HOW SERIOUS IS AZERBAIJAN’S ANTI-CORRUPTION CAMPAIGN?
In the past month, the Azerbaijani Government has launched a massive anti-corruption campaign, raising eyebrows both among ordinary people and international observers. The question on everyone’s mind is whether this campaign is a long-term policy or a temporary measure to prevent Middle-East type social unrest, as the opposition claims. Although it is too early to say, some signs indicate that these efforts may have a more sustainable nature, thus raising hopes for an improvement in the business and development climate in the country.
BACKGROUND: Azerbaijan has been accustomed to being ranked by Transparency International as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. In late 1990s, it was even ranked among the top three most corrupt nations, although in the subsequent years the ranking improved thanks to the establishment of a state commission on anti-corruption measures, and the adoption of relevant legislation that required public officials to disclose their assets on an annual basis. However, the amount of corruption in the country has not diminished, as has been clearly evident both to local people and outside investors.
Several factors account for the high level of corruption in the country. On the one hand, the legacy of corruption in the region dates back to Soviet and even pre-Soviet times. The long-lasting tradition of stealing public funds and abusing public office for personal enrichment was already deeply entrenched in the minds of public servants when the country became independent. And although the Soviet regime fought corruption in its early stages, later on the social disease became widespread and a general practice. The state collapse of the early 1990s only made matters worse, turning corruption into a way of life.
What makes corruption in Azerbaijan more unique is the sudden influx of massive amounts of oil revenues. A country that is still young and in the process of developing its government institutions is simply not able to digest all of this cash. Traditional Western watchdog institutions, such as the media, civil society, opposition parties, Parliament and audit chambers are very new themselves, and are going through painful processes of capacity building, internal mobilization and consolidation. Most of these institutions are corrupt themselves – including those who are supposed to fight against corruption. This is true also in the non-governmental sector: abuse of grants by NGO heads has been the subject of many jokes among the public. In sum, the system of checks and balances in the country is still very much missing.
At the same time, citing the war with Armenia and the country’s precarious geopolitical situation, bordered by hungry great powers, the government has argued that Azerbaijan requires its own path for state-building. The leadership seems to have preferred the loyalty of its cabinet members and the stability of the regime over efforts to clean up corruption, which would have required – as in Georgia – the arrest of influential government officials.
All of this was true until January 27, 2011, when President Ilham Aliyev made a now famous speech at the meeting of Cabinet of Ministers and launched a new drive against corruption in the country. Since then, the issue became the most discussed in the print media and national TV. Ministers and various state officials started making remarks about the importance to fight the corruption. Each state entity has held its own session to condemn corruption and develop measures to fight it; across the government bodies and government-controlled media outlets, the struggle against corruption has become the new rhetorical centerpiece.
IMPLICATIONS: It is too early to determine what the results of this new campaign will be. Government officials like to repeat that this is not a campaign, because a “campaign” has temporary connotations. Instead, they insist that these efforts are part of a long-term and sustainable government policy. Yet, the majority of population still has to be convinced that these measures are sincere, long-term and will have a practical impact on their lives.
So far, only mid-level officials have been fired from their jobs on charges of corruption. Each ministry and government agency has reported firing several dozen corrupt officials. Although these measures have yet to generate substantial change in the work of those mega-state entities, they do carry a potentially important symbolic nature.
Two cases of dismissals nevertheless indicate that the recent anti-corruption policy might be more serious than it is thought of. In February, the head of the “AzerSu” state monopoly for water distribution, and the head of the nation-wide prison system were both dismissed from their positions. Both organizations have been notorious for corruption, but few believed that the country’s leadership would sacrifice top officials. Neither has yet been charged with criminal cases. Opposition newspapers continue to speculate and report that several other key officials are next in line.
While it may be wise to conduct anti-corruption measures in a gradual pace, rather than by Bolshevik methods, only firing and replacing government officials is unlikely to produce sustainable results. More sustainable measures are needed to combat corruption, especially in such areas as education, health care, police and local government. The salaries of public employees must be increased, audit measures must be strengthened, and awareness of the rights and responsibilities of public servants and citizens must be promoted.
If that happens and the level of corruption in the country decreases, that would have a significant impact on the business climate, which will help GDP to grow, with lesser dependence on oil revenues, which have driven Azerbaijan’s rapid growth. More specifically, customs regulations and business registration procedures must be cleaned up and tax inspections must be reduced so that local businesses and foreign investors can operate freely in the country. A majority of economic experts believe that the country has enormous potential for development of the non-oil sector, and that corruption and red tape are the chief obstacles for this to happen.
CONCLUSIONS: Many members of the opposition accuse the government of insincerity in the recent anti-corruption drive. They link it to the events in the Middle East, and to the Azerbaijani government’s alleged fear of revolution, and thus attribute it to preventive measures to stave off unrest.
Some degree of truth undoubtedly exists in these accusations. At the same time, it is important to observe that the government is showing signs of flexibility and willingness to adapt to new realities in order to maintain stability and economic development. Thus, one can argue that state-society relations are susceptible to change and that the government adapts in the face of new conditions and circumstances.
The fact that President Aliyev signed a decree allocating 25% of all fines from traffic police and custom to the salaries of policemen and customs officers is a positive sign towards making anti-corruption measures more sustainable. He has also required most of the payments of such fines to be made through banks and not in cash. Similar actions are needed in the education and health care sectors. Local government officials have already been instructed to treat citizens and their requests differently: with more care, accountability and responsiveness. If this happens, ordinary citizens may feel the difference in real life. Yet, if no major changes are implemented to reduce government bureaucracy, people are likely to lose faith in this campaign and in the government’s promises in general, thus laying the foundation for increased social unrest in the country.
Time will tell whether the anti-corruption drive in Azerbaijan is sincere or merely cosmetic. But it is too early to dismiss it.
AUTHOR’S BIO: Scott Rosenblum is a Tbilisi-based freelance writer.
