In 2001, the first national document in the field of corruption prevention was adopted. 23 years later, we are at the sixth national anti-corruption strategy. Nevertheless, according to this year's Eurobarometer, 51% of Romanians say they feel affected by corruption in their daily life, while the EU average is 27%.
Simply said, corruption is a behavior that goes against legal or moral rules. Corruption is when you give bribe for illegally issuing a building permit or medical certificate. Corruption is also when someone asks for a sum of money and promises to put a “good word” at the competition board.
I've been a legal advisor at the Ministry of Justice for 7 years. Among other, I write views and opinions on various legal issues of criminal law. From crimes in general, including corruption and execution of sentences by prisoners, to issues of administrative organization, mental health, international law, protection of human rights and many others.
The work I do involves a lot of concentration, hours of research and attention to detail. Because one wrongly put comma can change the meaning of a legal text and any omission can bring negative consequences for many people.
Last year I was co-opted in the quality of expert evaluator within the National Anti-Corruption Strategy. I do this on a voluntary basis and I am not paid extra. I have been on evaluation missions in several public institutions and it worries me to ascertain that the institutional realities are far from ideal and that anti-corruption standards are not rigorously applied yet.
The National Anti-Corruption Strategy is a preventive tool ment to guide the public and private sector to develop internal procedures to reduce the risks of corruption. Meaning to achieve a higher level of integrity through transparency and efficiency. But for this it is required for the public institutions to assume for themselves a set of standards or minimum objectives. For example, to provide ethical or integrity counseling to their own employees, to publish information of public interest, or to make an assessment of corruption risks and integrity incidents in the institution.
What I do as an evaluator does not ultimately lead to the application of sanctions. I do not give fines, I do not apply punishments, I do not hold to account the institution or its head. My goal is to help institutions function better. And I do this because I am convinced that if the institutions would apply the strategy better, they would be more efficient, more performant and less prone to risks of corruption.
However, in many institutions, both me and my colleagues are met with much reluctance. Sometimes I feel that I am seen as a weirdo who has come to stick his nose into their business. In fact, I want to understand how the institution works as if I were employed there and help to make things run better administratively.
Before I go on my evaluation mission, I have a habit that helps me to get closer to the reality there.
I search the online media for information about incidents and controversies in which the evaluated institution had been involved. Cases of corruption, criticism from the press and civil society, complaints from employees of the institution, anything. If I find such news, I have some clues that there is a problem. Because any illegality is in itself a failure of prevention. And any corruption case puts the institution in a vulnerable position and reduces the public opinion’s trust.
After each mission, I write an evaluation report together with my colleagues. If I find problems, especially internal inefficient mechanisms, I make recommendations. If I find good practices, my joy. I want to promote them also at the level of other institutions.
Let me tell you a little of what I have encountered.
In the chapter of human resources, I discovered in a large cultural institution in Romania that employees refused to provide ethical or integrity counseling to their own colleagues because they were not paid extra. Fortunately, things didn't get stuck there, and there are now employees who are handling this. On that occasion, I recommended that in the future, too, they should find solutions so that the refusal of some employees does not affect the way in which the institution implements the anti-corruption strategy.
I have also seen cases where there was sufficient staff, but overstretched. In other cases, however, we have found that the staff actually working are insufficient, but secretaries and drivers are above what is reasonably necessary.
Just as there are cases in which some are working enormously and others are sitting relaxed in offices. Parallel worlds in the same institution, sometimes on the same floor or in the same office. While I do not dictate the organigram of the staff or how human resources should be properly managed, I point out where there is a imbalance and recommend to the institution to remedy the problem. In my recommendations, I emphasize the professional training of employees, because continuous perfecting fosters performance.
When it comes to data of public interest, in 2024 there are still institutions with counterintuitive websites where we very hardly find essential information. Or we do not find them at all. And this opacity creates the feeling that the institution is hiding something.
Another situation encountered is that institutions have elaborate internal procedures, but they only have them formally, to tick off objectives. Some institutions have very extensive internal procedures, sometimes drawn up by copying the law, which does not provide clarity. Others take procedures from elsewhere and no longer adapt them to the internal organizational specifics.
For example, an Integrity Plan from the Ministry of Culture cannot function identically at subordinate institutions such as theaters.
We also encountered a situation where we could not identify the preventive measures proposed and implemented for an integrity incident because the internal assessment of that situation had been overdue for a long time. Concretely, the vice-president of a public authority, a prominent political person at the time, was charged in 2022 with corruption offenses. A few days after the media wrote about that case, he was dismissed by the Parliament. The situation was included in an annual report, but it was not published on the institution's website, as required by the methodology.
Ideally, anti-corruption standards should be applied equally, irrespective of the person or position held. Preventive measures lose their effectiveness if they are taken long after incidents have occurred.
This year I am evaluating the working procedures regarding the protection of whistleblowers in the public interest. You know... those people who report within the institution certain breaches of the law before going to the prosecutor or the police. Some call them “snitches”. I call them "guardians of transparency", and I am involved for them to be genuinely protected.
Deficiencies inside an institution are seen from the outside. How? Well, the state delivers poor public services to citizens. In a domino effect, the image of the institution is tarnished and public opinion’s trust in the institution decreases.
To change the perception of corruption it is not enough to have an Anti-Corruption Strategy or a strong National Anticorruption Directorate. Preventing is much easier than fighting.
After the institutions take the "anti-corruption exam", our reports are published on the National Anti-Corruption Strategy website.
I hope I have awoken your curiosity and I invite you to read them. They provide national institutions with model measures, best practices, but also examples of " not like this".
In order to have the public institutions we all want, I hope that these reports will be read especially by those responsible for implementing this strategy. Only in this way can institutions become more transparent, more efficient, more connected to the real needs of society. And progress will come by itself.
