Nathaniel
Global Integrity's friends at The Center for Investigative Reporting - Bosnia-Herzegovina, have launched a news portal addressing organized crime in the Balkans, in partnership with a host of local muckrakers. The URL is www.reportingproject.net, or read below for background.
CIR/BiH's Drew Sullivan writes from Sarajevo:Hello friends:
Very quietly we have put up our regional organized crime website. This is part of a joint project of a number of different organizations including the Center for Investigative Reporting in Sarajevo, the Romanian Center for Investigative Reporting, the Bulgarian Investigative Journalism Center, the Caucasus Media Investigative Center, Novaya Gazeta in Moscow, Media Focus in Serbia and reporters and news outlets in another half dozen countries.
http://www.reportingproject.net
It also includes our latest tobacco project which is now mostly online.
It is funded by the UN Democacy Fund but individual projects have been funded and supported by the good folks at SCOOP and Open Society.
We hope to have a one stop site for organized crime and corruption stories and resources for journalists. We hope to expand in the near future and pump out more stories and more resources. Any thoughts or comments are appreciated.
Thanks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Drew Sullivan
Center for Investigative Reporting - Bosnia-Herzegovina
To contact Drew's team, you can leave comments on this post and we'll see that they're forwarded to him.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Organized Crime in the Balkans
Friday, March 14, 2008
Reporter's Notebook: Russia
By Galina Stolyarova
One day in April 2007, human rights lawyer Olga Tseitlina got a sudden call to a St. Petersburg police station. She had been asked to represent a client detained and fined for allegedly swearing in public. She soon discovered that police had used similar evidence against nearly 100 others.
They had all been rounded up during an April 15 demonstration called by an opposition group, The Other Russia Coalition. In theory, the right to protest is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but Tseitlina alleges that Russian police use any means they have to suppress such events.
"One police statement ordering a person's detention for swearing in a public place may not look suspicious. But if we collect more than 50 identical statements… then it becomes clear that the evidence was contrived," Tseitlina said.
Read more in the Global Integrity Report: Russia...
Image: Street protest in Moscow, April 2007, by Dave Pyle.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Reporter's Notebook: Turkey
By Burak Bekdil
Winston Churchill once described Russia as "a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma." Today, that description is perfectly applicable to 21st century Turkey. One of Europe's poorest economies — with the Old Continent's youngest and second-largest population — Turkey has a unique combination of demographics, politics and economics. Annual population growth is 1.5 percent; crime rates are around 40 percent and rising; 80 percent evade their taxes; a quarter of households use stolen electricity; half of the economy is "underground" and corruption is endemic. Yet, few Turks complain.
When Recep Tayyip Erdogan launched his Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2002, parliamentary elections were only a few months away, and he based his election campaign on solid pledges to fight corruption. In November 2002, the AKP won a landslide election victory, earning an unusual two-thirds majority in Turkey's 550-seat Parliament, despite getting only one-third of the national vote. The discrepancy is a quirk of Turkey's peculiar election laws, which include a 10 percent national threshold for parliamentary representation.
But even from the AKP's early days in power, there were hints that the party's pre-election commitment to fight corruption came with no genuine desire to fulfill it...
Read More at the Global Integrity Report: Turkey...
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Training Offered for Anti-Corruption Agency Staff
Luis De Sousa, a Global Integrity contributor in Portugal, is offering to train anti-corruption agency staff. The Second Meeting of the Network on Anti-Corruption Agencies (ANCORAGE-NET) will take place at the University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE) on 14-16 May 2008.
Application instructions and details are here:
Open Call for Trainees
The program schedule is reposted here:
EMPOWERING ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENCIES:
DEFYING INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE AND STRENGTHENING PREVENTIVE AND REPRESSIVE CAPACITIES
Lisbon, 14-16 May 2008
ISCTE, Auditório Afonso de Barros (Ala Autónoma)
WORKSHOP DIRECTOR: Luís de Sousa, CIES-ISCTE (luis.sousa@iscte.pt)
ORGANIZATION: Centro de Investigação e Estudos de Sociologia (CIES-ISCTE)
CO-FINANCED BY: Hercule Grant Programme, European Antifraud Office (OLAF)
IN COOPERATION WITH: The Australian National University (ANU)
OTHER SPONSORS: FCT, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, British Council, FLAD (Luso-American Foundation), Público
PARTICIPANTS: Heads of Anti-Corruption and Law Enforcement Agencies (EU Member States, Candidate Countries and Associated Countries), Justice senior officials, foreign ACA officials, NGO representatives and academics.
PROGRAMME
DAY I - WEDNESDAY, MAY 14
WELCOME TO PARTICIPANTS
(10:00)
Luís Reto (President of ISCTE, Portugal)
Luís de Sousa (CIES-ISCTE, Portugal) and Peter Larmour (APSEG/ANU, Australia)
OPENING ADDRESS
(10:15-11:00)
Opening speech by the Director General of the European Antifraud Office (OLAF)
Mr. Franz-Hermann Brüner
Coffee break (15 min)
PLENARY SESSION 1: DEFYING INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE
(11:30-13:00)
Bertrand de Speville (Formerly Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Hong Kong and Scientific Adviser to the Council of Europe's Multidisciplinary Group on Corruption, UK) "Failing anti-corruption agencies - causes and cures"
Jon Quah (Anti-Corruption Consultant, Singapore) "Defying Institutional Failure: Learning from the Experiences of the Anti-Corruption Agencies in Asian Countries"
Frank Anechiarico (Hamilton College, US) "Fighting Corruption in Metropolitan Cities: The Problem of Finding Best Practices"
Debate
Lunch (13:00-15:00)
ROUNDTABLE 1
HOW TO MAKE THE LEGISLATOR HEAR YOUR CLAIMS FOR STATUTORY REFORM?
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY "INDEPENDENCE"?
WHAT MAKES A STRONG LEADERSHIP?
HOW TO IMPLEMENT A SOUND MANAGERIAL STRATEGY?
HOW TO MAXIMISE THE SCOPE OF MANDATE (INFORMAL INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT)?
PULLING OUT THE "INSTITUTIONAL VACUUM": HOW TO ENGAGE OTHER KEY PLAYERS?
HOW TO BUILD AN IMAGE OF CREDIBILITY?
(15:00-16:30)
Chair: To be announced
Rapporteurs: Luís de Sousa (CIES-ISCTE, Portugal) and Peter Larmour (APSEG/ANU, Australia)
Coffee break (20 min)
WG 1 DISCUSSION
(17:00-18:00)
DAY II - THURSDAY, MAY 15
PLENARY SESSION 2: STRENGTHENING THE REPRESSIVE CAPACITY OF ACAS
(10:00-13:00)
Brendan Quirke (Liverpool Business School, UK)
Rosalind Wright (Chairperson of the Fraud Advisory Panel, UK and Member of OLAF's Supervisory Committee)
Mick Symons (New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, Australia)
Debate
Lunch (13:00-15:00)
ROUNDTABLE 2
MANAGING SYSTEMS OF COMPLAINTS
SPECIAL POWERS AND GUARANTEES
INTELLIGENCE FACILITATION AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER ACROSS STATE DEPARTMENTS
SETTING JOIN INVESTIGATIVE TEAMS
THE USE OF ICT IN INVESTIGATION
(15:00-16:30)
Chair: Abel Fleitas Ortiz de Rozas (Head of the Anti-Corruption Office of the Argentine Government)
Rapporteurs: Luís de Sousa (CIES-ISCTE, Portugal) and Peter Larmour (APSEG/ANU, Australia)
Coffee break (20 min)
WG 2 DISCUSSION
(17:00-18:00)
DAY III - FRIDAY, MAY 16
PLENARY SESSION 3: STRENGTHENING THE PREVENTIVE CAPACITY OF ACAS
(10:00-13:00)
Angela Gorta (New South Wales Police Integrity Commission, Australia)
Bryane Michael (Linacre College/Oxford, UK) 'Quantitative Methods for Anti-Corruption Agencies and Internal Security Units'
Cláudio Abramo (Transparência Brasil, Brazil) 'Information and State monitoring'
Debate
Lunch (13:00-15:00)
ROUNDTABLE 3:
DEVELOPING RESEARCH METHODS ON ETHICAL/CORRUPTION ISSUES
SURVEYING AND PROFILING TOOLS
BUILDING/MANAGING PUBLIC MONITORING TOOLS AND DATABASES
ASSESSING RISK AREAS
(15:00-16:30)
Chair: To be announced
Rapporteurs: Luís de Sousa (CIES-ISCTE, Portugal) and Peter Larmour (APSEG/ANU, Australia)
Coffee break (20 min)
WG 3 DISCUSSION
(17:00-18:00)
Presentation of conclusions from the Rapporteurs:
Luís de Sousa (CIES-ISCTE, Portugal) and Peter Larmour (APSEG/ANU, Australia)
CLOSING ADDRESS
(18:15)
Closing Speech by The Portuguese Attorney-General,
Mr. Fernando Pinto Monteiro (to be confirmed)
Group photo & Conference dinner
SATURDAY MORNING: GROUP EXCURSION TO SINTRA AND CASCAIS
ABSTRACTS
Bertrand de Speville (Formerly Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Hong Kong and Scientific Adviser to the Council of Europe's Multidisciplinary Group on Corruption, UK)
Title: "Failing anti-corruption agencies - causes and cures"
Abstract: Anticorruption agencies are usually created when corruption has spread so widely that offences of bribery are no longer investigated or prosecuted. But many of these agencies fail dismally to have any impact. The causes of failure fall into broad categories relating to political considerations, realism in objectives and expectations, strategic vision, the anti-corruption laws, implementation policies and practices, public confidence and staying in control of the problem. From the examination of particular causes, what needs to be done to give the next anti-corruption initiative a chance of success becomes obvious. The presentation concludes by pointing out that an anti-corruption agency is not in itself the answer to a country's corruption problems. An agency can ever only be a part of the solution. It is however the part on which success depends.
Jon Quah (Anti-Corruption Consultant, Singapore)
Title: "Defying Institutional Failure: Learning from the Experiences of the Anti-Corruption Agencies in Asian Countries"
Abstract: The first Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) was established in Asia with the formation of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in Singapore in October 1952. More than two decades later, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was created in February 1974 to curb corruption in Hong Kong. The effectiveness of the CPIB and ICAC in minimizing corruption in the two city-states has led to the increased reliance on ACAs to spearhead the anti-corruption strategies in other Asian countries. More specifically, ACAs were set up in these countries: Malaysia (October 1967), Brunei (February 1982), Nepal (1990), Sri Lanka (November 1994), Pakistan (November 1999), Thailand (November 1999), Macao (December 1999), South Korea (January 2002), Indonesia (December 2003), Bangladesh (August 2004), Bhutan (January 2006), and Mongolia (December 2006). However, the 12 ACAs in the above countries have not been as effective as the CPIB and the ICAC for various reasons. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (1) to identify the factors responsible for the effectiveness of the CPIB in Singapore and the ICAC in Hong Kong; (2) to explain why the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) in Thailand, and South Korea's Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC) are less effective than the CPIB and ICAC; and (3) to identify the lessons that can be learnt by the ACAs in European countries to avoid institutional failure from the success of the CPIB and ICAC and the failure of the KICAC and NCCC. This paper focuses on the CPIB, ICAC, KICAC and NCCC for two reasons. First, there is a great deal of literature and data on these four well-known ACAs. Second, because of space constraints and availability of data, the KICAC and NCCC were selected for comparison with the CPIB and ICAC by the author because of his familiarity with these four ACAs.
Frank Anechiarico (Hamilton College, US)
Title: "Fighting Corruption in Metropolitan Cities: The Problem of Finding Best Practices"
Abstract: The title indicates a focus that will concentrate on the U.S., but use an historical and comparative approach to consider the difficulty of developing theories that explain and predict the outcome of corruption controls. The broad difference - and shades of grey - between value oriented and rule oriented strategies will be at the center of my talk. I will also consider the ways in which the New Public Management has influenced corruption control. Best practices, as a concept, should be applicable to integrity management. Is it?
Cláudio Abramo (Transparência Brasil, Brazil)
Title: 'Information and State monitoring'
Abstract: The growing availability of information in bulk provided both by State institutions and private sources such as the media opens up a fertile terrain for the development of monitoring initiatives conducted by pressure groups and NGOs. Cross-referencing data obtained from a variety of different sources result in aggregations and analyses that exhibit patterns that otherwise tend to remain hidden. Transparência Brasil, a Brazilian NGO dedicated to combating corruption, enhancing the State integrity and to promote access to information, has been exploring that potential since its inception in 2001. Using both State-originated information and data collected by itself (such as from newspapers), the organization created several Internet-based tools that third parties use to monitor different aspects of the State's activities. Not only the media and other NGOs use the resulting information for their ends, but also public prosecutors, investigators, State auditors and other State agents benefit from the data treated by Transparência Brasil in their work.
BIOGRAPHY OF GUEST SPEAKERS
Frank Anechiarico (Ph.D., Indiana) Maynard-Knox Professor of Government and Law, studies constitutional law and public administration. He is the coauthor (with Eugene Lewis) of Urban America: Politics and Policy (2nd ed., 1983) and the author of "Suing the Philadelphia Police: The Case for an Institutional Approach," Law and Policy Quarterly (1984) and "Remembering Corruption: The Elusive Lessons of Scandal in New York City," Corruption and Reform (1990). Contributing editor of Corruption and Racketeering... The New York City Construction Industry, a report to the Governor from the New York State Organized Crime Task Force. He is co-author with Steven Lockwood of "The Responsibility of the Police Command for Street Level Action," Law and Policy (1991) and with James B. Jacobs of "The Continuing Saga of Municipal Reform," Urban Affairs Quarterly (1992), and "Visions of Corruption Control," Public Administration Review (1994). He was a research fellow of the Center for Research on Crime and Justice at New York University Law School during 1991-92. Anechiarico and Jacobs' book, The Pursuit of Absolute Integrity: How Corruption Control Makes Government is published by University of Chicago Press (October 1996). He has also published in Administration and Society.
Angela Gorta is the Principal Analyst at the New South Wales Police Integrity Commission, based in Sydney Australia. Dr Gorta conducted criminological research for more than ten years while working as the Senior Research Officer and then as Chief Research Officer of the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services. Prior to her work at the Police Integrity Commission, Dr Gorta was the Research Manager at the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), an agency established to expose and minimise corruption in the New South Wales public sector. During her ten years at the ICAC, Dr Gorta managed the ICAC's significant research program which focused on informing efforts to reduce public sector corruption. While at the ICAC she designed, conducted and/or supervised a range of original empirical research projects. Amongst other projects, Dr Gorta created a profile of the functions, corruption risks and prevention strategies across the New South Wales public sector to identify where further intervention would be most effective to assist individual public agencies strengthen their capacity to minimise and manage corruption risks. She also designed a wide range of surveys to explore employee and community understanding of corruption and barriers to taking action about it. A number of other agencies have sought to replicate some of the research initiatives designed by Dr Gorta in their own jurisdictions.
Bertrand de Speville is a lawyer by profession. He practised in the private and public sectors in London and Hong Kong and was Solicitor General of Hong Kong before being asked to turn his attention to corruption and good governance. Since stepping down in 1996 as the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption of Hong Kong (ICAC), Mr. de Speville has advised governments and international organisations on various aspects of anti-corruption policy and practice. He is currently the advisor to the Council of Europe's Multidisciplinary Group on Corruption.
Cláudio Abramo is currently Executive Director of Transparência Brasil an NGO devoted to the fight against corruption by means of coalitions between the public sector, civil society and the private sector. Its work is based on a National Integrity Network made up of organisations and individuals united around programs developed in the federal, state and municipal levels, as well as initiatives directed to society in general and its specific sectors. He is responsible for setting up various online databanks for monitoring the assets and interests of elective officials (Excelências) and party financing (Às Claras) in Brazil.
Jon S.T. Quah, Ph.D., was Professor of Political Science at the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Co-editor of the Asian Journal of Political Science until his retirement from NUS in June 2007 after 35 years of service. He is now a consultant on anti-corruption strategies, civil service reform, and policy analysis in Asian Countries. His visiting appointments include: the East-West Center in Honolulu; the Harvard-Yenching Institute and Harvard Institute of International Development; the Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California at Berkeley; the Stanford Program in International Legal Studies and the Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University; and the National Centre for Development Studies, Australian National University. He has published widely on anti-corruption strategies, civil service reform, and public personnel management in Asian countries. His most recent book is Curbing Corruption in Asia: A Comparative Study of Six Countries (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 2003). He was commissioned by Transparency International (TI) of Berlin in August 2006 to prepare the Regional Overview Report of the National Integrity Systems in nine Asian countries. This TI Regional Overview Report on East and Southeast Asia can be downloaded from http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/nis/regional/asia_pacific. For more details of Professor Quah's publications and professional activities, see his website at http://www.jonstquah.com.
Luís de Sousa is principal researcher in Political Science at CIES-ISCTE, Lisbon, Portugal. He is the coordinator of the Portuguese Observatory of Ethics in Public Life and Project Director of ANCORAGE-NET (www.ancorage-net.org). His research interests focus on corruption control and ethics reform, political system reform, comparative politics and public policies, European integration, e-democracy and corporate governance. Most recent publications include: 'The regulation of political financing in Portugal: a political and historical analysis', West European Politics, January 2004, 27(1), 124-145; 'Hard responses to corruption: Penal standards and the repression of corruption in Britain, France and Portugal', Crime, Law and Social Change, October 2002, 38(3), 267-294; 'Corruption and Parties in Portugal', West European Politics, 24(1), January 2001, 157-180; 'Corrupção, ética de governo e eleitores: Algumas reflexões sobre o impacto da corrupção e impropriedade, como 'voting issue', durante a queda das maiorias Social-Democrata e Conservadora em Portugal (1995) e no Reino Unido (1997)' in Braga da Cruz (ed.) A Reforma do Estado em Portugal - Problemas e Perspectivas, Lisboa, Bizâncio, 2001; (co-authored with Yves Mény) 'Corruption Political/Public Aspects' in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, New York, Pergamon/Elsevier, 2000.
Michael (Mick) Symons Mick Symons was appointed to the position of Executive Director Investigation Division (ICAC - NSW) on 4 June 2007. A former Chief Superintendent with the South Australia Police, Mr Symons was the Officer in Charge of Major Crime Investigation Branch and the Anti Corruption Branch. He also has extensive experience in the investigation of organized crime, paedophilia, and major drug offences. Mr. Symons has a Master of Business Administration, a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice, a Graduate Diploma in Public Administration (Policing), a Graduate Diploma in Fraud Investigation, a Graduate Certificate in Management, a Law Degree (with Hons) and a B. Bus (Marketing) Degree. He is admitted to the South Australian Bar to practice in that State. He is an Adjunct Lecturer with the Charles Sturt University (Australian Police College Campus) with responsibility for Investigation Management subjects.
Peter Larmour is a Reader in the Policy and Governance program at the Australian National University. His book Foreign Flowers: Institutional Transfer and Good Governance in the Pacific Islands was recently published by the University of Hawaii Press. He is co-directing with Barry Hindess a three-year research project on 'Transparency International and the Problem of Corruption' funded by the Australia Research Council.
Rosalind Wright CB was called to the Bar in 1964 and later practised as a tenant in the Chambers of Morris Finer QC. Between 1983 and 1987 she was Head of the Fraud Investigation Group in the Director of Public Prosecutions Department. She prosecuted major fraud cases in the Greater London area. Before her appointment in 1997 as Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Mrs Wright was General Counsel and an Executive Director of the Securities and Futures Authority (now part of the Financial Services Authority) and had also been Head of Prosecutions. She played a key role in defining enforcement policy within the developing securities industry regulatory regime. Mrs Wright was Director of the Serious Fraud Office from April 1997 until April 2003, when she was appointed by the European Commission to the OLAF Supervisory Committee on a three-year term. She is also Chairperson of the Fraud Advisory Panel and a non-executive director of the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade & Industry.
Brendan Quirke Lecturer at Liverpool Business School, UK.
Bryane Michael is currently at Linacre College (Oxford) and serves as a Senior Advisor to the European Union on Anti-Corruption and Governance issues for Ukraine, Moldova, Romania and Azerbaijan. He has trained over 70 corruption investigators in both intelligence-led and statistics-led investigation techniques and 40 prosecutors in EU best practice in prosecutorial strategy. He formerly worked for almost 5 years with the World Bank and the OECD on anti-corruption programmes for Turkey, Russia, Bolivia and Nicaragua. He has published over 20 academic articles in the area of anti-corruption.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Internet Censorship: A Comparative Study
Using data from the Global Integrity Index, we put a U.S. court's recent order to block access to anti-corruption site Wikileaks.org into context. In summary: The Wikileaks.org shutdown is unheard of in the West, and has only been seen in a handful of the most repressive regimes. Good thing it doesn't work very well.
Starting in 2007, Global Integrity added specific questions about Internet censorship to the Integrity Indicators, which are a set of 304 questions addressing the practice of anti-corruption in national governments. We have always held that a free and critical media is an essential component of good governance; adding an analysis of Internet censorship was an overdue refinement.
We asked our local research teams to investigate two questions:
The Many Flavors of Internet Censorship
A few countries, however, are deeply committed to trying to make censorship work. On this list in 2007 are Algeria, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Russia and Thailand. Each has it's own flavor to the repression of online speech -- Internet censorship is still in an experimentation phase, and even the most aggressive approaches don't seem to work very well.
- Algeria has no firewalls or filters, but outlaws hosting content critical of the government, and monitors chat rooms for political speech. [source]
- China is home to 1.3 billion people and has a highly scalable technological approach based on extensive content filters known satirically as the Great Firewall of China. China is also uses technology to discourage content creation, deploying cute animated police characters (pictured above) to remind Internet users they are being watched. [source]
- Egypt has limited technical means to discourage content creation, so it relies on an old-fashioned technique -- harassment, beatings and arrests. Hala Al-Masry used to publish in a blog entitled "Cops Without Boundaries" until the government harassed her, "unknown people" beat her father, and she and her husband were arrested and signed a commitment to shut down the blog. Similar techniques have shut down websites of opposition parties. [source]
- Kazakhstan has little Internet capacity. The government uses this to mask censorship -- rather than block sites, it slows them down, frustrating the users of political content into looking elsewhere. The KNB (formerly the KGB) has a special program called Bolat, which slows down, but does not stop, access to sites of terrorist organizations. Popular opinion holds that it is used to slow opposition party sites as well. [source]
- Russia has a mixed bag of state persecution and neglect, allowing a rare opening for free expression in a country with highly restricted media. However, the sophistication of the attacks that do occur is frightening, with hackers singling out individual online targets. For instance, the website of Ekho Moskvy, a liberal Moscow radio station critical of the Kremlin, was brought down by a DDoS attack last year. [source]
- Thailand's military junta moved aggressively to shut down message boards and the formerly-ruling party Thai Rak Thai website after taking over the country in 2006. But the junta's censorship cops work to keep the thinnest appearance of tolerance -- message boards were allowed to reopen under the condition that they did not "provoke any misunderstandings." Message received. [source]
The court order that muzzled Wikileaks.org (covered here) was prompted not by the government but by a bank registered in the Cayman Islands. The bank used American courts and a compliant domain registrar to scrub the wikileaks.org URL from the Internet. It is extremely unlikely that this decision will stand up in an appeals court, but the larger point is that there is no reason this case should even be fought. Wikileaks should not need a legal team to explain to the courts that the First Amendment requires freedom of speech.
The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests.
Online Censorship: Sounds good, but it never works.
While there is much diversity in the style of Internet censorship among the world's worst offenders, one common thread unites them: Internet censorship doesn't work. Cut off one site, and a thousand more pop up. In China, censorship online is sparking criticism that off-line censorship has rarely seen.
So Wikileaks.org went offline, but Wikileaks mirror sites hosted overseas hold the same content, and the original site is still up and running from Sweden (http://88.80.13.160) without its easier-to-type URL. As it turns out, shutting down Wikileaks-the-website has focused our attention on Wikileaks-the-idea, which is spreading at the speed of light.
UPDATE: for more reading on anti-corruption, governance and censorship, try the Global Integrity Report. For more on online censorship, try the Electronic Frontier Foundation or the Open Net Initiative.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Russia: Election Monitors Pulling Out
Europe's primary election watchdog, ODIHR, is withdrawing its Russian election monitoring mission, citing unacceptable government restrictions.
The press release here.
Media coverage here.
The press release begins: WARSAW, 7 February 2008 - The OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) regrets that restrictions imposed on its planned election observation mission will not allow it to deploy a mission to the 2 March 2008 presidential election in Russia.
Image: Ambassador Christian Strohal, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/Mikhail Evstafiev).
"We made every effort in good faith to deploy our mission, even under the conditions imposed by the Russian authorities," said Ambassador Christian Strohal, ODIHR's Director. "We have a responsibility to all 56 participating States to fulfil our mandate, and the Russian Federation has created limitations that are not conducive to undertaking election observation in accordance with it."
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Clean Elections No Guarantee of Strong Democratic Society
New Report Assesses Anti-Corruption Mechanisms and Government Accountability in 55 Countries, Including First Investigation of
(Washington D.C.) – Although elections are often touted as the linchpin of governance reform efforts around the world, a new report finds long-term benefits offered by elections are often undermined by a lack of government accountability and the absence of strong anti-corruption mechanisms. The report, a major investigative study of 55 countries, was released today by Global Integrity, an international nonprofit organization that tracks global governance and corruption trends.
“We have to stop using elections as a simplistic litmus test for a government’s commitment to democracy,” said Global Integrity’s Managing Director Nathaniel Heller. “We now know there is little linkage between elections and the much tougher reforms that must be made, especially in countries at political crossroads such as Pakistan, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kenya.”
The Global Integrity Report: 2007 covers most of the Group of 8 (G8) countries as well as dozens of the world’s emerging markets and developing nations, from Argentina to China to Zambia. Rather than try and measure corruption directly, the report investigates and assesses the government accountability mechanisms and transparency measures needed to prevent corruption and promote good governance.
Many of the findings of the report should be sobering for policy makers and investors alike. The weaknesses found in China’s anti-corruption framework, for example, raise questions as to the true risks facing investors rushing to capitalize on the country’s economic boom– and to the risks Chinese investment funds pose to Western markets. “China’s lack of strong anti-corruption mechanisms could soon be to foreign investment what subprime mortgages have been to the U.S. economy,” stated Heller. “The message from our report to investors should sound a lot like ‘buyer beware’.”
Other major findings of the report include the following:
· The US and other G8 countries suffer from many of the same corruption challenges as developing countries, especially in election and campaign financing. While many observers tend to assume that wealthier countries have developed to a point where corruption is no longer a problem, Global Integrity’s 2007 data for the United States, France, Italy, Japan, and Canada paints a decidedly different picture.
· Despite the conventional wisdom that changes in governance and anti-corruption performance take many years to manifest themselves, several countries exhibited significant improvements or backsliding from 2006 to 2007. The biggest gainers in the past year were Bulgaria, Nepal and Azerbaijan; Nigeria and Georgia were the countries that experienced the greatest declines.
· Poor ratings for several close allies of the United States highlight the challenges the U.S. faces in promoting democratic reforms in countries where it has competing security interests. The report found that countries like Pakistan and Georgia posted ‘weak’ or ‘very weak’ ratings for many of the anti-corruption, accountability and transparency indicators.
· A widespread lack of government accountability among foreign aid recipients presents serious dilemmas for Western and multilateral aid agencies. Despite a growing awareness by aid donors of the need to direct aid to non-governmental stakeholders, like civil society groups, aid agencies continue working primarily with the very same executive branches that are often hindering democratic reforms.
“This report should be a roadmap for change and a wake-up call to policy makers, investors, and aid donors around the globe,” said Global Integrity’s International Director, Marianne Camerer. “It’s also a take-action toolkit for public officials and citizens who want to fight corruption and increase government accountability.”
The report is the product of months of on-the-ground reporting and data gathering by a team of more than 250 in-country journalists and researchers who prepared more than a million words of text and 20,000 data points for their respective countries. Twenty-four countries were repeated from Global Integrity’s 2006 assessments, while 31 were newly assessed.
To access the Global Integrity Report: 2007, please visit http://report.globalintegrity.org. For more information about the organization, visit http://www.globalintegrity.org. Global Integrity is an independent, non-profit organization tracking governance and corruption trends around the world. Global Integrity works with local teams of researchers and journalists to monitor openness and accountability. Its data and reporting are used routinely by aid donors, governments, grassroots advocates, and investors to prioritize governance challenges in countries and develop roadmaps for reform.
Global Integrity is grateful to the Legatum Institute for Global Development ( www.ligd.org) for its continued support of Global Integrity’s work. LIGD is an independent policy, advocacy and advisory organisation within the Legatum group of companies (www.legatum.com). The Institute’s mission is to research and promote those principles that drive the creation of global prosperity and the expansion of human liberty and well-being, including the rule of law, transparency, and accountable government as the pillars of a prosperous and free society. Other supporters of the Global Integrity Report: 2007 were the Australian Agency for International Development, the Wallace Global Fund, and the World Bank.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Italy: Prodi out. Berlusconi back?
Italy remains without a formal government (AFP story) since Prime Minister Prodi's ruling coalition collapsed -- triggered by a corruption investigation -- earlier this week. Much of this week's drama can be pinned on a new election law which tends to create radically unstable coalitions. Talks are underway to replace the law prior to new elections.
Into this mix launches Silvio Berlusconi. The former prime minister wants new elections held immediately, potentially winning big for his center-right bloc before the left can regroup. Berlusconi pushed through the doomed election law shortly before leaving office in an attempt to limit an expected win by the left. Mission accomplished, I suppose.
So what might a Berlusconi return bring? In a flashback to 2004, we offer Global Integrity's Italian reporter, Leo Sisti's take on anti-corruption under the Berlusconi government. His analysis was not encouraging:
The current [2004] government has done nothing to fight corruption. Instead, as already reported, Prime Minister Berlusconi worked to stop his trials connected to kickbacks. In 1997 the former center-left government tried to set up a special anti-corruption commission, an enforcement agency empowered to investigate MP's assets, as well as the assets of major city mayors, state managers, and directors of local bodies (regions, provinces and town councils). Rules for lobbyists and a national register of government-funded contracts were also planned. But in 2001 the Parliament was dissolved and the anti-corruption commission died with it, destroying every chance to open a door towards accountability and openness in the Italian government.
The attitude of the Berlusconi government is obvious. Far from rooting out corruption, the center-right coalition instead decided to set up a parliamentary commission to investigate the magistrates who carried out the "Clean Hands" investigations. Officially, the commission wants to scrutinize facts around "Bribesville" (Tangentopoli, as this operation was dubbed by the media), looking into the "Clean Hands" operation dating back to the early 1990s. But the Milan prosecutors are the real target, even if their investigations were later confirmed in courts through thousands of convictions for corruption. It's a vendetta by Berlusconi, who is trying to get rid of the part of the judiciary that he says used its power against him. (Global Integrity Report: 2004)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Corruption may topple Italian ruling coalition
Italian Justice Minister Clemente Mastella has resigned after police placed his wife under house arrest following an investigation into corruption in the local health care system. Mastella, who is also under investigation, still controls seats in the Senate.
Prime Minister Romano Prodi, who had a razor-thin one-vote majority prior to Mastella's resignation, now faces an impending confidence vote, scheduled Thursday. Mastella has withdrawn support from Prodi's coalition. Of course, he can still vote with Prodi, making him a kingmaker. Indeed, he hints this may be his plan:
"We will be demanding, not like before when we accepted compromises," Mastalla said, quoted in the International Herald Tribune.
Seeing as how he is under investigation for corruption, what demands exactly would those be? As tools for pressure on a prosecuting government go, this is a pretty big lever.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
New Blog Design
With the help of some talented programmers who offer their work to the open-source community, as well as some good old fashioned poking-around-with-code, we have a new layout for the Commons. Not all features are up to speed yet, but the outline is here.