Secondary legislation adopted by the finance and economy ministry in November 2003 failed to clarify these points (see below). • Peru’s first ever law regulating political parties was adopted in November 2003. One of the aims was to improve the transparency of political party financing, which had previously been poorly regulated. The new law bans funding from certain clearly stated sources; sets a ceiling on private donations; establishes auditing procedures; regulates campaign advertising; and establishes some sanctions. There are still flaws in the legislation, however: it does not call for disclosure of sources of financing and does not establish sanctions for all infractions. • A law adopted in October 2003 created the Special Commission for the Integrated Reform of the Justice Administration (CERIAJUS), as called for by a wider commission for restructuring the judicial system. Reform proposals under consideration include public ethics training for judges, steps to make it easier for people to file complaints, and the introduction of asset-declaration mechanisms for judges. The civil society recommendation that external controls on the judicial system be introduced was not adopted, however.1 • A series of scandals involving serving government officials prompted the cabinet chief in February 2004 to announce new anti-corruption measures, though these were not widely discussed and have not been fully implemented. They included the re-launch of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (CNA) with new functions and a new president (the first president stepped down in February 2003 to take up a diplomatic post). Four months after the announcement, the justice minister designated a group made up almost entirely of civil society representatives to review and revive the wide-ranging anti-corruption proposals made by the National Anti-Corruption Initiative (INA), the working group set up by the transition government that recommended the creation of a robust and independent CNA.
Lack of political will to root out corruption The transition to democracy in Peru had a strong anti-corruption element from the outset, but its focus was always on the past. Specialised anti-corruption courts, prosecutors and police divisions were set up to investigate and prosecute the grand corruption that took place during the regime of former president Alberto Fujimori. There were important successes: the main heads of Fujimori’s corruption racket have been charged and many have been convicted. But fewer successes can be claimed against corruption that unfolded under the transitional administration or under the new democratically elected government. There is a clear need for a national anticorruption strategy to tackle not just past corruption cases, but current and future
190
cases. This involves looking at prevention as well as enforcement and requires an anticorruption policy that is interdepartmental and has short-term, as well as long-term, objectives. This does not mean that such a blueprint for change does not exist – the INA working group set up under the transitional government drew up a comprehensive set of recommendations which the government has so far failed to implement. Nor does it mean that there are no departmental or institutional initiatives to fight corruption in Peru. The clearest example is the project to restructure the judiciary, as outlined above. Other important areas of reform are the police and armed forces, previously the pillars of Fujimori’s corrupt network, and the development of online procurement systems. But these efforts have not been sufficient to curb corruption, as demonstrated by the
Country reports
GC2005 02 chap06 190
13/1/05 4:34:22 pm