Gallup Monitor - Analysis of the Focus Group Discussions

Analysis of the Focus Group Discussions on Corruption

The Hungarian Gallup Institute was commissioned to conduct an articulated investigation of corruption in Hungary within the framework of the Global Program against Corruption organized by the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (ODCCP) and the UN Interregional Crime and Iustice Research Institute (UNICRI). Five phases were completed between December 1999 and Autumn of 2000. Including this research Gallup Hungary has organized a series of focus groups with the members of various professional groups (judges, mayors, journalists, business people, company managers, etc.) between December 1999 and July 2000.

These focus groups were extremely useful and interesting. Participants knew their various fields very well. They raised a great number of important issues. They were familiar with a great variety of corrupt practices and were surprisingly good at analyzing these practices. At the same time, they were rather skeptical about the possibility of restricting corruption but proposed some important measures that, applied step by step, could help.

In the focus groups, a great number of cases of corruption were discussed and attempts were made at coming up with a definition of corruption. Given the complexity and great variety of the cases, this was a difficult task. Finally, the various attempts boiled down to two definitions. A shorter and a longer one.

The shorter: Corruption is the act of breaking an established system of rules (regulating the distribution of goods) in order to privately profit from this breaking of the rules.

The longer: Corruption is an act in which a public official (or another person in a position to distribute public goods or services) breaks the rules of distributing a public good or providing a public service,

rules for the enforcement of which he or she is responsible, in favor of a client,
by whom he or she is rewarded for this breaking of the rules.

Finally we accepted the second one as a tool to work with. It is not flawless, comprehensive and precise enough. Each of its elements is open to criticism. It can be argued, for instance, that not only public officials may be corrupted; not only public goods and services may be involved in acts of corruption; an act may be corrupt even if the actor is not rewarded by somebody else; etc. But most of the acts of corruption are likely to be covered by this definition, the socially most harmful among them, and so its use seems to be justified.

Indulgence

People in our focus groups seemed to be more lenient with corruption than with other types of crime. Prompted by a question ("Which is a more serious crime, to get hold of 10 Million Forints?") they came up with the following rank order, going from the gravest offense to the least serious one:

drug dealing
armed robbery
blackmail
accepting a bribe
embezzlement
swindling, cony catching

Asked to comment on this outcome they said that they ranked these offenses according to their social dangerousness, and more precisely according to a) the number of actors involved, b) the number of victims involved, c) the presence or absence of violence.

Embezzlement: One actor, there are victims, there is no violence.
Giving or taking a bribe: Two actors, there are no victims voluntary participation of actors; no violence.
Blackmail: Two actors, the victim is forced to participate in the transaction; an innocent person is victimized; there is violence.

Legislation and legal reforms

In the focus groups, we asked our participants - legislators, judges, mayors, journalists, businessmen, managers, -- to discuss the main causes of corruption, and the possible measures that could gradually curb it. I give here a selection of their remarks and suggestions.

Our participants were rather critical of the process of legislation and urged a new approach to legal reforms.

Our Laws have no consistency; they are "flexible", they can be bent to all kinds of purposes.
The Bills proposed by the governments lose their consistency during parliamentary debates and - in the absence of a strong concept and a strong legislative will - lobby groups are able to build into the final text too many exemptions, special treatments, loopholes.
A new approach to the process of legislation, with a stronger legislative will and more professionalism producing more consistent and transparent laws should be a priority in the fight against corruption.
In 1989 and 1900, in the time of the round-table talks, and the first month of being in power, the emerging new political elite seemed to be practically independent from business interests. Since, they have lost their innocence. Business interests have encroached upon politics. Attempts at separating the two spheres have failed so far. This situation is one of the main sources of large-scale corruption in the country. A new electoral law, that would solve the financing of the political parties and electoral campaigns, is overdue.
The process of transition has not helped the formation of this strong "legislative" and "political will". There have been too many outside influences pulling and pushing the new, democratic governments in different directions There have been to many contradictory interests with which the new governments had to cope without having the necessary skills of democratic politics. This uncertainty and confusion created favorable conditions for corrupt practices.
Even if the laws are consistent, institutions are not strong enough, and not dedicated enough, to implement the laws. The passing of special laws that would guarantee the implementation of existing laws should be a priority.
But better law enforcement in itself would not suffice. Even the best laws cannot be enforced if the economic and social conditions that would enable the citizens to observe the laws, are not given.
There are expert who argue that the Western type rule of law is based on a relatively high material security of the citizens. Countries where an important portion of the population struggles with the problems of everyday survival, respect for the law is likely to be low. As one of our participants said: A poor country cannot afford the high level of legal and moral discipline of some rich Western countries.
Legal deregulation is proceeding too slowly since - in our participants' opinion - deregulation is against the interests of the ruling elite. Deregulation would decrease their political power and weaken their control over economic and social processes.
The over-bureaucratized legal system and public administration is a hotbed of corruption. If one needs 14 permits to have a hot-dog stand at a street corner, then corrupt officials fare well and business suffers. Radical legal deregulation should be a priority in the fight against corruption.
People's respect for the Law has been eroded by the fact that the ruling elite itself has ignored the laws and the ruling of the Courts.
The Constitutional Court has found the Parliament guilty in not passing certain Laws by constitutional deadlines.
The Government has ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice to pay its debts to the City of Budapest.
Several Ministries have ignored the reports of the State Accounting Office.
High-ranking public servants have not resigned after having been found guilty, or to be prime suspects, in corruption cases.
Raising the moral standard of the ruling elite, prompting them to be exemplary in respecting the law, reinforcing the principle of Rex sub lege should be a high priority in the fight against corruption.

Focus group participants - with the exception of the majority of businessmen, who were very skeptical and critical -- agreed in the fact that there is practically no evidence of judges accepting kickbacks. But some of the judges are exposed to, and some have been unable to resist, the "soft pressure" coming from politics, and the tactics of intimidation from the side of organized crime. The great number of cases of judicial "procrastination" may indicate that most of the judges want to safeguard their integrity and escape from these traps by endlessly postponing trials.

The reinforcement of the independence, and safety, of the judiciary should be high on the priority list.

Lex versus mores

Focus group participants fervently discussed the question whether the legal or the moral aspects of corruption are more important and whether remedies should be looked for mainly in the field of law, or in that of morality. They seemed to have a penchant for believing that the moral factor could, and should, play the leading role in the fight against corruption.

They emphasized the importance of education. One of them went as far as to argue that by appointing young men to important positions may reduce corruption since they are not corrupted yet. Several of them seemed to believe in the essential goodness of human nature, or at least in the importance of character and principles. "He who is honest, is and will remain honest" - one of them stated.

Public service

In another focus group the main question discussed was how the integrity of public officials could be reinforced. Participants were rather sceptical in this respect.

Attempts at creating a Max Weberian "vocational order" of public servants have failed so far.
Career paths are not clearly laid out.
Salaries of the rank and file are low.
Salaries at higher ranks are better than the social average but they are 3, 5, 10 times lower than those of people in the business sector can earn.
Temptation is too great. If a traffic cop can get a bribe (for not giving a ticket to a driver), which amounts to his or her monthly salary, he or she should be a hero or a paragon of morality not to accept the bribe.
According to our participants even a 100 percent rise in the salaries of public servants would not do too much against corruption.
The uncertainty of their positions is a further factor in undermindig their integrity.
There are plans to create an elite group, pay them market salaries, and entrust them with eradicating corruption from the public service. According to our participants, these plans are highly controversial. They may backfire and further disintegrate this field.
There were participants who argued that local politics is the real hotbed of corruption. Others thought that as far as the number of cases was concerned, local politics was more contaminated with corruption than other institutions, but as far as the amount of money involved in corrupt transactions was concerned, national politics, and especially the process of rapid wholesale privatization, was by far the front runner.
Would corruption recede with the conclusion of the process of privatization? Participants thought that two new fields would take over the role of privatization: public tenders and the allocation of positions in public administration.

This latter point led to a lively debate. According to some participants the government is replacing thousands of public officials with its own people. This process, in itself, would be justified, to a certain extent, by the fact that governments need a public service which they can trust and on which they can rely in implementing their programs. The question is, which layers should be effected by these changes. Only the highest layers (secretaries of state, for instance) or it should cut deeper.

Another question is how to control these changes. If governments have a free hand in appointing anybody they want, then the dangers of corruption and cronyism is high.

Participants deplored that the Law of Public Administration leaves this question practically open. Moreover, the four governments that have been in office since 1989 have resisted any attempt to regulate this field and they have even dismissed attempts coming from the rank and file to issue an Ethical Code or Guidelines for public officials.

Participants argued that a system of open competition for all the positions in public administration should be introduced, the sooner, the better. They admitted, though, that years would pass before such a system would efficiently function.

The question whether a tenure system would protect the field better against corruption then a system of rotation and renewals on a competitive basis, could not be solved by participants.

There are a few fields where positions are already filled by competition. But participant think that in the majority of cases these competitions are rigged.

In other cases the process of competition leads to absurd situations. At present for instance, the family doctor system is being privatized and candidates have to apply for these openings. But the competition for good (lucrative) districts is so intense (in a recent case in a district in Budapest, there have been 27 applicants for one single opening), that a rational and balanced selection is impossible.

Corruption and democracy

Focus group participants coming from local councils seemed to be at a loss to tell where the dividing line was to be found between corrupt transactions and democratic maneuvering. Or, more exactly, between corrupt transactions and

deals made within the context of democratic politics;
compromises made by the mayor under various pressures;
lobbying;
"buying" the votes of a representative (offering for instance a new medical center, or a new school to his or her neighborhood).

After discussing the issues they came up with the following definition: If the mayor makes a deal, enters a compromise, yields to the pressure of lobby groups, "buys" votes in order to reach an optimal solution for the community as a whole, then this is not an act of corruption; it is part of the democratic game; it is a good decision. The same, but the solution is sub-optimal: this is a failure but not an act of corruption.The same as the first case, but the mayor personally profits from the decision.

If the profit is a certain gain in popularity, then this is still within the democratic game.
If the gain in popularity is disproportionately great (and especially if we are in a pre-election period), then this transaction has already a character of abuse of power.
If the mayor financially profits from the decision, then this is a clear case of corruption, though the fact that his decision was optimal for the community is an extenuating circumstance.

So far so good but, in most cases, it is very difficult to exactly define what public interest, or the interest of the community, is. And this limits the practical use of these distinctions.

Investigative journalism

Investigative journalism could be one of the best weapons in the fight against corruption. But - according to the journalist participants in the focus groups -- the conditions of this type of journalism are not given yet in the Central European countries.

Owners are not interested, or are even biased against, investigative journalism.
The interests of companies advertising in the media may obstruct investigative journalism.
Investigative journalism is time consuming and expensive. Editors seldom support this type of journalism.
There is a lack of peer solidarity among journalists. Journalists in trouble cannot expect support from their colleagues.
There is also a lack of social solidarity. Journalists in trouble cannot expect public support.
Partisan politics is still at its height in the new democracies. In this jungle war of uncompromising interests political parties are more interested in fighting each other than fighting corruption. They use cases or rumors of corruption for undermining each other's credibility and drop the issue as soon as they cannot politically capitalize on them any more.
The law overprotects individuals, business, and public servants n A too large number of documents are "classified". Individual, business, and state "secrets" are overprotected.
There is a chronic lack of follow-up and consequences. Incriminating reports and materials published by journalists are often ignored by district attorneys and the police.
Trials are infinitely delayed, there have been very few cases that lead to a prison sentence.
Existential insecurity. Journalists who lose their jobs because of having trodden on sensitive toes may have serious difficulties in finding a new job.
Investigating journalists may be, and have been, threatened by affected parties.
There are taboo topics that journalists carefully avoid (mafia issues, for instance).

The international community

By helping build the institutions of democracy and market economy the Western world has helped also fight corruption. But its influence was not only positive.

Corruption scandals in high-level western politics have strengthened skepticism, have disarmed anti-corruption efforts and have served as an alibi for a certain lenience towards corrupt practices. "If even they are corrupt, why should we better?"
With some important exceptions, western companies coming to the region have been all too ready to offer "special commissions" to those (public servants) who had an influence on the allocation of public contracts.
Some of the business people participating in the focus group discussions argued that foreign (national and multinational) companies have seriously inflated corruption prices and have an unfair advantage over their Hungarian competitors even is this twilight zone of making business. a) They have much more money. b) Hungarian authorities are more lenient with them than with Hungarian companies. c) Besides money, they have a wide range of other means of influencing public decisions. Their governments lobby for them. They can tactfully blackmail Hungarian authorities by threatening it to bring their investments somewhere else, or not to supply some vital commodities, etc.

Some of the business people argued that a crusade against corruption and Draconian rules forcing Hungarian companies to radically clean up their business would increase the competitive advantage of foreign companies. They propose, and would support, a consistent program for the gradual elimination of corruption.

(Gallup Hungary, September 2000)