D e v e l o p i n g a c u l t u r e o f a n t i - c o r r u p t i o n i n sma l l s t a t e s : A v i ew f r om E u r o p e corruption policy is continuously undertaken and put in place, the hoped-for results are not always tangible.1 Society at large regularly expresses dissatisfaction, for example, with elements of the customs and police. Therefore, the key question is whether the fight against corruption is only an institutional, state struggle or if it is every citizen’s position – an issue of public preference. In order to combat corruption in a systematic way, declarations that impact corruption proclaim that there will be pressure applied on corruption in three ways: the investigation of committed crimes, introduction of preventative measures and education of the public. Such ideas reflect some of the world’s best practices (experience in Hong Kong, for example) and are part of Lithuania’s national anti-corruption programme. Some general obstacles will likewise be familiar to countries worldwide, however, I want to distinguish some features which are important in the Lithuanian context specifically. Legislation and its limitations In the initial stages of its independence, Lithuania’s efforts were overshadowed by the ‘bad laws’ syndrome. The penal system was formulated in an abstract way, theoretically, without being related to the matters at hand.2 With the onset of legislation, but without a decrease in corruption, it was declared that there was a lack of political will. But this claim grew less convincing over time, as all political forces placed anti-corruption high on their agendas and changes to inadequate legislation were indeed put through, with the Seimas (Lithuania’s parliament) at the forefront. Legislation became more pragmatic and receptive to GRECO proposals, and less cautious about potential objections on human rights grounds. The Seimas approved basic legislation to greatly expand the concept of criminalisation, enabling better definitions of crimes involving bribery. It included the criminal responsibility of juridical persons and criminalised the bribery of a go-between or middleman. Later, such crimes became known as ‘trading in influence’. The punishment became much stricter and sanctions were increased. As a result, wider use of undercover operations was possible and the confiscation of property was expanded in investigations of corruption. Also, during the court process, there was the possibility to cross-examine an individual who is a special witness and partial anonymity was established in the criminal process. A duty was placed on prosecutors not only to investigate the alleged crime, but also to search for property acquired in an illegal manner – the practice of unlawful acquisition also having been criminalised. Among other reforms, control of the administration of tax affairs became much tighter. All these means of legislation are very important, but corruption remains embedded3 and surveys indicate that this is also the public perception. Paradoxically, dissatisfaction is not allayed when publicised scandals see the ‘big fish’ caught out. As academics have noted rather drily: ‘If lawyers could draft laws that prevent corrupt behaviour, there would be no problem with corruption.’4 The fight against corruption also, or even chiefly, depends on the country’s culture, its situation. Unfortunately, change in a society’s way of thinking cannot be moved quickly in the right direction, or even very easily influenced, by the approval of new legal acts. Awareness and change In my experience as a practitioner (and not least in teaching young lawyers), awareness in society is what drives real change. The process is not institutionalised and very difficult to grasp, but that does not make it any less pivotal: the fight against corruption is effective inasmuch as the public is willing and able to change itself. In transition societies more than most, perhaps, desires and possibilities are incompatible. There’s a desire to live better, more transparently, but there’s a lack of commitment to adhere to transparent and unambiguous standards of behaviour. Although the essence of corruption is motivation – receiving benefits and enriching oneself – not enough attention is paid to getting rid of this motivation and finding another one. As noted above, illicit enrichment is now criminalised and rightly so, but with this comes additional legal problems – for example, the burden of proof is transferred and rests on the accused, and so on. It might be more effective to tackle the drive to selfenrichment at source. Preventive measures Deterrence is, of course, one lever. It was previously thought that this was best done through simply prosecuting offenders. However, as noted in the Prevention of Corruption Act, there are many more ways to implement prevention: corruption risk analysis; anti-corruption programmes; anti-corruption assessment of legal acts or their drafts; the provision of information about a person seeking to hold or holding office at a state or municipal agency; the provision of information to the registers of public servants and legal entities; education and awareness raising among the public; public disclosure of detected corruption cases; and other measures for the prevention of corruption provided for by law.5 So prevention and punishment must go side-by-side – but they are not synonymous. Concluding remarks Although there has never been a culture of impunity in Lithuania, much remains to be done. Among the preventive measures not yet taken are the universal declaration of income and assets, and a clear count of property – which means that a number of assets acquired by unlawful means are circulating in the market. Such circumstances can only demoralise society. Commonwealth Governance Handbook 2013/14 75
CGH13_ebook
To see the actual publication please follow the link above