 2.7 1.6 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.8 0.3 Source: SELDI Corruption Monitoring System. Scores close to 1 correspond to low spread of corruption, those close to 10 to high- est degree of proliferation.(For further details see http://www.seldi.net/indexes.htm) 5 In most of the SEE countries, state institutions to corruption in SEE. Several factors warrant this were subordinated to private interests in the first approach. stage of the transition in the early 1990s. The sym- biosis between the state and “high-risk” busi- The first one relates to the scale of the problem of nesses under unclear rules of the game and a corruption in these countries. Societies in SEE are paralysis of the judiciary bred systemic corrup- faced with a corruption culture that permeates all tion within society. structures of the body politic and which became a systemic feature of their political structures. The In addition, other types of misuse occured: clien- spread of corruption throughout the whole spec- telism, nepotism, and a secondary symbiosis of trum of possible forms – from the usual bakshish the state and businesses. In this case, state inter- to the traffic police to the entry of organized crime ference in business affairs is much greater than into the mainstream economies through corrupt the opposite trend – ”buying of politicians” by privatization practices - presents a challenge that strong private-economic power-groups. In this goes beyond the effectiveness of traditional anti- case, some throwbacks to the past occur, which corruption tools. The systemic nature of corrup- make possible state/party interference in the tion in SEE has become the major factor imped- economy despite the privatization of state-owned ing their development efforts. It has distorted the property. In situations like these, the opposition restructuring of their economies, the moderniza- blames the ruling party for imposing neo-author- tion of their education systems and public health itarian forms of government that favor private care, and has affected many social programs (e.g. interests close to those in power. public housing). All this has had a negative impact on the public’s trust in the emerging dem- Understandably, it is grand - political and sys- ocratic and market economy institutions and has temic - rather than administrative or petty corrup- bred disillusionment with reforms in general. tion, which is the main target of anti-corruption efforts by civil society; and public reforms, rather The second relevant aspect relates to the factors then purely preventive measures are needed facilitating the corruption on such a scale.