In 2000, in a 90-country report on the occurrence of corruption among officials and politicians, published by the Transparency International World Anti-Corruption Organization, Russia was the eighth most corrupt country in the world. According to the above-mentioned report, Finland was the least corrupt country in the world.
Corruption is widespread both in developing countries and in the New Independent States born after the Soviet Union. According to the Corruption Index, the countries of the former Soviet Union Ukraine and Azerbaijan are still more corrupt than Russia. Considering the Russian population, the occurrence of absolute corruption cases in Russia in this index is expected to be higher than in other CIS countries.
Definition and forms of corruption
Corruption is defined as a behavior in which a politician, official, or a person performing a similar public task, uses his or her position to pursue a personal advantage. Bribery and bribery are examples of the most widespread form of corruption in both public and private law entities. In today's world, corruption is considered to be so damaging to society that in almost all countries corruption behavior has been defined as a criminal offense.
In recent years, the trait of corruption has expanded to include information and data exploitation. The exploitation of the financially relevant information of the management of listed companies and representatives of the stock exchange companies for their own benefit has emerged as a problem that fulfills the characteristics of corruption. However, for some reason, industrialized countries are not happy to talk about economic corruption, even though the legal norms governing conflicts of interest, both public and private, are rarely clear and binding.
The concealment of facts and the presentation of factual allegations in truth in the media are also readable to corrupt behavior, although they do not always involve the pursuit of the personal interest of the producer of the information. Although such activities are often associated with the publisher's conscious pursuit of financial gain. This kind of activity is corrupt because it is specifically targeted at the community, that is to say, it fulfills the so-called, characteristics of community fraud.
Historical perspective in Russia
The Russian administration and its practices have a tradition of almost a thousand years. The value world is largely revoked by Byzantine, where the Emperor was the only legislator, the supreme lawyer and the chief of the army. After the fall of Byzantium, Russia declared itself and, in many respects, in many respects, the heir of Byzantium. The rise of Moscow, the new Constantinople, became the center of orthodoxy and Russianness in line with the autocratic administrative tradition.
The great socialist revolution of October 1917 did not make an exception to this autocratic leadership. During the period of socialism, the unrestricted monopoly was represented by a nation-conscious frontrunner, the Russian Communist Party, which actually used power over selected seeming state democratic institutions. While the Byzantine system militarizes the countryside with the help of military farmers, the Soviet system militarizes the entire economy.
The principle of tolerance for regional management
From the 15th century onwards, the center of Moscow, which admired the Byzantine model, began to conquer more land and incorporated different peoples into its administrative system, forming the basis for the current Russian Federation. Due to the size of the country's regions, the underdevelopment of the means of communication and communication, and the diversity of regional interests throughout Russia's existence, the obscuration of the shadow zone administration has formed behind the official façade. It is the wrong side of greatness, from which it is not desirable for a father-in-law to speak in Russia.
The Russian Federation is an administrative entity with differing views on the creation. The loyalty of the conquered territories and the cohesiveness of the land have a price. There is no free lunch in the world, there is also a Russian proverb. The personal interests of officials have been allowed in a certain way, even though it has been prohibited by law. However, the rule has always been that personal interests must always be smaller than the difference between the central government's own interests and the resources needed to acquire them. The Council system also did not make any exceptions to the management of its territories in this respect.
Glasnost initiating change
The technological and mental changes that have taken place in the last century have influenced the lives of different countries in many ways. In the Soviet Union, the rise in living standards, the improvement of traffic and communications, and the slow development of the country compared to the developed western countries gave rise to societal pressures that erupted in the late 1980s into the process of land degradation. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has not implemented the principle of healing the losers as the population diminishes.
Russian citizens have a deep-seated way of rejoicing and agreeing with those who are in a higher position, even though there is disagreement within them. This internal contradiction caused by submissiveness still enormously consumes human energy in Russia. In Glasnost, this sense of evil within the Soviet mind was primarily directed at the information and information sector of society.
The economy of the Soviet system was harnessed to prevent the supposed external enemy attack. Over the years, individual-level experiences with a freer flow of information and increased international interaction began to produce a different kind of information than what the state-controlled media had been used to. There was a suspicion and later a lack of confidence in the party and its system of government. The recognition of facts made possible by the transparency policy allowed for subsequent political changes.
The process of cleansing society
There are certain similarities in the behavior of the individual and society. The development initiated by Glasnost in Russia is like the psychoanalytic process at the individual level, which at the social level acts as a similar energy-liberating cleansing process – catharsis. The greatest achievement so far of openness policy has been the dissolution of Soviet subordinate states and the formation of new independent states.
Today, the leaders of both Russia and the New Independent States are talking about the times and events of the Soviet Union in quite different ways than before the policy of openness. Instead of subjugation, new co-operation between the new states has emerged that takes into account mutual interests. Instead of applauding the leadership of top-ranking organizations, you can present your own opinions in a way that you could not dream of fifteen years ago.
The internal development of the Russian Federation continues its spiritual struggle. Opposite are the openness policy and the old management system that uses the principle of tolerance in country leadership. The sum of social tolerance is a certain standard rate. Despite the strong commitment of the current leadership of the country to both international and domestic anti-corruption struggle, it is simultaneously struggle against openness policy.
Restoring trust to state power
It is a common practice in Finland not to issue orders that cannot be enforced. Nor should we legislate or adopt regulations that cannot be enforced. Confidence in state institutions and civil service is not so much about creating and existence laws and regulations, but about the changes they make in people's everyday lives.
The Russian system of administration and legislation are largely withdrawn from the Soviet system, even though the starting points for the matters to be dealt with are already in this world. The laws of the Soviet Union included rights and obligations that never came about. At that time, there were no financial resources needed, or there was no administration in the administration who would have been interested in the implementation of the affairs, as the country's management and the media were mostly concerned with new and more serious problems. The lower management, on the other hand, had to follow the traces of its senior in its public activities ...
Our neighboring country is confused by the confusing situation that has arisen as a result of the process of autonomous internal reform and foreign technical assistance reform programs. Today, the laws and regulations and development measures adopted by central government, regions and local governments are often contradictory. The standard of living of ordinary people living in Russia's wage-earning and social sector sectors is diminishing due to the current lack of control of the government, the root causes of which are not in this time.
Clarifying the role of Western countries
There is a confrontation in the fight against corruption in Russia's reform policy. At the other end, there are people who see Russian corruption as a result of the burdens of the Soviet system and the old Russian society. At the other end, experts say that corruption is a sanction for transparency policy and for attempts to plant a western market economy system. The latter will only mess up and slow down the re-assimilation of Russian centuries-old traditions.
Perhaps there is a road between the extremities, where the fight against corruption gets characteristics like those of other countries, although the battle itself would be used by Russia itself. If a common approach to global standards is not found in the fight against corruption, Russia may be confronted with isolation, which may be unpredictable and detrimental to all parties.
05.02.2001 / HKA 05.02.2001 / hka original text in 2001 and additional text 27.02.2008 only in Finnish with the link below:
A New Proposal for ex-post evaluation of transition programs
Countries participating in the transition programs should make an ex post evaluation of the effectiveness of anti-corruption programs and their impact on Russia's ability to fight corruption as part of the rule of law and the adoption of 'good governance' in the implementation of the transition programs in Russia since 1992. Why do international donor programs fail to deliver the results that business and civil society could use in their own operational programs in transition countries? Do these programs work in the way they want to work from the point of view of both donors and recipients? I don't want to blame anyone; I just want to find a way out of the inefficiency of current programs.
22.04.2019/Heikki K. Auvinen