Word and deed

Russia again finds itself at the bottom of the global anti-corruption rankings

Despite the president’s desperate attempts to instill financial discipline in domestic officials and improve anti-corruption legislation, the situation with bribery in Russia is not getting better. This disappointing conclusion was made by the leaders of the Russian branch of the public anti-corruption committee Transperancy International (TI), who yesterday presented an annual study of the level of perception of corruption by the population in 180 countries.

Our country, by tradition, is an outsider on the list. This year, Russia took 146th place in the TI ranking with a corruption perception index (CPI) of 2.2 points on a ten-point scale. The first three lines in the list of countries with the highest CPI, which is compiled on the basis of expert surveys and studies on the prevalence of corruption among civil servants and politicians, were occupied by New Zealand (9.4), Denmark (9.3) and Singapore (9.2). TI's official press release states that such high anti-corruption indicators in these countries are evidence of "political stability, well-developed and successfully practiced procedures for resolving conflicting interests." The list is completed by Myanmar (1.4), Afghanistan (1.3) and Somalia (1.1).

Russia neighbors the African Sierra Leone and Kenya, as well as Ukraine, which has lost ground compared to 2008. Among the republics of the former USSR, only three countries are lower in terms of the CPI level: Tajikistan - 158th (2.0), Kyrgyzstan - 162nd (1.9) and Uzbekistan - 168th (1.7). The remaining former Soviet republics show only positive dynamics in the fight against corruption from year to year: Lithuania is in 52nd place (4.9), Latvia is in 56th place (4.5), Georgia is in 66th place. m (4.1). Belarus also made a serious leap, rising to 130th place (2.4).

Not all observers agree with these assessments, as well as with the methodology used to compile Transperancy International’s rankings. “I have doubts about the objectivity of such assessments,” said Andrei Przhezdomsky, a member of the commission for public control over the activities of law enforcement agencies and reform of the judicial and legal system of the Public Chamber, in an interview with a Vremya Novostey correspondent. “The methodology for calculating these ratings is based on open sources, and the phenomenon of corruption itself, the real facts, are not available. And, essentially, they are inaccessible not only to the public or the media, but also to researchers,” says Mr. Przhezdomsky. In particular, he is perplexed by the fact that, “for example, Georgia, according to the TI rating, turns out to be cleaner than Russia in terms of the level of corruption.”

Perhaps the only positive moment for Russia in the published rating is a slight increase in the national corruption perception index by 0.1 points. “This slight increase is certainly caused by the adoption of the national anti-corruption plan and the general improvement of anti-corruption legislation,” says Elena Panfilova, head of TI’s representative office in Russia. “But, of course, there is no need to consider this a serious merit.” According to Ms. Panfilova, the Russian authorities should not limit themselves to anti-corruption rhetoric, but “start taking some action.” “We often receive requests and complaints about manifestations of corruption, we send requests, answers to which come very rarely, and if they do come, then they are continuous replies,” she complained.

Another striking example of the discrepancy between words and deeds among the country's leadership, according to Elena Panfilova, can be considered the position of the Russian delegation at the international conference of countries participating in the UN Convention against Corruption, which ended last Friday in the capital of Qatar, Doha. Ms. Panfilova recalled that following the results of the conference, it was planned to adopt a document on the creation of a special commission within the UN, whose responsibilities would include checking the situation with corruption in the countries that signed the document. But Russia, together with eight countries (China, Pakistan, Angola, Algeria, Egypt, Venezuela, Iran and Zimbabwe) blocked the adoption of the document, citing the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of the country and the threat to its sovereignty. Now, Ms. Panfilova argues, an independent anti-corruption audit will be able to visit any country only with its consent, and “the results of this audit should not be made public.” “Exactly in the same week when the president spoke about the need for civilian control over the activities of officials, Russia signs a document that actually eliminates the possibility of civilian control in the fight against corruption,” Elena Panfilova complained.

Vyacheslav KOZLOV