SURVEY FINDS ARMENIANS LESS TOLERANT OF CORRUPTION

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 000126 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/CARC, DRL E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PGOV KCOR SOCI AM SUBJECT: SURVEY FINDS ARMENIANS LESS TOLERANT OF CORRUPTION REF: YEREVAN 118 YEREVAN 00000126 001.2 OF 002 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. Armenians are becoming less tolerant of corruption, according to a Transparency International Armenia (TIA) survey released January 31. The most striking symbol of their mounting dissatisfaction was respondents' answers to a question regarding the most visible and common manifestation of Armenian corruption: low-level bribery. The number of respondents who said they would refuse to give a bribe increased significantly from the last TI survey, taken in 2002. The number of respondents who said they believed corruption was a problem also increased. Respondents weighed in on the most corrupt public institutions (electoral system, traffic police and regular police) and the main causes of corruption (poor law enforcement, society's low moral values and inefficient control and punishment mechanisms). The complete report can be found at www.transparency.am. END SUMMARY. -------------- RESPONDENTS SAY CORRUPTION IS ON THE RISE -------------- ¶2. Just under two-thirds of respondents to the 2006 TIA Corruption Perception Survey said corruption had "increased," or "increased significantly," during the last three years. About 8 percent of the 1,500 households surveyed said corruption had decreased in that period of time. And according to the UNDP-funded survey, more people perceive corruption to be a problem than in 2002. In the new survey, 89 percent of respondents said corruption was a problem in Armenia, up from 80 percent in 2002. At the same time, nearly half of poll respondents said they would refuse to give a bribe -- double the number of the 2002 survey. -------------- CORRUPTION: A NATIONAL VALUE? -------------- ¶3. Respondents blamed corruption on the government, and to a lesser degree, on their culture. More than one-third of respondents defined corruption (in a new question in the 2006 survey) as "accepted tradition" or "national mentality." About 52 percent called it a "crime" or "immoral behavior." And while 94 percent of respondents blamed corruption on poor law enforcement, about 88 percent said public tolerance of corruption allowed it to continue. About 80 percent blamed corruption on society's "low morals." Respondents also blamed the lack of political will (75 percent),dominance of clan interests over state interests (86 percent) the poor economy (82 percent) and a "culture of 'kick-backs'" (75 percent). When asked who initiated corruption, about 58 percent of respondents' first answer was "state authorities," but nearly 41 percent answered "ordinary citizens." When asked who was responsible for corruption, respondents overwhelmingly named the president, the government, the National Assembly, the judiciary and law enforcement. ¶4. On a list of 22 state institutions including the president, the president's office, cabinet ministers, the courts, and the Central Bank, not a single one had the confidence of at least 50 percent of poll respondents. Cabinet ministers, collectively, were perceived to be the most corrupt institution, with more than 93 percent of respondents rating them "somewhat corrupt," "corrupt" or "very corrupt." The state institutions perceived to be least corrupt were the Central Bank (59 percent corrupt) and the human rights ombudsman (53 percent corrupt). On a list of sectors and services, the electoral system, the traffic police, the regular police, the education and healthcare systems and the tax and customs services also had astronomical corruption rankings: 95 percent for the electoral system down to 85 percent for the customs service, with the others falling in between. -------------- EXCUSES, EXCUSES -------------- ¶5. When presented with a list of justifications for corruption, the majority of respondents found each excuse unacceptable. However, about 42 percent agreed that there was no other way to get things done, while more than one-quarter said corruption was acceptable to avoid punishment. About 25 percent also said corruption was justified when it resulted in additional income. YEREVAN 00000126 002.2 OF 002 ¶6. Survey respondents recognized the adverse effects of corruption, with more than 75 percent agreeing that corruption increased poverty, crime and apathy, endangered national security and moral values, and decreased the legitimacy of authorities. -------------- WHAT CAN BE DONE? -------------- ¶7. Respondents did not show much confidence in Armenia's ability to fight corruption, with nearly three-quarters saying the country's efforts were not effective. Nearly 30 percent said corruption could not eliminated at all, and 43 percent were slightly more positive, saying corruption could be limited to a certain degree. Respondents said free and fair elections, stronger law enforcement, stricter control over state institutions and stricter punishment as well as increased public awareness could improve the situation. When asked what they personally could do to reduce corruption in Armenia, 59 percent of respondents answered, "Nothing." -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶8. The survey confirms what we already know: While Armenians understand corruption is a problem, they largely feel helpless or complacent about it. Of course, though this survey does not reveal it, probably a large majority of Armenians regularly offers bribes to cope with the petty nuisances of state authority, some more willingly than others. Though they may be far from reaching their boiling point, the increase in the number of people who say they would refuse to pay a bribe seems a sign of progress. GODFREY