Another element of Putin’s anti-corruption activities is civil service reform. The first visible step in this regard was the creation by presidential decree of a commission on administrative reform in July 2003. The call for administrative reform rests on two assumptions. Firstly, sweeping bureaucratic discretionary power, responsibilities that cut across multiple agencies and excessive arbitrariness in the application of state regulations all cause corruption. Secondly, civil servants’ low salaries give rise to bribery. While the first problem has received little attention so far, the second was addressed when in April 2004 salaries were substantially raised by presidential decree. For some, the decree represents a real breakthrough, while others point out that increased salaries has to be accompanied by other measures.3 Public opinion, too, remains sceptical that this measure will be effective.4
Curbing corruption: civil society activities Civil society in Russia is weak. Grassroots organisations face difficult hurdles because access to politics is limited to the ruling elite and media restrictions also serve to stifle the growth of civil society.5 That said, anticorruption initiatives from business and civil groups that have access to independent resources have begun to surface. One initiative was started by the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RUIE), the most influential business association in Russia. In August 2003 RUIE founded a joint arbitration system in cooperation with two minor business associations. The new arbitration courts can bypass the regular, often corrupt, courts in cases of dispute settlement among business partners. Although appealing to the arbitration court is voluntary, and presupposes the consent of both partners, its decisions are binding. Non-compliance will be punished by entry onto a ‘blacklist’. The arbitration system is so far the most important step undertaken by RUIE to
improve the business climate in Russia. As one commentator ironically stated, the main beneficiaries of the new system are the small and medium-sized entrepreneurs since ‘big business has already established long-term relations with the courts’.6 A second noteworthy initiative is ‘Antikorruptsiya’, founded in February 2004 by representatives of the Association of Small Businesses and human rights organisations. It aims to ‘consolidate the resources of the civil society’ and to help and urge the government to curb corruption. Antikorruptsiya seeks to carry out investigations by questioning officials and politicians and to publish the results in the mass media and online. It monitors compliance with the law by public officials, and will take cases to court if necessary. The first lists of questions relating to allegedly corrupt activities were presented in May 2004 to the general prosecutor, the ministers of transport and communications, and the chief of the Moscow city court, amongst others.7 A third source of non-state anti-corruption initiatives draws heavily on the support of the United States Agency for International Development, which started a ‘Partnership against Corruption’ (PAC) programme designed to build government integrity, accountability and transparency in Russia’s regions. Local ‘partnerships’ have been established, non-profit organisations that arrange anti-corruption measures, bringing together regional and local state agencies, businesspeople and civil society activists.8 In a different approach, the National Anti-Corruption Committee (NAC), a ‘club’ of 55 politicians and political analysts and the regional PACs cooperated closely with government agencies to try to strengthen honest politicians at the top. The NAC believes that the pervasiveness of corruption in Russia is led by the Russian bureaucracy and that Putin is the only person able to rid the system of corruption. The NAC recommends that Putin use his broad popular support as a ‘presidential resource’ in the battles ahead.
Country reports RUSSIA
GC2005 02 chap06 201
201
13/1/05 4:34:25 pm