Russia Profile
www.russiaprofile.org
September 22, 2005
A Matter of Choice?
Corruption as a Social Value or a Systemic Constant
By Shaun Walker
Whether it’s a former prime minister being subjected to a suspiciously-timed corruption probe, a series of reports that official avarice has aided terrorists in committing atrocities on Russian soil, or statistics from the seemingly endless flow of surveys and reports on the topic, corruption is never far from the headlines in Russia.
In an August survey by Transparency International, a Berlin-based anti-corruption watchdog, Russia was ranked the 90th-least corrupt country out of 145 surveyed. The Indem Foundation is the most prolific anti-corruption think tank based in Russia itself and, in July, it released a wide-ranging survey looking at the situation in 2005 compared to that in 2001. The survey estimated that businesses pay around $316 billion in bribes annually, with “ordinary” Russians paying another $3 billion in petty corruption. The report claims that the average businessman shells out $135,800 in bribes each year – 13 times higher than the corresponding figure four years ago.
Even thought the Indem report has been widely questioned and criticized, it seems that the demands for bribes faced by businesses in Russia have become more regulated and centralized. In the words of a London-based managing director of an international company specializing in due diligence work in Russia and Africa,“The time in the early nineties when you would get phone calls from people offering to ‘protect’ you is over; now it is all at the government level. The situation in some of the regions is simply crazy.”
The total annual figure of bribes paid as quoted in the Indem report is more than double what the government collects in budget revenues each year, but the loss is more than just financial. “A corrupt official does not just have an inverted system of values; he doesn’t do his job properly,” said Indem’s Georgy Satarov. The idea that corruption could actually threaten national security as well as stymie economic growth made big news in the aftermath of the spate of terrorist attacks last year. The suicide bombers on two planes from Moscow’s Domodedovo airport had evaded security checks by paying bribes of just $30. Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the Beslan tragedy, the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda illicitly obtained Moscow registration documents in the name of Maslan Naskhadov, using a photograph of Aslan Maskhadov, the late Chechen separatist leader.
Registration is a perfect example of bureaucracy causing problems for residents who might choose to be law-abiding if there were a hassle-free option. Obtaining the prized Moscow registration legally can be almost impossible for the many CIS citizens keeping the capital’s economy ticking, as testified by the hundreds of advertisements offering semi-legal help posted across the city. Elena Panfilova, the director of the Moscow branch of Transparency International, agrees: “It is possible to do almost everything legally, but it can mean spending half of your working hours collecting documentation, having things stamped, taking it somewhere. For almost any procedure there is a parallel structure that offers services – a kind of shadow economy within the overall economy that substitutes the same services quicker but illegally – although often quite openly.”
Petty corruption is a feature of many aspects of daily life – from state healthcare, which many claim is only free in theory, to run-ins with the traffic police. Other major sources of corruption involve efforts to dodge military conscription and bribes paid to secure university places. An Indem study of 7,000 students and parents found that the average bribe for entrance to Moscow universities and institutes was between $2,000 and $5,000, with figures as high as $30,000 being mentioned in some cases.
What does all this say about the value systems of Russians, if so many are prepared to open their wallets to expedite procedures or achieve a desired objective? It seems unlikely that change can come from below. When the system itself is corrupt, it takes a brave person to stand up and refuse to pay bribes on moral grounds. Panfilova believes that it is unfair to judge ordinary people for paying bribes when the state is unable to provide basic services for free. “The major problem is that people have to pay to get even basic healthcare, for example. This process of applying values to anti-corruption should go along with the general development of democracy – of the services that the state is able to provide. We can attribute values only when we can say to people that they have options.”
Most Russians acutely feel the problem of corruption. A survey by the Yury Levada Analytical Center across different regions of Russia in March showed that only 12 percent of Russians felt that President Vladimir Putin had been successful in the fight against corruption. Another survey in August, by the same agency, produced eye-opening results. When asked what they felt to be the most “criminal profession” in Russia, 38 percent answered that they saw the work of the police as the most criminal. In second place came state officials such as government ministers and deputies, with 19 percent of responses, while “criminals” (drug dealers, terrorists and petty offenders) came in third place, with just 14 percent.
When Putin came to power he promised to fight corruption, and some steps have been taken, but many believe that more wide-ranging measures are needed. “The president should declare that it’s not a campaign – it’s not for one month, not even for six months, that it’s a real policy priority,” said Panfilova. “Any document that comes out of any ministry or any governmental department should be checked to see if it is corruption-prone or not. I honestly believe that nobody is viciously designing legislation in order to directly extort, but often when legislation reaches the executive level, it is transformed in such a way that it has the absolutely opposite effect of what was intended.”
Corruption is not a problem unique to Russia – many countries are rated worse than Russia in Transparency International’s survey. The London-based due diligence expert concurs that corruption is a feature of most transitional economies, but feels that not enough is being done at the highest level in Russia to remedy the situation. “Certain African countries that have traditionally been beset by corruption are making a serious effort to clean things up. Take Nigeria, which was one of the most corrupt places in the world. The president appointed a former vice president of the World Bank as Finance Minister, and she has really begun to make a difference. Russia, so far, has not taken this kind of measure.”
Panfilova is not optimistic that corruption can simply be eradicated in the space of a few years. “I don’t think that even 20 years is enough. We are a young democracy with no history of civil society or a market economy. We haven’t even started on administrative reform. In several crucial spheres we are still operating according to Soviet laws.” She sees the fight against corruption as part of the gradual transition to a modern, democratic market economy. “Real anti-corruption thinking, a real perception of values of honest life, integrity and transparency, only comes along with stability and democracy.”