Killer of Corruption. If It Will Be Necessary to the State

Just one hundred years ago Averchenko wrote that the bribe is not the Russian national dance.

For last century many countries - and not only the Chinese on its population Singapore but also Georgia being in the USSR a synonym of the concept "corruption" - showed that radical and fast eradication of corruption is possible even in tolerant to it public culture.

What is necessary then to do in Russia that surely bad president Saakashvili who tried to organize genocide ceases to look an order better than certainly good (at least on his background) president Medvedev?

From technical point of view - literally three steps.

First of all it is necessary to establish that cooperating with investigation briber automatically is relieved from responsibility and has not only freedom and well-being but also reputation. I will underline: we are talking not about surrender but namely about compelled cooperation. The target - destruction of mutual responsibility between the organizer of corruption - official and its victims - businessmen and citizens. In Italy such trick applied during operation "Mani pulite" resulted in change of six governments for five years, loss of political influence in the north and in the center by mafia and easing of its role in the south of the country.

The second step - realized in the American RICO laws principle of confiscation of all, even honesty got actives, except for sufficient for conducting very modest life if a member of the organized crime (and corruption in power is always mafia) doesn't cooperate with investigation.

This measure destroys economic base of mafia: its detained members appear before choice between poverty, not talking about falling of social level (as "common fund" is not bottomless) and diligent help to investigation. In passing efforts on legalization of criminally got actives become senseless (after all in case of refusal to cooperate with investigation they will be confiscated regardless their origin) that reduces demand for corresponding criminal services.

The third necessary step - principle of inevitability of punishment convicted of crime. As the founder of the modern Singapore Lee Kuan Yew said about reasons of his success, "I sent two friends into prison, other understood everything themselves". It is not out of place to compare to a saying which you can hear from the Russian imperious public "the only post from which it is impossible to dismiss is chief's friend".

It's the main thing allowing to limit cardinally corruption even in conditions of power racket of "law-enforcement" structures, impunity of public prosecutor's bands and pitch arbitrariness of the judges at times sincerely not understanding necessity even of simple acquaintance with laws on which basis they need to make their decisions.

Additional - very effective though not obligatory step - is transition of a state administration to the system of electronic decision-making.

Liberal reforms in Russia are too often caused by bad and incomplete translation from English; thus for many years reformers have been trying to introduce external and least significant part from the described system - notorious "electronic government", Internet interface of interaction of citizens with authorities. At that electronic system of decision-making and settlement of conflicts is left behind consideration frameworks, thanks to its speed every dispute even demanding personal intervention of the top management can be settled maximum for three days, while now it lasts at times many long years.

The second feature of electronic system of decision-making - possibility of imperceptible control - is important for the fight against corruption. External controller can instantly see all arguments considered by the official making decision - and if the decision doesn't follow from preconditions, it testifies either about stupidity, or about corruption. Official under check even doesn't suspect that someone is interested in his activity - thus situation when check leads no more than to a fire in archive become standard for a quarter of century of the national treachery will sink into oblivion.

Certainly, not that full eradication but even simply significant restriction of corruption in today's Russia is represented if not especially grave crime - blasting of bases of a political system - but, at least, destruction of collective material base and individual riches of a ruling and owning this country class.

But mere transformation of a considerable part of the Russian statehood into the criminal corrupted structure, sincerely believing that the aim of existence of the state is not public blessing, but personal enrichment, is incompatible with life of the society.

Regardless of the fact, whether improvement of the Russian statehood will occur "in amicable way" - by efforts of the country leaders or "in bad way" - through system crisis as a result of spontaneous efforts of the society, it seems to be absolutely inevitable and, moreover, the same way inevitably it will lean against three basic steps on corruption restriction described above.

Send by mail

Print