Georgia Performs Well in Global Corruption Index, but New Cases Worrisome
Corruption affecting political as well as business decisions is generally considered one of the main obstacles for an equal and prosperous civil society. No matter the political ideology, from the capitalism-favoring USA to communism-based China, corruption is seen as a hindrance to an efficient state, obstructing new legal implementations and necessary changes to the system. If a judicial system, for example, fails to prosecute regardless of the suspect’s financial and personal power, the legitimacy of the state suffers the most, endangering an overall civil obedience to laws enacted by the government.
To many Georgians, a corrupt judicial system coupled with policemen driven by personal gains is nothing uncommon, but recent governments have successfully cracked down on corrupt officials, leaving the country in a better state than after the independence from the Soviet Union. This is also highlighted by the recent TRACE report, which ranks countries worldwide based on different government transparency categories. The report places Georgia at 23rd in an international environment in which high-level political corruption has seen a slight surge again.
Despite the legislative improvements initially introduced by the post-Rose Revolution government, the spread of corruption differs strongly between specific industry sectors in Georgia and new cases of judicial opacity are being reported. These new cases are often a result of weak law enforcement procedures, as Georgia prides itself on one of the most advanced anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislations worldwide.
GEORGIA TODAY had an interview with Alexandra Wrage, renowned anti-bribery and corruption expert and President of TRACE, where she explained the major developments in Georgia.
In which direction do you see Georgia’s political corruption moving? An improvement or a worsening of the situation?
Since 2015, we’ve seen a deterioration in assessments of corruption between the government and foreign businesses, along with an across-the-board degradation in indicators of effective enforcement (increased diversion of public funds and a noticeable resurgence of organized crime). Anecdotally, it seems to have started a few years earlier, but the data can lag behind the reality on the ground. Widespread corruption in the judiciary is widely reported. At the same time, Georgia continues to be a leader on streamlined business procedures and reduced red tape, which helps to keep Georgia at the forefront of transparency in the region.
Are there specific examples of corruption in Georgia which have caught your attention due to their uniqueness to other international cases?
The Linde Gas case is notable in the US as one of the early instances of the Department of Justice’s new “declination with disgorgement” policy for resolving foreign-bribery allegations. Less recently, the Rony Fuchs prosecution in 2011 stands out as among the more controversial resolutions of a transnational bribery case.
How successful are anti-corruption campaigns in Georgia and how is their success measured?
The post–Rose Revolution reforms appear to have been quite successful in the short-term, thanks to the combination of political prioritization and radical streamlining of bureaucratic procedures. Determining success, however, is still largely an anecdotal process; measures of actual corruption remain hard to come by but the Georgian private sector speaks candidly, even passionately, about a recent shift in the wrong direction.
How do you receive corruption cases? Is there a way people can report directly to your organization or do you monitor national newspapers from abroad?
The TRACE Compendium of transnational bribery cases draws on news reports, court filings, and official governmental statements. Because we do not directly investigate cases ourselves, we don’t have a mechanism for people to report misconduct to us directly.
Where do you personally see the biggest issues with corruption in Georgia and what are the greatest obstacles to improving the situation?
A critical element in sustaining the fight against corruption is an independent and well-functioning judicial system. Anecdotally, this is an area in which Georgia has significant problems. If the courts themselves are susceptible to bribery, it can be extremely difficult to find effective recourse against corrupt government officials. And corrupt courts are a deterrent to foreign investment; companies must insist on arbitration clauses in order to avoid judges that can be swayed by bribes, but that isn’t always possible.
Does geopolitics play a role in corruption in Georgia? Meaning, are Russia, the US or other global players affecting the political landscape negatively in favor of corruption?
Speaking generally, working against corruption is considerably easier within a politically stable context. Georgia’s geopolitical importance may indeed make it susceptible to destabilizing influences that can foster a corrupt environment. Unfortunately, many of the former Soviet states have been plagued by high levels of corruption, but Georgia has done more than most to promote transparency.
Is there a generational difference on how the general public accepts/fights corruption?
There may be, and we can certainly have hope in the power of youthful idealism to shift societal expectations. To the extent that some of the systemic corruption is a holdover from the Soviet period, there is reason to hope that the impact of generational change – for example, to leadership with no experience of Georgia during that time – will be more relevant in Georgia than in many countries. But the adverse effects of corruption are widely diffused, with no systematic age discrimination. This is an issue that affects everyone, and everyone can contribute to addressing it.
Which specific legislative measures can the government impose to improve the situation?
As noted earlier, Georgia’s anti-corruption laws are already among the best in the world, and it has taken the important steps of reducing the opportunity for low-level bribe solicitation by cutting unnecessary red tape. Addressing higher-level corruption may require improving the citizenry’s power to provide oversight and apply political pressure. Legislative steps toward increased transparency, due process and press freedom can be among the most productive in this respect. The apparent cooperation of the Georgian government with the Azeri government’s abduction of journalist Afgan Mukhtarli was a dramatic step backward in this respect.
Is there a lack of law enforcement in Georgia or does the anti-corruption law lack essential paragraphs to be effective?
Georgia has one of the most complete sets of anti-corruption laws in the world, with one of the best rankings on that score in the TRACE Bribery Risk Matrix. The enforcement conditions, however, while clearly better than the regional norm, barely make it into the top quartile (ranking 45th out of 200). Given that there is often a significant difference between the laws on the books and the law as enforced, this shouldn’t be seen as an unusually dramatic disconnect. But it does underscore our observation that enforcement is usually a better gauge of effective anti-corruption efforts than legislation alone.
Where, besides political corruption, is corruption very evident?
Looking at the indicators of bribery expectation in the TRACE Bribery Risk Matrix, we see a striking disconnect between, on the one hand, the very low number of bribe requests businesses report having received, and, on the other hand, the comparatively high degree of corruption observed in the civil justice system, in favoritism shown by government officials, and in the behavior of business firms. The Georgian police have a relatively good reputation, buttressed by the widespread use of technology. Low-level corruption in the customs department, on the other hand, raises concerns, as does the opacity around very high-level deals associated with transit fees for oil and gas transported through the country. Interview Ends Here
The TRACE report is divided into four categories: Business Interactions with Government, Anti-Bribery Laws and Enforcement, Government and Civil Services Transparency, and Capacity for Civil Society Oversight. Georgia performs much stronger in the former two compared to the latter two indicating ample room for civil society engagement and transparency.
The report praises Georgia’s very low score of 16 in the first category, based on a very low degree of government interaction, low expectation of bribes, and a very low regulatory burden. In the second category, the report highlights a very low score of 17, based on a very high quality of anti-bribery laws and a high quality of anti-bribery enforcement. In both categories, Georgia scores similarly to European countries such as Germany, Austria or Iceland.
The Government and Civil Services Transparency category lags behind the strong performances of the first two categories, receiving a score of 31. Despite the difference, the score is strong in an international context, justified by the report through good governmental transparency and good transparency of financial interests. A similar score of 32 is obtained by the last category Capacity for Civil Society Oversight explained by a high degree of media freedom/quality and a high degree of civic participation.
Georgia’s main problem will remain the enforcement of laws ensuring a fair and transparent judiciary, alongside the equal treatment of powerful individuals in front of the law.
Benjamin Music