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

Corruption is a criminal offense. However, considering the fact that the struggle against corruption has failed to provide tangible results, can we presume that corruption in Armenia is also a way of thinking?

In our country, not all the manifestations of corruption (abuse of power for private gain) are considered to be a criminal offense. There are also numerous instances of corruption which refer to administrative violations, as well as violations of moral values and ethical norms. Regardless of the form it takes, corruption is a social evil that needs to be combated.

Going back to your question, I can affirm only one thing: if the struggle against corruption does not lead to any tangible results, then it can be presumed that the struggle is ineffective. One of the reasons for this ineffectiveness, along with other factors, may be a certain way of thinking by those on both sides of the struggle.

An effective struggle against corruption includes not only punitive measures, but also measures of a preventive and educational nature. It is critical to balance those measures properly so that laws are adopted not only to reduce opportunities for corruption, but also to ensure law enforcement and equal legal liability for everyone; to not only punish the guilty, but also uphold the worthy; to not only call upon others to live properly, but also serve as a model of proper behavior. And this would refer not only to Armenia, but also to many other countries across the world.

A way of thinking, or mentality, is not an isolated process: it is largely conditional upon the relationships between the members of society, between the state and its citizens, between the institutions of power. If in any of these relationships criminal behavior is allowed or even promoted, then this reality is immediately reflected in the mentality of the people. In such circumstances the society does not see any substantial risk in corrupt practices by an individual or a group of individuals. There is a view that people are as corrupt as the system in which operate permits them to be.

It is interesting that in the course of one of our studies on corruption, the participants of various focus groups, when asked, did not agree that corruption is a way of thinking or a peculiar attribute of Armenian culture. "It is more of a habit," most responded. I believe this was an effort on their part to present the situation in a more favorable light, presuming that a bad habit can easily be overcome if there is the will, whereas changing a mentality is much more challenging. In addition, most of the focus group participants mentioned that they had been forced to offer bribes to the authorities and that they had no other alternative to resolve their problems.

In the meantime, if we keep blaming the system, another question will arise: Who creates this kind of relationship? Who is a constituent part of that system? Would it be appropriate to simply adjust ourselves to this reality and not take any action, in anticipation that positive changes will sooner or later occur in the system of governance, which will eventually improve the economic situation in the country and change the mentality? But how can any positive changes possibly come about in a situation where corruption damages the institutions of power and the public morals? Maybe it would be better to stop being so tolerant of ourselves and the system that we ourselves are cultivating.

According to the results of a survey by the Region Center at the end of 2004, the Armenian population believes that the foremost danger for this country is corruption. What would your comments be in that regard and why is it that the people who are most enthusiastic in talking about corruption are not average people (who should be more concerned about corruption), but those in power?

I have partly answered that question above. On one hand, the population believes that it is the responsibility of the state to fight corruption, that we all are victims of a bad system and that ordinary citizens cannot bring about any change. There is an overall frustration among the people, a clear mistrust towards the representatives of the state-government officials, members of parliament, party leaders, judges, etc. The political inactivity of the citizenry does not contribute to solidarity in fighting corruption, despite the fact that everybody acknowledges that corruption is a danger for the country.

The authorities, on the other hand, talk about corruption incessantly, without undertaking any decisive action to fight it. They limit themselves only to the adoption of new laws, the enforcement of which is guaranteed neither by political will nor by the institutional capacity of the state, leaving the citizens still more disillusioned. The results of a phone survey that our organization conducted in the summer of 2005 throughout the whole country demonstrated that out of 1,500 respondents, only 0.9% believe that the anticorruption activities of the government are effective. 50% of the respondents adhered to the totally opposite point of view, believing that the government's actions are not efficient, while 49.1% of the interviewed could not answer the question at all.

As to the enthusiasm of those in power, it is simply conditioned by the fact that recently our country has joined a number of international anticorruption conventions and has certain commitments to the international community. However, it is hard to say how long we will be allowed to fight corruption with enthusiastic rhetoric alone, and in what circumstances we will be presented with more strict requirements to adhere to our commitments. This will be dependent upon political developments across the region and around it.

In which areas are the dangers of corruption most obvious in Armenia and what are they conditional upon?

The results of a number of studies conducted by our organization and other organizations indicate that ordinary citizens, businessmen, and experts believe that the most corrupt sectors in Armenia are the courts, the prosecutor's office, the police, the customs and the tax service, state procurement, health, education, the election system, agencies responsible for issuing licenses and permits for construction, etc.

I would like to remind you of a simple scheme: "Why are bribes given and taken?" Or, to be more specific, what is corruption "according to the law" and corruption "against the law"? In the first case, people pay to get (expedite or facilitate) legal services, in other words, this is a service fee. In the second case, which is more risky, people pay for illegal services or for the breach of law. This is a simplified scheme since corruption manifests itself not only in the form of money exchange, but also exchange of favors or actions (or inaction, if needed).

The so-called "corruption according to the law" is more apparent and easily recognizable by ordinary citizens since they face it nearly every day. As for the "corruption against the law", it is associated with a higher level of risk and, accordingly, with larger material expenditures; therefore it is more hidden and harder to uncover.

This is why many people think that corruption is more common in the system of the traffic police, education and health, and have no idea whatsoever about, for instance, political corruption, monopolization of trade and services, abuses associated with public procurement, and so on. Incidentally, if we try to assess the material, political, social and moral damage from the second category of manifestations of corruption, we will distinguish that they have far more serious repercussions for the development of the state and the nation.

Nowadays people are more inclined to draw generalized conclusions like "All government organizations (ministries, committees, municipalities, and agencies) are corrupt." However, taking into consideration the fact that political and economic power is concentrated in the hands of a small but powerful elite, corruption cannot be kept out of the private sector and all other non-government institutions.

So why there is more corrupt opportunity in some spheres and less in others? This question has several answers: corruption becomes apparent where there is something to sell and to buy; where there is an unhealthy competition for access to limited resources; where the laws and procedures are imperfect and their 'free' interpretation is tolerated; where the citizens have insufficient information and are unaware of their rights and responsibilities; where there are no check and balance mechanisms; where justice is not ensured; where the state representatives are not accountable for their actions; where both citizens and authorities tolerate breaking the law and violating behavioral norms, and so on and so forth.

In my perspective, the vicious circle of corruption begins and ends during the elections. All the rest is the consequence of whom, how, and why we elect. Our organization has been monitoring and analyzing pre-election campaigns and elections in Armenia since 2003. I would say that the situation is worsening with every passing year.

Do you have any information about the dynamics of the expansion of corruption in Armenia in recent years?

As per the results of our 2005 study mentioned earlier, 62.9% of the citizens asked believe that the level of corruption in Armenia has substantially increased in the past three years. 4.5% of the respondents think that the level of corruption remains unchanged, and 17.1% could not provide an answer to that question.

The results of a survey by the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development revealed that in the perspective of the businessmen working in our country, in the course of the past three years, corruption has become a more critical problem. While the frequency of illegal payments has decreased, the size of such payments has increased. To the question "Who and for what are bribes given?" the representatives of private business pointed to the tax service and customs, the courts, the agencies responsible for licensing and permits, public contracts, and allocation of land (including land for construction purposes), etc. The answers that cause the greatest concern describe how the representatives of private business bribe the legislature with the purpose of affecting the process of adopting laws.

According to Transparency International's 2005 Corruption Perception Index, among 159 countries across the world, our country received the rank of 2.9 on a scale of 10 (the most uncorrupted) to 0 (the most corrupted). Here is the methodology employed: the national chapters of Transparency International do not take part in the survey. The data are retrieved from the results of at least three independent surveys conducted by other international organizations in each country. This index reflects the perception of businessmen and experts, but not the citizens of a given country.

Should those data be correlated with the indices of 2003 and 2004 (3.1 and 3.0), it would become evident that the perception of corruption in Armenia does not exhibit a positive trend of development; therefore we continue to be among the countries with rampant corruption. Affecting public opinion is not an easy task. It would require the manifestation of true political will and willingness to fight not with words, but with action.

Nonetheless, if we compare the data for different countries, can we conclude that the situation in Armenia is not all that bad?

Well, that would depend upon who we compare ourselves with. If we take Haiti, Turkmenistan, Bangladesh and Chad, countries that occupy the last horizontal in Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index for the last year (1.8 - 1.7), as well as our neighbors, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (2.9; 2.2; and 2.3 correspondingly), then as you said, the situation is not as bad.

However, if we compare ourselves to another neighboring country, Turkey, with an index of 3.5, as well as with our "former neighbors", Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (6.4; 4.8; and 4.2 correspondingly), we will see that there is nothing to pride ourselves upon.

Frankly speaking, I am not very enthusiastic about quantitative and geographic comparisons in this particular area. The thing is that as illustrative as such comparisons may be, they still do not take into account the specifics of each country and the particular price that each country pays for its own corruption, regardless of the fact what goes on in other countries. No doubt, we take a considerable interest in the developments within our neighboring countries and partner states. We also take an interest in the countries pursuing certain political and economic interests in our region, because that would determine the relationships that may be established between various countries, as well as the approaches and means that would be deployed to achieve specific goals.

In the light of the above, we should neither rejoice nor lament over the fact that some countries are in a worse or better situation than we are. Instead, we must realize that we should be first of all concerned with what is going on within our society, our system, our country. We are all responsible for that, and must rid ourselves of all the negative, unhealthy and immoral trends that represent a real hazard for our country and the future of our children, and secure all the positive, progressive and valuable assets that we possess today.