When the state president says about corruption: “So what?” – Personal attitudes

After the elections, Mr. Jelko Kacin, as an EU official for the Balkans, held a meeting with members of the Council for the Fight against Corruption, was interested in our views on whether, given the stated slogan, the fight against corruption will be more successful. We, the members of the Council, think that it would be more successful, we believe in the electoral slogan.

Today, after eight years, no report from the EU bodies dealing with corruption has been positive, on the contrary, all EU documents affirm that Serbia is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, thus that the Council fully agrees.

In accordance with the National Strategy to Fight Corruption, the Council is in charge of monitoring the results of the implementation of the Strategy and Plan of Action in the fight against corruption, for which reason the Council has produced around 40 reports in these eight years.

Each report contains several recommendations, however, the government did not implement any of the recommendations, as well as the recommendations given by the EU, based on which the Council concludes that there is no fight against corruption in our country and that, if it continues thus, Serbia cannot leave. from one of the most corrupt countries in Europe.

Given that there are various types of corruption, the Council has determined from the processed cases that minor corruption is processed in our country, given in the form of bribes to individuals (doctors, teachers, etc.) in small amounts, but that the cases of great systemic corruption with enormous amounts are not determined or prosecuted, because the politicians who create a system that allows corruption participate in them.

All three branches of government are involved in allowing corruption, the legislature passes laws that contain corrupt, unclear and incomplete provisions, the executive applies and adapts the laws to politicians, their families, friends and all other powerful people in government. and the ruling parties, and finally the judiciary. the government, which is elected by politicians, which is not autonomous and independent, which has no prosecution authorities, because the police and the prosecution as prosecution authorities only do what they receive an order from the authorities.

Our state does not have an independent Constitutional Court. The judges of our Constitutional Court who do not have serious work experience and judicial experience are chosen by politicians. The Council analyzed the number of disputes lost before the Strasbourg court, preceded by the decisions of the Constitutional Court and determined: that in the two-year period (from 2016 to 2018), in disputes that were resolved on the merits (disputes in the that the claims were not rejected) as inadmissible), of 58 disputes 56 were lost and only two were won).

In all of its reports, the Council wrote about the foundations of systemic corruption and scandals that will never be prosecuted, because the government does not want that and prevents it by all means.

Only the basic reasons and areas that affect the facilitation of corruption will be mentioned here, and they are: no rule of law; lack of effective, free and independent institutions, especially the judiciary and the media; lack of control at all levels of government; In all areas there is employment of parties in all state agencies, from porters to managers.

The council monitored cases of corruption by politicians, ministers, family members, friends, and leaders of ruling parties.

Given the position of these people in an undemocratic country and a country without the rule of law, as our country was officially declared by Freedom House (Freedom House), it is clear what enormous corruption it is, which is very difficult to determine, because the three branches government participate in it.

In other words, in the latest report on “States in transition”, Freedom House (FH), which deals with human rights and the promotion of democracy in the world, Serbia has lost the epithet of “partially consolidated democracies” and has returned one step back to the transition group, that is. “Hybrid regimes”, which means states in which democratic institutions are fragile and where there are significant challenges to defend political rights and civil liberties. For the first time since 2003, Serbia is no longer in the category of democracies among countries in transit. “

Investigative journalists determined that the husband of the Minister of Justice participated in a large number of tenders announced by state agencies and companies in a short period of time, and that by 2020 the salary in those tenders was around 27 million euros, and only in April 2020. The value of the contracts concluded amounted to about three million euros in healthcare.

Without proving whether the tenders were legally advertised, or manipulated, or attracted to participants, or whether other participants were prevented from participating in those tenders, it should be established that the law stipulates that legal procedures must not be applied in public procurement if the state is in danger.

When incompetent agencies declare a state of unconstitutional emergency in a country, the state can bypass the public procurement procedure for all acquisitions and allow huge salaries for certain politician-related people.

The Minister of Justice stated that she was not connected with her husband’s company, which is probably true, and that the Anticorruption Agency concluded that she did not commit corruption, however, what the Minister cannot discuss is that she and her husband They achieve a common heritage and although she is not affiliated with her firm, she is related to her husband to whom she provides information and influences the ministries with which her husband has been in business.

The minister cannot be trusted to say that her husband did not use his information and influence to earn € 27 million, just € 3 million in April.

The Anti-Corruption Strategy has designated the Ministry of Justice and the Anti-Corruption Agency as anti-corruption bodies.

In a country where there is no democracy, rule of law, where employment is carried out according to party affiliation, these are not bodies that fight corruption, but bodies to hide the systemic corruption committed by politicians under the guise of anti-corruption .

When it is known that the director of the Anticorruption Agency was a donor to the ruling party in the government’s electoral process and that he has no experience in corruption, it follows that he was nominated and elected to this position to hide corruption from politicians.

The existence of information and influence on corruption is very difficult to determine when it comes to corruption within family ties, but that does not mean that politicians should not be questioned and allowed to make huge funds, which means that the responsibility of politicians, especially the Minister of Justice, should be stricter.

The Minister of the Interior is authorized to issue permits for the arms trade. The minister’s father received a permit for the arms trade, which is generally difficult to obtain because it is one of the most profitable businesses along with drug trafficking.

Thanks to the permit, the minister’s father bought arms from Krusik, a state-owned public company, at privileged prices, and also sold them on the arms market at market prices, between which there is a great difference.

The question is whether, thanks to the minister’s influence, permission, and information received from him, the minister’s father was able to earn a huge salary to the detriment of Krusik.

The Council believes that obtaining a permit and acquiring arms from a state-owned company at privileged prices has resulted in political influence, representing information corruption and influence that should be sanctioned.

When the president says “so what” if the minister has given permission for the arms trade to the company with which his father is connected; if that company acquired arms from a public state company at privileged prices; if by selling at market prices the company of the minister’s father made huge profits to the detriment of Krusik; If the police illegally detained the complainant to hide the corruption of the minister and his family, the president should be asked, given the pre-electoral slogan, if it is “Zero tolerance for corruption” or corruption that should be punished.

The author is a member of the Anti-Corruption Council.

Related texts: