Andrei Przhezdomsky, a member of the Russian Public Chamber, speaks out on efforts to beat the “corruption curse” in Russia in an interview published in Rossiiskie Vesti (in Russian) — translation via Johnson’s Russia List issue #155. Particularly interesting is his comment on political instability and how it contributes to the culture of corruption [emphasis mine]:
The experience of developed nations with low levels of corruption shows that the focus shouldn’t be so much on remuneration – or rather, not solely on that – but on social guarantees. Public servants ought to know that if they perform their duties well, their jobs will not be at risk, no matter what kind of shake-ups may happen – like a minister or some other superior resigning. But things are different in Russia: a new leader comes in, the old team is dismissed, a new team comes in and spends a year or two “mining” its new territory, and is then replaced again. Where’s the continuity? Where are the guarantees? This is what generates corruption – the reason people strive to make money as fast as possible by any means available, because they don’t know what tomorrow may bring.
Anyone who has ever lived in Russia will certainly attest to the fact that bureaucrats often seek to extract the most from their position in the shortest amount of time, due to the uncertainty in their positions and because if they don’t do it – someone else will. I would not say that this is the major reason for widespread corruption in Russia, but it is certainly an important component of it.
Mr. Przhezdomsky puts an emphasis on the demand side of corruption, specifically nepotism and bribes in obtaining government jobs:
…the main lever and fulcrum lies in the state’s personnel policy. If state office or a government job can be bought for money – and often is – what we get is a simple drive to recoup the money a person has invested and make a profit. There ought to be a transparent and understandable system for any particular person being appointed to any particular job.
But his argument that Russia should re-create nomenklatura – Soviet style appointment system for government officials – to control opportunism is puzzling. Why? Because the system was not that transparent either. While it was not based on bribes per se, it did involve a lot of favoritism, nepotism, and kickbacks.
In all, Mr. Przhezdomsky is somewhat missing the point in his interview. While uncertainty and short-term horizons perpetuate corruption they are not the reason for it. Simply put, government officials accept and extort bribes not because their term in the office may be limited or because they buy their way in. These factors help, but they don’t define corruption. Government officials engage in corruption because opportunities to engage in corruption exist. For example, consider road police, one of the more corrupt government institutions in Russia, where officers do not face such a high job uncertainty yet are famous for extorting bribes. Anti-corruption strategies should target those opportunities for bribery and extortion – the root sources of corruption.
So, instead of re-instating the nomenklatura system, I propose the following:
- Improve the quality of laws and regulations
- Support and protect free media
- Institute a system of checks and balances in government
- Enforce “conflict of interest”
- Improve standards for government agencies
- Develop an impartial, effective judicial system
- Promote awareness of corruption and its costs in society
For more, take a look at CIPE’s anti-corruption resources. Mr. Przhezdomsky is also planning on publishing a handbook for citizens and another one for government officials on how to say “no” to corruption. This could be an important tool, especially for those who find themselves ‘trapped’ in a vicious circle of bribery and extortion.
And, according to the latest poll (in Russian) by the Levada Center, guess what Russians view as the biggest impediment to economic growth? Of course, its corruption, according to 50% of the respondents.
Published Date: July 11, 2006