By Christos Pourgourides
I will once again address the major problem of corruption, in the hope and expectation that a proper and meaningful public debate will finally take place, leading to the most effective possible way of tackling the issue.
The two investigations
What prompted me to return to the subject was yesterday’s editorial in Politis titled ‘The two reports that are coming’. It noted that “within the next few days – barring any unforeseen developments – the investigations of the Anti-Corruption Authority into the ‘mafia state’ and of the independent criminal investigator into the Presidential ‘videogate’ are expected to be completed”.
Both investigations are examining whether evidence exists that points to the commission of criminal offences.
Corruption and criminal offences
But if no such evidence emerges, does that mean the issue is closed and there is no corruption? This is the impression consistently cultivated by the media and widely held in society. Unfortunately, it is also the impression reinforced by the Anti-Corruption Authority through the way it conducts itself.
The Authority’s mode of operation will soon lead to complete ridicule and loss of credibility. This is because corruption is often plainly visible, yet the evidence required to establish a criminal case in court is rarely disclosed and even more rarely secured – particularly when it concerns acts linked to decisions taken at the level of heads of state, ministers or other senior officials.
The Anti-Corruption Authority
In practice, the Authority operates like another department of the police’s financial crime unit. That is not, and should not be, its purpose.
To illustrate what I believe its role should be, consider the well-known video involving close associates of the President. In my view, the Authority should first have examined its authenticity with expert assistance and, once verified, publicly assessed whether what is said in it constitutes corruption.
Corruption as understood by the average citizen – not corruption strictly defined by criminal law. For the average citizen, corruption means any act that contradicts our shared values.
The 2013 crisis
When Cyprus came very close to economic collapse in 2013, mainly due to the behaviour of the banks and, to a much lesser extent, the conduct of then-President Demetris Christofias, who was unfairly burdened with most of the blame, I would say to friends and acquaintances that the near-collapse was the result of political bankruptcy, which in turn stemmed from a crisis of values.
Everyone understood what I meant. If I must define those values today, I would say they concern how we want things to be – situations, behaviours, relationships, people, society, the environment, everything connected to our lives. Certainly, none of us wants the close associates of the President to behave as depicted in the video.
Einstein once said, “If I had one hour to solve a problem, I would spend fifty-five minutes defining it and five minutes thinking about the solution.” Few would disagree.
Defining the problem
Properly defining a problem, or asking the right question, is the most critical stage if we are to make sound choices and adopt effective solutions.
A correct definition means understanding causes, constraints and objectives, then clearly formulating the problem so that solutions can be sought and developed. It is widely accepted that how we define a problem largely determines the solutions we find.
In practice, this means that the way a problem is framed defines the space within which we search for answers.
The Anti-Corruption Authority, the Council of Ministers and the President himself, when faced with allegations of corruption, immediately focus on investigating possible criminal offences. Yet corruption, like most problems, is complex and consists of multiple components, each requiring its own definition and solution.
The cancer of corruption
Corruption cannot be addressed solely through criminal prosecutions. These are necessary, but their contribution to solving the problem is limited.
Members of the government and the Authority are trapped in stereotypes. They operate based on fixed perceptions, beliefs and assumptions that confine their thinking to conventional, well-trodden solutions.
They act on the assumption that thieves and corrupt individuals end up in prison. Their thinking does not extend to what can be done to reduce the number of such individuals or to address the underlying causes. Instead, they focus only on the symptoms.
Thinking ‘outside the box’
They fail to think outside the box. Corruption – like other complex problems, including the Cyprus issue – can only be addressed through such thinking.
A simple anecdote illustrates this point. A Russian businessman walked into a Swiss bank and asked for a loan of 10,000 Swiss francs for one year, offering a luxury Mercedes as collateral. The bank manager, given the value of the collateral, had no choice but to approve the loan at an interest rate of six per cent, which was higher than usual.
A year later, the businessman returned, repaid the 10,000 francs and 600 francs in interest. As he was about to leave to collect his car, the manager asked: ‘Excuse me, sir, did you really need this loan so badly that you pledged such an expensive car for a year?’
The businessman replied: “Sir, my wife was went for work to my country. We live in a flat with only one parking space. Where else in Geneva could I have parked my car for a whole year for just 600 francs?”
