Amalia Kostanyan is the Chairperson of the Center for Regional Development / Transparency International, 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.

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 the public 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.

OK: Although it's perhaps too much of a generalization, one thing that is often said is that while many people criticize corruption in Armenia , they would probably do the same if they had the opportunity. Corruption is also a cultural phenomenon. Do you think that this mentality can change?

AK: Yes, because when we are born we have both positive and negative aspects in our characters. For example, why can local Armenians move to Europe or the US and become law-abiding and obedient citizens?

OK: Many Diasporan Armenians criticize the behavior of Armenians from the Republic when they move to places like Los Angeles.

AK: This is not always the case and I can turn this around and ask why is it that some Diasporans and foreigners come to Armenia and adjust very easily to this very corrupt system. The Diaspora also gives bribes to register their businesses, exploit their connections and provide kickbacks to government officials for protection. Why?

OK: I suppose that in the West there's an understanding that the law functions and people will be prosecuted if they're found out but this doesn't really happen here, does it?

AK: No, it doesn't and perhaps this is the biggest part of the problem. Why should people resist corruption? There is of course supply and demand but why should they even bother if there is no punishment or if they can see that others make lots of money through criminal and corrupt ways? We need restrictions and limitations, morally and legally, so that we all behave normally but this is not really a priority for the anti-corruption strategy which is more focused on prevention through legislative changes.

Of course, we can't just criticize the government for this but they could explain to the people that there is pressure from outside to reform and that while it is impossible to significantly reduce corruption in 5, 10 years or even 25 years, let's make a social contract with each other. They could say that while they need time, resources, patience and commitment, if the public gives them their trust, they will agree to sacrifice some of their wealth and power.

OK: There are two points here. The first is that there is supposed to be a social contract formed as a result of elections and secondly, even in the declarations of income that government officials and parliamentary deputies now have to make, they can't even be honest about that.

AK: This question is also about the mentality of Armenians who are able to sacrifice themselves for their children and during times of war or in other extreme situations when there is a sense of belonging but on a daily basis, and especially in times of transition, instead adjust to prevailing conditions in order to survive.

OK: In your 2003 National Integrity System Report you point out that there isn't a legal definition of what corruption is. Has anything changed in this respect?

AK: No, but in the anti-corruption strategy, it is defined as abuse of power for private gain. However, there are also recommendations from western experts that we define corruption more concretely. We have a number of provisions in the criminal code about corruption-related crimes but they are not particularly well-defined. I would imagine that the government is currently working on this.

OK: A cynical response to the government's anti-corruption strategy is that it is imposed from outside. Do you believe that there is the genuine political will to fight corruption in Armenia ?

AK: I haven't really seen much sign of any genuine political will except for some actions such as joining GRECO and adopting the anti-corruption strategy which is mainly within the framework of ongoing reforms in the country. The reform process consists of many anti-corruption elements and the anti-corruption strategy is almost a compilation of these elements which is quite clever in a way.

I would imagine that this has all been the result of external pressure because you mentioned Vazgen Sarkisyan's attempt to fight corruption which started in 1999 as a result of meetings with the World Bank and IMF in Washington . However, after the tragic events in the Armenian Parliament the process was stopped and didn't really start again until the beginning of 2001 or actually 2002 when the process of developing the anti-corruption strategy started. Until then, the process was frozen. If there was the genuine political will to fight corruption why didn't it start earlier?

Also, let's try to be objective. If you are in power in this very corrupt system and even if you consider that corruption is very dangerous, with common sense telling you that it will lead to catastrophe, you are also susceptible to the influence of those that helped you come to power and who you are sharing that power with. However, having the political to fight corruption not only implies signing papers or adopting laws but also prosecuting those who are responsible for what's going on, regardless of their position.

This is of course theoretical given the situation in Armenia but we really need something to help us restore our trust in the state which is still only associated with individuals, parties and businesses. Today, Armenians dislike the state but if we are to survive as a nation we need the state machinery to function. We need a social contract and to give up some freedom as individuals in order to receive protection from the state. What bothers me the most about this situation is with regards to the moral cost of corruption. For example, can you get a good job, study at University or start a business without corruption?

Everything can be bought and sold in Armenia and this is a catastrophic situation for any country to find itself in.

OK: When people talk about corruption in this region, everyone refers to Georgia . You'll be visiting Georgia this month. Will you be looking at the situation there?

AK: Yes. I've heard from some foreign visitors that there's now no bribery among the traffic police, customs is controlled more or less and there's been a lot of media coverage reporting that people are being arrested and put in jail. However, I wouldn't comment on this directly because what we've seen from the media is just one layer of the fight against corruption. Instead, I'm very interested in delving deeper to see what is happening at institutional and other levels. However, the most important issue in the case of Georgia is if their anti-corruption initiative can be sustained but let's hope that this development can affect the situation in Armenia .

In that sense, I wish our neighbors luck because if they succeed there is some hope for Armenia although, of course, the situation is quite different. Armenians have become more frustrated and cynical and most of the intelligentsia lives abroad. The people that remain are a combination of those that came to power or opened businesses in probably illegal ways during this transitional period and an older generation which is frustrated and devastated while the youth is brought up in a very cynical atmosphere.

Potentially, the Diaspora that lives here could form a new social stratum but in reality they are isolated from society. It's good that we now have more diversified Armenians among society but I would be happier if they would bring some positive influences with them. When I was studying in the US , for example, Diasporan Armenians would say that they couldn't do business in Armenia because of corruption and because there is no protection for their investments. On the other hand, they avoided open criticism of the authorities and the political system because it's easier for them to be more patient.

As an example, and although I was touched to see the result of the recent telethon to build a road in Karabagh, I have to question why the Diaspora doesn't seem too concerned with how the money they give to Armenia is spent. Why aren't they concerned with transparency and accountability and the same question exists with regards to loans, credits and grant programs. When you are investing money in a corrupt system and when there are so many opportunities for corruption you have to be careful and ensure that all the money goes to where it's intended.

OK: When I speak to many Diasporans about corruption in Armenia , they generally rationalize the situation and even say that there is more corruption in the United States or Europe . However, I can honestly say that while there is corruption in the West, I have never encountered it in my life. In Armenia, however, I come across it on an almost daily basis. Even so, the recent letter by Carolann Najarian about her own experience in Armenia seems to have changed attitudes among some Diasporans.

On the other hand, let's talk about the environment. The parks in Yerevan have been destroyed and the trees have been cut down to open cafes that have almost certainly been built with corrupt money. This is a well-documented example of corruption but the Diaspora instead rationalizes the situation and makes excuses. Probably, in this case, they actually like this particular manifestation of corruption regardless of the environmental and health problems it will cause later.

AK: It's impunity, illegality, immorality and also, from an economic viewpoint, I don't think that these cafes are making money. Their owners are investing in construction so that they can sell them for a profit later. Illegal construction is something very obvious for everybody and those with power and wealth don't care about their reputation or being prosecuted because of course, they are protected by the authorities and they can do anything they want.

This is a very dangerous situation and another reason why we need a social contract between the authorities and the people. Why did the population give up part of their freedom to create the state when the situation is now reverting back to something close to chaos? Yes, there is corruption in the United States and yes, in numerical terms, corruption in Armenia is far smaller because we are a small country. However, the impact is significantly greater.

OK: December 9 marks the United Nations International Anti-Corruption Day. What will happen in Armenia to mark this event?

AK: The United Nations International Anti-Corruption Day marks the signing of the UN Convention against Corruption in Mexico last year. Armenia is not yet a signatory but it's good that corruption is now considered a problem as significant as AIDS, drugs and hunger because it's a social evil. In Armenia , we will be holding events in the regions where we have anti-corruption centers and we hope that there will be significant media coverage. On the same day, Transparency International will launch its 2004 Global Corruption Barometer.