Indeed our article is not about mothers-in-law or especially against them. Vice versa, it more relates to their sons-in-law especially the ones, who have high titles. In others words we have so many times spoken about corruption.
We had an occasion to remember this phenomenon when two days ago the Global Corruption Report 2009 of the Transparency International (TI) Watchdog was publicized. Yesterday the Director of the Transparency International Amalia Kostanyan answered the questions of the journalists, who were mostly interested in the evaluation given to Armenia. But Kostanyan disappointed the journalists when she mentioned that the report is basically aimed at analyzing rather than showing numbers. The topic of the year for Armenia is “corruption and the private sector,” which is divided into two parts, which show the persecution of the Armenian government against the Royal Armenia and Gala TV. Amalia Kostanyan, the Chairwoman of the Transparency International (TI) anti- corruption center. TI’s Global Corruption Report 2009 shows the main legal and institutional anti-corruption changes effected in the republic from June 1, 2007, to May 31, 2008. Amalia Kostanyan says their report differs from those of other countries since "the report doesn’t speak of a businessman bribing the authorities. We find it useless to speak about this phenomenon as the two spheres are interwoven." TI Chairwoman sees no explicit combat against corruption in Armenia. "All their efforts are imitated. What’s the use of this farce after the rigged elections?" says Ms. Kostanyan and adds the authorities had better direct the money to pensioners and vulnerable people." Let us mention that during the press conference nothing new was heard of. It’s not the fault of anybody. Everybody knows of the high levels of corruption in Armenia. “There has to be a serious material sacrifice on the part of the current authorities, something which I don’t see happening,” she told the journalists. Transparency International and its Yerevan-based affiliate, the Anti-Corruption Center (ACC) see no significant decrease in the scale of corrupt practices among various state officials, however. Armenia ranked only 109th out of 180 countries covered by the Berlin-based watchdog’s 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index. The ACC believes that close ties between government and business are the root cause of the problem. Many law-enforcement and other officials in Armenia are believed to own lucrative businesses, both directly and through their cronies, and/or share in the profits of other firms sponsored. It looks into the impact of corruption on the private sectors of 46 countries, including Armenia, around the world. The Armenian authorities claim to have stepped up their declared fight against corruption in recent years, adopting various anti-graft programs and forming special bodies tasked with their implementation. Nevertheless, it is first of all the objective of the government to make the society think that corruption is a serious issue in the country. It is always easy to say that it is the fault of the society. But the words of the former Prime Minister of Singapore Li Kuan Yui, who was invited by the Armenian side, are great evidence that this approach is wrong. In the beginning of the 20th century the Singaporeans were more corrupt than us. When asked how corruption should be overcome Li Kuan Yui answered that the process should be started from the leader. The Singaporeans only tried to fight the corruption from the top. Although radical and unacceptable by many others by breaking of the presumption of innocence (when the statesman, who has more poverty overwhelming the salary he is sued or arrested) would cause change. The main reason of the success is that Singapore first of all signified the interests of its own people. “The authorities are better off continuing the imitation of an anti-corruption fight and punishing only low-ranking officials to show the public and foreign donors that they are tackling the problem.” The Armenian authorities claim to have stepped up their declared fight against corruption in recent years, adopting various anti-graft programs and forming special bodies tasked with their implementation. “When one person has many businesses and views all other importers, who hold no government posts, as his competitors, he will naturally be disinterested in promoting a market-based economy,” Kostanyan argued in an apparent reference to the controversial SCR chief. “Also, if some businesspeople dare to support or finance the opposition, which is what happened in 2007-2009, they will face criminal proceedings and be driven into bankruptcy,” added Kostanyan. She cited the example of Khachatur Sukiasyan, a wealthy businessman, and its SIL Concern group. Several of its companies were raided and fined by tax authorities after Sukiasyan publicly voiced support for former President Levon Ter-Petrosyan in September 2007. One of them, a mineral water plant, was effectively confiscated by the state last October because of alleged tax evasion. The Armenian government, meanwhile, declined to immediately comment on the issue when contacted by journalists. An official at its press service said the government will present its position “in a few days’ time.” This means that we too should identify the statesmen, who buy property with illegal methods and register it on the names of their mothers-in-law. What’s the reason? Does the government of Armenia not wish to fight corruption? To this question Kostanyan answered with a question. “Are you asking me?” she says. Then, of course, she added, “yes, yes, yes.” They say that they neither wish nor they can. According to Amalia Kostnyan it is shameful to imitate this process after the falsified elections, because the elections clearly show what we are fighting against. “Why shall we continue this theater…In the conditions of the crisis if they don’t fight against corruption let them spend the money on something else?” We fully agree with this opinion. Without normal elections and legitimate government the fight against corruption is a meaningless occupation. Let us also agree that it is a pity to spend money on various structures, commissions and development of strategies if everything is originally built on sand. However, in this case, under the conditions of independence and apathy and carelessness, what is the point of the activity of the Transparency International or some other organization? More concretely, why do the experts of the TI spend resources, energy and time to survey the anti-corruption strategy of the government if they initially know that all this is going to just stay on paper? This is question Kostanyan answered, “We don’t serve the current government; we serve on behalf of Armenia. If you are working in the professional aspect you assume that perhaps the future governments to come will pick these lessons and actually fight against corruption.” Maybe. But in that case the publications of the TI will not create any interest.