Framework 41

The framework that Georgia has established is co-ordinated by the Anti-Corruption Council¹¹¹ which oversees the work of the main agencies. These include the National Security Council and the State Ministry of Reform. The latter oversees the implementation of the anti-corruption strategy but neither are independent nor are they dedicated solely to anti-corruption work. The focus on public procurement was improved with the creation of the State Procurement Agency in 2005, however, the process of tendering and its lack of transparency remain a source of concern¹¹².

One key element to Georgia’s approach was to commence with tackling corruption by low level state employees¹¹³. The example that is widely cited was to first pass legislation against the receipt of bribes and then to address the very public problem (common across the old Soviet block) of corrupt traffic police. In this case, the existing 16,000 employees were dismissed and their 2,300 replacements were trained in both the legal framework and expected norms¹¹⁴ as well as given new cars and new uniforms. The impact was to reduce one level of the corruption in the Georgian public sector as the bribes paid to police officers were then passed to their superiors and presumably to more senior officials and

108 Di Puppo, L. 2011. The Role of Narratives in Georgia's anti-corruption Reforms. Frankfurt.

109 Transparency International. 27 July 2012a. Georgian Diplomacy servicing the ruling party.

Available from: http://transparency.ge/en/blog/georgian-diplomacy-servicing-ruling-party [Accessed 31 July 2012].

110 Di Puppo, L. 2011. The Role of Narratives in Georgia's anti-corruption Reforms. Frankfurt.

111 Thomas Reuters. 2012. Anti-corruption profile - Georgia [Online]. Trust Law. Available:

http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/country-profiles/good-governance.dot?id=c4d713e2-3302-49e7-ae61-b7d28842e117 [Accessed 31 July 2012].

112 Transparency International 2011b. Integrating anti-corruption measures in Georgia’s newly established competition agency. Oslo: Transparency International.

113 OECD 2008. Fighting Corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: The Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan. OECD.

114 Di Puppo, L. 2011. The Role of Narratives in Georgia's anti-corruption Reforms. Frankfurt.

politicians in turn. Nonetheless, this somewhat positive development has been criticised as focusing too much on failing to address the root causes and generally putting too much emphasis on curing corruption rather than creating systems to prevent it¹¹⁵.

In general the systems required to implement the anti-corruption laws have developed slowly. An early part of Georgia’s reforms was a law on Free Trade and Competition¹¹⁶ adopted in 2005. This was as much aimed at the reduction of the scope for corruption as about opening up previous state monopolies to competition. However, it was not till 2010 that a regulatory body was created and this still lacks critical powers in terms of enforcement and by the end of 2011 no staff had been appointed. Also, the basic act has been criticised as it “does not touch the traditional fields of competition law, such as agreements restricting competition, concerted practices, abusing dominant position in the market, takeovers and mergers, state enterprises and so called natural monopolies¹¹⁷” and only directly addressed the issue of state aid to enterprises. The fundamental concern was the lack of effective monitoring and the narrow focus of the legislation which was due to an emphasis on free market economics and did not deal with corruption¹¹⁸. Despite some prosecutions of prominent individuals, the bulk of the effective legislation has been aimed at relatively junior officials who often engage in corrupt practices to supplement their wages¹¹⁹. Against this background there are positive developments, in particular the operation of the revised Tax Laws¹²⁰.

3.1.2.2 Legal Basis

Corruption is dealt with within the criminal code which criminalises attempted corruption, active and passive bribery, bribing a foreign official as well

115 Thomas Reuters. 2012. Anti-corruption profile - Georgia [Online]. Trust Law. Available:

http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/country-profiles/good-governance.dot?id=c4d713e2-3302-49e7-ae61-b7d28842e117 [Accessed 31 July 2012].

116 Transparency International 2011b. Integrating anti-corruption measures in Georgia’s newly established competition agency. Oslo: Transparency International.

117 Transparency International 2010. Competition in Georgia. Oslo: Transparency International., p. 2

118 Ibid.

119 Di Puppo, L. 2011. The Role of Narratives in Georgia's anti-corruption Reforms. Frankfurt.

120 OECD 2008. Fighting Corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: The Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan. OECD.

as money laundering and strictly punishes convicted offenders (Criminal Code Art.338-339). The Georgian Parliament has passed a package of constitutional amendments criminalising the abuse of public office and bribery with a maximum sentence of 15 years and confiscation of property. One of Georgia's key anti-corruption laws has been the Law on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in the Public Sector, which was incorporated into the 2005 National Anti-Corruption Strategy. The law prohibits corruption among public servants and requires the disclosure of assets by public officials and their families in order to ensure transparency. However, there is no follow-up mechanism in place to monitor and scrutinise these asset statements effectively. In order to prevent conflict of interest, the law also prohibits public servants from involvement in private business¹²¹.

A recent OECD report¹²² has noted that the laws on bribery and corruption have been amended to cover a wider range of public officials. One major development was to review the question of funding for political parties in the form of the Law on Political Union of Citizens. One key part of this will be to outlaw donations by any entity other than individual citizens of Georgia¹²³ with this limited to a fixed sum each year. This in turn set up a Chamber of Control with the following powers:

“the Chamber of Control is authorized to: (a) elaborate standardized format for financial declaration; (b) define adequate auditing standard of financing of electoral subjects; (c) check the accuracy, legality and completeness of the financial declaration and report of electoral campaign fund; (d) ensure the transparency of political party funding; (e) consult the interested persons on political party funding; (f) request the information on political party funding in case of necessity from political parties, administrative bodies and commercial banks; (g) address the violations of political party funding regulations and apply sanctions prescribed by law; (h) address the Prosecution Service in case of detection of crime¹²⁴”.

121 Thomas Reuters. 2012. Anti-corruption profile - Georgia [Online]. Trust Law. Available:

http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/country-profiles/good-governance.dot?id=c4d713e2-3302-49e7-ae61-b7d28842e117 [Accessed 31 July 2012].

122 OECD 2011. Progress Report: Georgia.

123 Ibid.

124 Ibid., p. 2

Rewrite sentence; Therefore Georgia is seen to be working towards anti-corruption standards but failing to enforce them adequately… or similar…

3.1.3 Turkey