Policy Paper N 10 An Assessment of Georgia’s National Integrity System: The GNISA Project A joint project conducted by: Tiri (the Governance – Access - Learning Network), London, UK The Institute of Ethics Governance and Law, Australia Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Georgia 2007 Funded by the Open Society Institute and the Open Society – Georgia Foundation © The Authors 2007 have asserted their rights under the Copyright Act 1968 to be identified as the authors of this work. An Assessment of Georgia’s National Integrity System: The GNISA Project A project carried out by the Institute for Ethics Governance and Law (IEGL), Tiri (the Governance - Access - Learning Network) and the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, as partners in this venture, and funded by the Open Society Institute. Final GNISA Report: July 2007 Lead Authors Dr Arthur Shacklock, Griffith University, Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Mr Malkhaz Saldadze, Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Ms Carmel Connors, Griffith University, Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Ms Melea Lewis, Griffith University, Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Professor Charles Sampford, Griffith University, Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Management Team Griffith University, Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Professor Charles Sampford Dr Arthur Shacklock Tiri (the Governance - Access - Learning Network): Mr Jeremy Pope Mr Martin Tisne Published by: Institute for Ethics Governance and Law, Griffith University Tiri (the Governance - Access - Learning Network) Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development . ISBN: 978-1-921291-14-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary vii-xiv A. Introduction A.1 National Integrity Systems Assessment: Towards Public Integrity Reform 1 A.1.1 What is a National Integrity System? 1 A.1.2 Understanding Integrity Systems: from NIS to NISA 3 A 1.3 The Australian application of the NISA methodology 5 A.1.4 The NISA Methodology Explained 7 A.1.5 NISA’s assessment of Capacity, Coherence and Consequences 8 A 1.6 Goals, Aims and Steps in the NISA Process 9 A1.6.1 Initial Meetings of the Research Team 10 A1.6.2 Preliminary Integrity System Mapping 10 A1.6.3 Choice of Integrity Assessment Tools (IATs) 10 A1.6.4 Conduct of Interviews 11 A1.6.5 Assessing the Coherence, Coherence and Consequences of the existing system 11 A1.6.6 Research Findings Workshop and Meetings 11 A1.6.7 Final Report 11 A.2. The Georgian National Integrity Systems Assessment (GNISA) Project 12 A.2.1 Origination and Launching of the GNISA Project 12 A.2.2 Specific Aims of the GNISA Project 13 A.2.3 Steps Taken in the GNISA Project 14 A.3 Summary of GNISA Recommendations 15 B. Historical and Cultural Background B.1 Introduction 17 B.2 Public Space and State Functions: Theoretical-Normative View and Its Relationship to the Georgian Situation in 1990s 18 B.3 State Roles and its Place in Public-Private Relationships: Theoretical- Normative View and its Correspondence to the Georgian Situation in 1990s 22 B.4 State and Society in 1990s Georgia: Interest Fulfilment Mechanisms and its Patterns — Problems of Corruption 27 B.5 Conclusion 31 C. Integrity Institutions C.1 Parliamentary Institutions 33 C.1.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 33 ii C.1.1.1 Grouping of Parliamentary Institutions by Roles and Functions 34 C.1.1.2 Specific Functions of Each Institution 35 C.1.1.3 Scope of Institutional Authority 38 C.1.1.4 Accountability and Reporting Arrangements 39 C.1.2 Assessment of Capacity 40 C.1.2.1 Adequacy of Institutional Resources 40 C.1.3. Assessment of Coherence 42 C.1.3.1 Interaction between Parliamentary Institutions 42 C.1.3.2 Interaction between Parliamentary and Other State Agencies 42 C.1.3.3 Interaction between Parliamentary and International Organizations, Civil Society Agencies and Media 45 C.1.4. Assessment of Consequences 46 C.1.4.1 The Efficiency of Institutional Functions 46 C.1.4.2 Risks of Corruption within Fields of Competence 47 C.1.4.3 Anticorruption Capacities: Impediments and Assisting Factors 47 C.1.4.4 Impact on the Efficiency of Anticorruption Policies 48 C.1.4.5 Ethical Impact of Parliamentary Institutions 49 C.1.4.6 Specific Contributions of Core and Distributed Institutions 51 C.1.4.7 Emerging Issues 52 C.1.4.8 Main Findings and Recommendations 52 C.2. Executive Institutions 55 C.2.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 55 C.2.1.1 Grouping of Executive Institutions by Roles and Functions 57 C.2.1.2 Specific Functions of each Institution 58 C.2.1.3 Scope of Institutional Authority 65 C.2.1.4 Accountability and Reporting Arrangements 69 C.2.2 Assessment of Capacity 71 C.2.2.1 Adequacy of Institutional Resources 71 C.2.3 Assessment of Coherence 72 C.2.3.1 Administering and/or Coordinating Interactions 72 C.2.3.2 Analytical and/or Supportive Interactions 75 C.2.3.3 Controlling and /or Investigative Interactions 76 C.2.4 Assessment of Consequences 77 C.2.4.1 The Efficiency of Institutional Functions 77 C.2.4.2 Risks of Corruption 78 C.2.4.3 Anti-corruption Capacities: Impediments and Assisting Factors 80 C.2.4.4 Impact on the Efficiency of Anti-corruption Policies 81 C.2.4.5 Ethical Impact of Executive Institutions 82 C.2.4.6 Specific Contributions of Core and Distributed Institutions 84 C.2.4.7 Emerging Issues 84 C.2.4.8 Conclusions and Recommendations 84 C.3. Judiciary and Court Related Institutions 87 C.3.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 87 C.3.1.1 Grouping of Judiciary and Court Related Institutions by Roles and Functions 89 C.3.1.2 Specific Functions of each Institution 89 C.3.1.3 Scope of Institutional Authority 91 C.3.1.4 Accountability and Reporting Arrangements 92 C.3.2. Assessment of Capacity 92 C.3.2.1 Adequacy of Institutional Resources 92 iii C.3.3. Assessment of Coherence 93 C.3.4. Assessment of Consequences 94 C.3.4.1 The Efficiency of Institutional Functions 94 C.3.4.2 Risks of Corruption within Fields of Competence 95 C.3.4.3 Anticorruption Capacities: Impediments and Assisting Factors 95 C.3.4.4 Impact on the Efficiency of Anticorruption Policies 95 C.3.4.5 Ethical Impact of Judiciary and Court Related Institutions 96 C.3.4.6 Specific Contributions of Core and Distributed Institutions 96 C.3.4.7 Emerging Issues 97 C.3.4.8 Main Findings and Recommendations 98 C.4. Special Institutions 99 C4.1 Roles and functions in ensuring integrity 99 C.4.1.1 Grouping of Special Institutions by Roles and Functions 100 C.4.1.2 Specific Functions of Each Institution 101 C.4.1.3 Scope of Institutional Authority 105 C.4.1.4 Accountability and Reporting Arrangements 105 C.4.2 Assessment of Capacity 105 C.4.2.1 Adequacy of Institutional Resources 105 C.4.3 Assessment of Coherence 106 C.4.4 Assessment of Consequences 106 C.4.4.1 The Efficiency of Institutional Functions 106 C.4.4.2 Risks of Corruption within Fields of the Competence 107 C.4.4.3 Impact on the Efficiency of Anticorruption Policies 107 C.4.4.4 Ethical Impact of Special Institutions 108 C.4.4.5 Specific contributions of Core and Distributed Institutions 109 C.4.4.6 Emerging Issues 109 C.4.4.7 Evaluation of the Current Situation and Recommendations Identified 109 C.5. Non Government Organizations 113 C.5.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 113 C.5.2 Assessment of Capacity 113 C.5.3 Assessment of Coherence 114 C.5.4 Assessment of Consequences 115 C.5.4.1 Recommendations 119 C.6. Donor and International Organizations 121 C.6.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 121 C.6.2 Assessment of Capacity 122 C.6.3 Assessment of Coherence 122 C.6.4 Assessment of Consequences 123 C.6.4.1 Recommendations 125 C.7. The Media 127 C.7.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 127 C.7.2 Assessment of Capacity 128 C.7.2.1 Economic Basis of the Media 128 C.7.2.2 Technical Equipment and infrastructure 128 C.7.2.3 Problem of qualified personnel 129 C.7.2.4 Journalists Unions 130 C.7.3 Assessment of Coherence 130 iv C.7.3.1 The Media and the Authorities 130 C.7.3.2 The Media and Society 131 C.7.4 Assessment of Consequences 131 C.7.4.1 Recommendations 132 C.8. Local Government 133 C.8.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 133 C.8.2 Assessment of Capacity 134 C.8.3 Assessment of Coherence 135 C.8.4 Assessment of Consequences 136 C.8.4.1 Recommendations D. Main Findings of the Study 139 D.1 The Nature of the Interactions between Integrity Institutions 139 D.2 How Systematic is the System? 140 D.3 Balance between Prosecution and Prevention 141 E. Significant Issues Reported by Respondents 145 F. Recommendations 151 F.1. Recommendations from the respondents of parliamentary institutions 151 F.2. Recommendations from the respondents of executive institutions 152 F.3. Recommendations from the respondents of the judiciary and court related institutions 152 F.4. Recommendations from the respondents of ‘Special Institutions’ charged with very specific responsibilities 153 F.5. Recommendations from the respondents of NGOs 154 F.6. Recommendations from the respondents of international and donor Organizations 154 F.7.