| Political corruption |
|---|
 |
| Concepts |
| Corruption by country |
Corruption in Slovenia is examined on this page.
| Political corruption |
|---|
| |
| Concepts |
| Corruption by country |
Corruption in Slovenia is examined on this page.
According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2013, political parties rank as the most corrupt institution in Slovenia, closely followed by Parliament, the judiciary and public officials. According to the same survey, 77% of the households consider the government's efforts in fighting corruption “ineffective”. [1]
In January 2013, thousands of Slovenians joined the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption and took to the streets, demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Janez Janša and opposition leader Zoran Janković because both had been accused of failing to properly declare their personal assets. The Commission accused both of “systemic, gross and repeated violations of the anti-corruption legislation”. The month after the protest, Janša was ousted in a no-confidence vote. In June 2013, Janša was convicted of corruption in connection with a 2006 defence contract and given a two-year prison sentence. [2] The conviction was unanimously overturned by the Constitutional Court on 23 April 2015. [3] However, Zoran Janković, continued his mandate as mayor of Ljubljana. [4]
Slovenia has been stagnating in the field of corruption for at least 5 years. Major systemic measures are needed to lower the level of corruption in Slovenia. [5]
On Transparency International's 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index, Slovenia scored 57 on a scale from 0 ("highly corrupt") to 100 ("highly clean"). When ranked by score, Slovenia ranked 41st among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector. [6] For comparison, the best score was 88 (ranked 1), and the worst score was 11 (ranked 180). [7]
According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2013, the private sector is scored 3.3 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt'). [1]
According to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, corruption ranks among the top-five most problematic factors for doing business in Slovenia, after access to financing, inefficient government bureaucracy, restrictive labour regulations and tax rates. However, surveyed executives report that public funds are rarely diverted due to corruption, and the ethical behaviour of companies is considered relatively high. [8]
Contemporary concerns about police corruption are largely reflected by public opinion, which demonstrate widespread consensus that corruption within all public sectors is a "very big problem" in Slovenia. [9] The 2013 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption showed that 76% (the second highest percentage in the EU) of Slovenian participants believed there had been an increase in corruption in the last three years. [10] Furthermore, public opinion suggests that police corruption in particular is a significant issue, which much concern over bribery, and abuse of power for personal gain amongst Slovenian police officers. [11]
Initially, Slovenian legislation did not provide for corruption as a separate offence distinguished from other forms of crime. [9] Corruption is not used as a legal term in Slovenia, instead, the legislation provides for each offence individually as a criminal act. The Prevention of Corruption Act, adopted in 2004, defines corruption as "ever trespassing of the obligated treatment of official or responsible subject in the private or public sector, as well as the treatment of subjects that are initiators of violators, or subjects that can benefit from the violations". [12] Changes within the organisation of policing in Slovenia were brought about initially by the 1991 Constitution, in line with political changes towards a more democratic system with a greater sensitivity towards human rights. [13] These changes, along with the birth of the Constitutional court to enforce these, brought about strict limitations on powers of police to search and seize, as well as more emphasis on the protection of privacy and fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. [14] The judicial control over police powers was further strengthened in the Police Act of 1998, later reinforced by the New Organisation and Work of the Police Act 2013. These acts provide specifically for instances of police corruption. Additionally, the 2013 act allowed an individual to file a direct complaint against a police officer if they thought the act, or failure to act, of the officer violated human rights or fundamental freedoms. [15]
Following the cases of Rehblock v Slovenia (2000) and Matko v Slovenia (2006), a department for the prosecution of officials with special authorisations was established, which removed any police involvement in the investigation of other officers suspected of committing criminal offences. Since this recent introduction, there has been increased investigation and action taken for police offenders. In 2011, the department conducted 80 investigations, out of which 19 police officers were dismissed as a result of the suspicion of them committing a criminal offence. [15]
Lobinkar & Mesko (2015) found that within a sample of 550 Slovenian police officers, 23.6% agreed that covering up a police DUI was 'not all that serious'. Additionally, 34% of respondents claimed that they would not report another police officer who had engaged in conduct such as receiving free meals, gifts from merchants, police DUI and verbal abuse. [16] While this study demonstrated a trend in Slovenian police officers to ignore less serious forms of police corruption, there is agreement (59.1-75%) that police integrity within the Slovenian police work environment is generally high. [17]
Within the wider context of the European Union, corruption continues to be an economic burden. Aside from the consequences within each member state, corruption reduces levels of investment, obstructs the fair operation of the Internal Market and has a negative impact on public finances. It is estimated that approximately 1% of the EU GDP is made up of economic costs incurred by corruption. Specifically, an estimated los of 1.5 and 2% of the Slovenian GDP is incurred as a result of corruption. [9] Slovenia has administered substantial improvements to their legal framework to address the issue of police corruption among Central and Eastern European Member States. [18] However, issues with the effective enforcement of these anti-corruption measures still remain, due to "weak control mechanisms" administered by the government. [18] Lobinkar & Mesko's 2015 survey demonstrates a high level of police integrity strictly connected to the 'code of silence' in the police community. Therefore, anti-corruption strategies related to changing perceptions and moral beliefs about the seriousness of corruptive police conduct may be the most effective at improving Slovenia's anti-corruption enforcement. [16]Transparency International e.V. (TI) is a German registered association founded in 1993 by former employees of the World Bank. Based in Berlin, its nonprofit and non-governmental purpose is to take action to combat global corruption with civil societal anti-corruption measures and to prevent criminal activities arising from corruption. Its most notable publications include the Global Corruption Barometer and the Corruption Perceptions Index. Transparency International serves as an umbrella organization. From 1993 till today its members have grown from a few individuals to more than 100 national chapters which engage in fighting perceived corruption in their home countries. TI is a member of G20 Think Tanks, UNESCO Consultative Status, United Nations Global Compact, Sustainable Development Solutions Network and shares the goals of peace, justice, strong institutions and partnerships of the United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG). TI is a social partner of Global Alliance in Management Education. TI confirmed the dis-accreditation of the national chapter of United States of America in 2017.
Police corruption is a form of police misconduct in which law enforcement officers end up breaking their political contract and abuse their power for personal gain. This type of corruption may involve one or a group of officers. Internal police corruption is a challenge to public trust, cohesion of departmental policies, human rights and legal violations involving serious consequences. Police corruption can take many forms, such as bribery.
Corruption is perceived as a significant problem in Russia, impacting various aspects of life, including the economy, business, public administration, law enforcement, healthcare, and education. The phenomenon of corruption is strongly established in the historical model of public governance, and attributed to general weakness of rule of law in the country. Transparency International stated in 2022, "Corruption is endemic in Russia" and assigned it the lowest score of any European country in their Corruption Perceptions Index for 2021. It has, under the regime of Vladimir Putin, been variously characterized as a kleptocracy, an oligarchy, and a plutocracy; owing to its crony capitalism economic system.
Corruption in Albania is a very serious problem. According to Global Corruption Barometer 2013, 66% of respondents indicated that level of corruption has increased in Albania.
Corruption in Italy is a major problem. In Transparency International's annual surveys, Italy has consistently been regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the Eurozone. Political corruption remains a major problem particularly in Lombardy, Campania and Sicily where corruption perception is at a high level. Political parties are ranked the most corrupt institution in Italy, closely followed by public officials and Parliament, according to Transparency International's. But in the 2013 Global Corruption Barometer report, Italy is in 17th position in front of the United Kingdom (18th), Switzerland (21st) and the United States (22nd).
Corruption can take many forms, and can distort how public policy is made or implemented. This article discusses the responsibilities of the various agencies involved in combating corruption in Australia. While Australia is a wealthy democracy, over the decade since 2012, Australia's ranking in the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International has slipped from 7th place in 2012 to 18th in 2022 on a scale where a more honest public sector receives a lower rank. Additionally, there is a public perception that corruption in Australia is increasing. All states have broad-based anti-corruption agencies, and legislation for a national anti-corruption commission has been proposed by the Commonwealth government.
Corruption in Lithuania describes the prevention and occurrence of corruption in Lithuania.
Corruption in Denmark is amongst the lowest in the world. According to the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International, Denmark scored 88 on a scale from 0 to 100. When ranked by score, Denmark shared first place with Finland and New Zealand among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country or countries ranked first are perceived to have the most honest public sector. For comparison, the worst score was 11. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists reported in 2014 that Denmark has consistently been in the top-4 since the publication of the first Corruption Perceptions Index report in 1995.
According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2013, corruption is a large concern in the public sector as more than half of the surveyed households consider Parliament, police, public officials, and particularly the judiciary and political parties very corrupt.
Corruption in Switzerland describes the prevention and occurrence of corruption in Switzerland.
Corruption in Latvia is examined on this page.
In 2013, a report by Transparency International revealed that political parties, Parliament, the judiciary and the military are the most corrupt institutions in Portugal. Transparency International's 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks the country in 32nd place out of 180 countries in the Index.
Transparency International's 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index scored Germany at 80 on a scale from 0 to 100. When ranked by score, Germany ranked 10th among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector. For comparison, the best score was 88, and the worst score was 11.
Corruption is rare in the Netherlands in all major areas—judiciary, police, business, politics—as the country is considered one of the least corrupt within the European Union.
Corruption in the Czech Republic is considered to be widespread by a majority of the Czech public, according to Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2013.
In recent years, Montenegro has increased its efforts to implement preventive and legislative measures needed to curb corruption. For example, anti-bribery provisions in the Criminal Code, as well as laws on money laundering, conflict of interest, access to information, and political funding have all been strengthened, while awareness-raising activities and training of public officials in integrity standards have been intensified.
Corruption levels are perceived to be high by surveyed residents of Serbia, and public trust in key institutions remains low.
Croatia has severe problems with corruption, and among European Union member states, it is one of the top 3 most corrupt countries.
Corruption in Azerbaijan is considered high and occurs at all levels of government. In Transparency International's 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index, which ranked 180 countries from those perceived to be least corrupt to those perceived to be very corrupt, Azerbaijan was ranked 128, compared to 45 for Georgia and 58 for Armenia. In the Azerbaijani laundromat money-laundering scheme, $2.9 billion was paid to foreign politicians and Azerbaijani elites by companies linked to Azerbaijani ruler Ilham Aliyev, government ministries, and the International Bank of Azerbaijan between 2012 and 2014. Azerbaijan is a member of Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO) and OECD's Anti-Corruption Network.
Anti-corruption comprises activities that oppose or inhibit corruption. Just as corruption takes many forms, anti-corruption efforts vary in scope and in strategy. A general distinction between preventive and reactive measures is sometimes drawn. In such framework, investigative authorities and their attempts to unveil corrupt practices would be considered reactive, while education on the negative impact of corruption, or firm-internal compliance programs are classified as the former.