International anti-corruption expert Drago Kos in his columns presented material on the situation with corruption in Ukraine and the role of civil society in the fight against it.
Dear Kos began his career as a police investigator and deputy director of the Investigation Department of Slovenia. Later, he became the head of the Commission for Prevention of Corruption in Slovenia, and now I run my own consulting firm specializing in anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and corporate governance.
Ukraine is a country where, at least in the fight against corruption, civil society plays a very important role, more important than the role it plays in most other countries.
There are several reasons for this: the high level of corruption in Ukraine, the dispersion of state anti-corruption bodies in the past, as well as their chronic inefficiency and more. This has forced members of public organizations from Ukraine to adopt a much more proactive approach to fighting corruption than most of their counterparts in other countries.
The Ukrainian government, under strong pressure from the international community in Kyiv, recognized this, and as a result, public organizations gained influence, popularity and recognition unattainable by similar organizations in other countries.
A constant and justified concern is not only the passivity of the authorities and competent state bodies in the fight against corruption, but also their active obstruction. This was clearly visible in the selection process for the position of head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP). All this caused a reaction in Ukrainian civil society, which had mixed results, not only positive ones.
One of the consequences is absolute and complete mistrust of everyone who works in Ukrainian state bodies.
To demonstrate the level of mistrust, it is only necessary to take into account the painful process of creating the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). Finally, there is a law enforcement institution with real teeth and the perfect set of powers to root out corruption; however, the leaders of one public organization argued that having a purely Ukrainian anti-corruption police unit was a mistake and that a fully international anti-corruption police unit should be created instead. How can a completely foreign structure successfully fight against Ukrainian corruption without the participation of Ukrainians themselves?
Gradually, a truly modern anti-corruption landscape began to take shape in Ukraine, which consisted of the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (NACP), the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) and the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HCC) – a set that would be envied an unlimited number of other countries.
Gradually, it became clear that despite the troubles, these bodies are really doing their job, and this is becoming an increasing problem for civil society in Ukraine. Authorities, which they allegedly did not trust, began to gain momentum and a certain prestige; however, there were still cases where they made mistakes that clearly violated applicable legal and ethical standards. This was the fate of the previous director of NABU, the entire leadership of NAKC a few years ago, and the appointment of the current head of SAP, which was seriously hampered by politics.
As a result, civil society has formed the opinion that only it can decide what is right and what is wrong with regard to corruption.
Now, the decisive criterion for assessing the competence of anti-corruption officials paid by the state is no longer the quality and volume of their work, but their willingness to disclose - in particular to one public organization - even top secret information on matters related to their field of activity, which was then used by this a public organization for its own advertising and so-called "advocacy".
This desire to obtain information, especially secret information, became so important for civil society that it became involved in the process of selecting the last director of NABU.
It actively supported the candidate it considered "friendly", completely ignoring his extremely contradictory vision of the future development of NABU.
His election, combined with another "friendly" appointment to the position of head of the NAKC, would mean that the leading positions in the NAKC, NABU and SAP would be in the pocket of one close-knit circle of friends. This would naturally lead to the absence of significant checks and balances and would give them complete control over the procedures and internal information of these bodies.
Fortunately, the plan didn't work: their candidate for the position of director of the NABU was so bad that he had no chance of winning, and the candidate for the position of head of the NAKC elected by a public organization withdrew due to mistakes made during his previous tenure. However, the potential sole judge over the work of anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine did not give up his aspirations for total control.
Very quickly, both the new head of the SAPS and the new director of NABU came under their influence and became their "friends" - probably believing that it was better to pass on information to civil society or meet with certain members of the public to discuss highly confidential issues "off the record" , than to be the object of harsh criticism.
The NGO welcomed the two new "friends" with joy, regardless of their level of competence, which any impartial investigator would quickly identify as dubious or even corrupt.
Nevertheless, a convenient target was soon discovered - the deputy director of NABU, who did not want to divulge information and tolerate interference in NABU's investigation.
In her irresistible desire to punish the disobedient and indifferent, she forgot that this man was the "heart and soul" of NABU since its foundation and that NABU functioned and functions so successfully solely thanks to his experience and impartiality.
His release suits everyone:
- the director of NABU - because his deputy clearly knows too much about both his professional failures and his efforts to isolate NABU from individual politicians;
– civil society – since, having removed it from NABU, it will completely subordinate the director of NABU and ensure a constant flow of information;
- and the head of the SAP - because the lack of backbone of the director of NABU and his friendship with the same circle of people means that now he can completely subordinate NABU as well;
- Ukrainian politicians - because they will get rid of a person who does not accept their offers of friendship; and foreign embassies, which at a time when significant military, financial and political support is directed to Ukraine, do not need a person who would vigorously pursue and accuse any corrupt actions of the political elite of the same Ukraine.
All these interests can be understood. However, it is impossible to understand with what ease they are slandering and disowning a person who until then was recognized by everyone as a person without whom Ukraine would not have been able to achieve certain victories in the fight against corruption. Do they think that after years of efforts devoted entirely to the fight against corruption, this man suddenly converted and became corrupt himself?
The real anti-corruption fighters remain loyal to the fight against corruption, while politicians, officials, diplomats and, apparently, some public organizations do not.
Undoubtedly, the latest events at NABU indicate the beginning of the end of the real fight against corruption in Ukraine. Perhaps civil society does not want to see this yet because it is more important to maintain the flow of information and its own appearance of infallibility and omniscience.
As long as it does not recognize that there are also honest professionals working in NAKC, NABU, SAP and VAKS, there can be no serious efforts to fight corruption in Ukraine.
As long as it does not recognize that the independence of NAZK, NABU, SAP and VAKS is crucial, there can be no effective fight against corruption by these bodies. Many agencies are important elements in the fight against corruption in most other countries of the world; if they weren't, there would be no need for them to have police forces, prosecutors, and courts. All they would need is something like a CPC.
What a paradox - at the very moment when the country needed to fight corruption as effectively as possible, taking into account the largest ever expenditure of international aid, these efforts will be destroyed by the very people who beat themselves the loudest about how honest they are!
Dear Kos, anti-corruption expert
To always be aware of the most important things, read us at Telegram
