Flawed Democracies
Center unveils new tool to track political accountability around the world

WASHINGTON, April 29, 2004 - In an unprecedented international investigation into the precise extent of openness, accountability and governance in 25 countries that hold elections, no country ranked in the top tier, the Center for Public Integrity has found.

In the defining characteristic of a representative democracy-holding free and fair elections-all of the countries studied are susceptible to abuses of power, whether from a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability from an independent agency overseeing the electoral process, or having no disclosure requirements or limits on money from individuals and corporations flowing into the political system.

No single country achieved a "very strong" ranking on the Public Integrity Index, a measure of the existence and effectiveness of laws and institutions that promote public accountability and limit corruption, and the access that citizens have to information with which they can hold their governments accountable.

That is one of the many findings of the Global Integrity Report, offering unprecedented quantitative, qualitative and comparative information on national institutions that prevent abuses of power and promote public integrity.

The scourge of corruption is one of the greatest challenges that citizens face. It erodes public trust in government, undermines the rule of law, weakens the effectiveness of governance at all levels, and hinders economic growth by discouraging investment.

Of the 25 countries, just six ranked "strong": the United States, which finished first, followed by Portugal, Australia, Italy, Germany and South Africa. Seven countries-the Philippines, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Venezuela and Ghana-received "moderate" rankings while Nigeria, Panama, Nicaragua, Ukraine, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Turkey, Russia, and Kenya received "weak" scores. Guatemala and Zimbabwe, the other two countries surveyed, finished in the "very weak" category.

The United States ranked first in two of six broad areas studied, including "very strong" ratings in the Civil Society, Public Information and Media category and the Branches of Government category. It finished 19th in the Oversight and Regulatory Mechanisms category, in part because, unlike other countries studied, the United States has no national ombudsman, whose role is to make the government more open and accountable to members of the public.

Findings
Corruption cannot thrive in an environment where the public is informed about the true extent and specific nature of abuses of power; sunshine is the best disinfectant, as the saying goes. A free press and access to information are critical in holding government accountable-if corruption is to be addressed, it must first be exposed. Similarly, government officials must be accountable to the law.

The Global Integrity Report found that such standards are not maintained in many of the countries studied. Among the findings:


In 18 of the countries, there are no laws to protect civil servants who report corruption-whistle-blowers-from recrimination or other negative consequences. In practice, Portugal is the only country where civil servants who report corruption are "often" protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. In the other 24 countries, such protections are only afforded "sometimes," "rarely" or "almost never";
In 15 of the countries, journalists investigating corruption had been imprisoned, physically harmed or killed;
In three countries, Guatemala, Mexico and Zimbabwe, both journalists and judges have been physically harmed in the past year;
In 14 of the countries, the head of state cannot be prosecuted for corruption;
In six countries, the ruling party controls two-thirds or more of the seats in the national legislature, reducing the opposition parties' ability to enhance government accountability;
In seven of the countries, the top executive branch official is not required to file a personal financial disclosure form, preventing the public from seeing what private interests its leader has.

The report also found that the phenomenon of money buying political favors is international in scope, as the following examples illustrate, and in many cases continues, with public integrity mechanisms in this area universally weak.

In the Philippines, former President Joseph Estrada got large donations from, among others, a tobacco tycoon who wanted reprieve from a tax evasion case. After Estrada took office, his commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue dropped the case against the tobacco tycoon.

In Germany, investigations found that large corporations, through methodically committed tax fraud, had provided several million marks for party funds and financial resources for politicians. In November 1999, the German public learned that Helmut Kohl, who was the federal chancellor from 1982 to 1998, had millions of marks laundered during his tenure by organizations in Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

In the United States, Enron, one of President George W. Bush's top donors over his career, spent millions of dollars on politicians and parties from the late 1980s to the time of its collapse in December 2001, and received billions of dollars' worth of favorable treatment from federal and state government officials on no fewer than 49 occasions.

Political party finances are secret in 10 of 25 countries, the Global Integrity Report found. Fourteen of those countries allow unlimited contributions to parties by corporations, and 17 countries have no laws restricting how much parties can spend to influence elections.

Of the 25 countries surveyed, only two-Germany and Mexico-ranked "very strong" in the electoral and political processes category, which assesses electoral processes, election monitoring agencies and political party finances. Four countries-India, Japan, Kenya and Zimbabwe-had no independent agency to oversee political party finances. In fifteen countries that did have legal oversight of party finances, the responsible agency rarely or almost never launched independent investigations. In thirteen countries, the agency rarely or almost never imposed a penalty on those who broke campaign finance laws.

Altogether, including researchers, writers and editors at the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C., the Global Integrity Report is a collaboration involving some 200 people on six continents (20 of the 25 journalists were drawn from the Center's International Consortium of Investigative Journalists). The massive project, conceived by Charles Lewis and directed by Marianne Camerer, was funded by Open Society Institute and the McCormick Tribune Foundation. (See The Investigative Team for a complete list of everyone involved.)

Findings
Corruption cannot thrive in an environment where the public is informed about the true extent and specific nature of abuses of power; sunshine is the best disinfectant, as the saying goes. A free press and access to information are critical in holding government accountable-if corruption is to be addressed, it must first be exposed. Similarly, government officials must be accountable to the law.

The Global Integrity Report found that such standards are not maintained in many of the countries studied. Among the findings:

In 18 of the countries, there are no laws to protect civil servants who report corruption-whistle-blowers-from recrimination or other negative consequences. In practice, Portugal is the only country where civil servants who report corruption are "often" protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. In the other 24 countries, such protections are only afforded "sometimes," "rarely" or "almost never";
In 15 of the countries, journalists investigating corruption had been imprisoned, physically harmed or killed;
In three countries, Guatemala, Mexico and Zimbabwe, both journalists and judges have been physically harmed in the past year;
In 14 of the countries, the head of state cannot be prosecuted for corruption;
In six countries, the ruling party controls two-thirds or more of the seats in the national legislature, reducing the opposition parties' ability to enhance government accountability;
In seven of the countries, the top executive branch official is not required to file a personal financial disclosure form, preventing the public from seeing what private interests its leader has.

The report also found that the phenomenon of money buying political favors is international in scope, as the following examples illustrate, and in many cases continues, with public integrity mechanisms in this area universally weak.

In the Philippines, former President Joseph Estrada got large donations from, among others, a tobacco tycoon who wanted reprieve from a tax evasion case. After Estrada took office, his commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue dropped the case against the tobacco tycoon.

In Germany, investigations found that large corporations, through methodically committed tax fraud, had provided several million marks for party funds and financial resources for politicians. In November 1999, the German public learned that Helmut Kohl, who was the federal chancellor from 1982 to 1998, had millions of marks laundered during his tenure by organizations in Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

In the United States, Enron, one of President George W. Bush's top donors over his career, spent millions of dollars on politicians and parties from the late 1980s to the time of its collapse in December 2001, and received billions of dollars' worth of favorable treatment from federal and state government officials on no fewer than 49 occasions.

Political party finances are secret in 10 of 25 countries, the Global Integrity Report found. Fourteen of those countries allow unlimited contributions to parties by corporations, and 17 countries have no laws restricting how much parties can spend to influence elections.

Of the 25 countries surveyed, only two-Germany and Mexico-ranked "very strong" in the electoral and political processes category, which assesses electoral processes, election monitoring agencies and political party finances. Four countries-India, Japan, Kenya and Zimbabwe-had no independent agency to oversee political party finances. In fifteen countries that did have legal oversight of party finances, the responsible agency rarely or almost never launched independent investigations. In thirteen countries, the agency rarely or almost never imposed a penalty on those who broke campaign finance laws.

Altogether, including researchers, writers and editors at the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C., the Global Integrity Report is a collaboration involving some 200 people on six continents (20 of the 25 journalists were drawn from the Center's International Consortium of Investigative Journalists). The massive project, conceived by Charles Lewis and directed by Marianne Camerer, was funded by Open Society Institute and the McCormick Tribune Foundation. (See The Investigative Team for a complete list of everyone involved.)

Data Analysis: Above the Law.

Data Anaysis: Conflicts of Interest

Data Anaysis:Protecting Corruption Watchdogs

Data Analysis: Access To Information

Data Analysis: Whistle-Blowing Protection

Data Analysis: Women in Elective Office

Public Integrity Index
The Public Integrity Index is the centerpiece of the Global Integrity report, providing a quantitative scorecard of governance practices in each country. The Public Integrity Index assesses the institutions and practices that citizens can use to hold their governments accountable to the public interest. The Public Integrity Index does not measure corruption itself, but rather the opposite of corruption: the extent of citizens' ability to ensure their government is open and accountable.

May 27 Newswire:

World Events Spark Interest in Human Rights Careers; Growing Number of
Students Interested in Working for Justice

Pope Paul VI once said, "If you want peace, work for justice."

For years, college students have volunteered their time to greater causes.
Now, graduates of the University of Dayton's human rights program are
finding a way to get paid for their efforts.

In the 1980s, a healthy stock market lured students to business and finance
jobs. The information technology boom in the 1990s drove the Internet and
tech market. In the new millennium, world events may create jobs in the
human rights field.

Five years ago, Mark Ensalaco, University of Dayton's director of
international studies, recognized the growing "professionalization" of human
rights. He started the nation's first human rights program to prepare
students to work for organizations like Franciscans International, Human
Rights Watch or Amnesty International.

The curriculum includes classes in social justice, economic development,
philosophy of different cultures, ethics, global politics, civil liberties,
health care issues, and immigration, among others.

"We wanted to develop a distinctive graduate who can be a human rights
defender of the future," Ensalaco said. "We believe the human rights field
has become so professionalized over the past 20 years that we need to
prepare people for the future. It's akin to a pre-law or pre-medicine
program."

The number of human rights majors has blossomed to 41 students. Two- thirds
of the students are in the University's honors program. Fifteen graduates
from first class are in prestigious law or graduate programs specializing in
human rights.

And since then, other colleges have followed the University of Dayton model
to create similar programs. In 2000, Ensalaco helped create the
International Human Rights Education Consortium.

"The consortium reflects the recognition by some very prestigious scholars
of the need to teach human rights at the undergraduate level," Ensalaco
said.

Founding members include Utica College of Syracuse University, Florida State
University, the University of Cincinnati College of Law, St. Thomas
University in Canada's New Brunswick province, Abo Akadami University in
Finland, the United Kingdom's University of Essex and Taiwan's Soochow
University.

A year ago, Julie Reiter was among the first class of UD human rights
graduates. She landed a yearlong internship with Geneva-based Franciscans
International, a nongovernmental organization that does advocacy work at the
United Nations on behalf of the poor.

This spring, she worked on behalf of Franciscans International during the
annual session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
But getting from diploma to diplomacy takes more than a caring heart and
humanitarian spirit.

"UD's program gave me a head start," Reiter said. "The program helps
professionalize my passion, helps with office language and helps in
day-to-day duties like writing a position paper for the UN, attending UN
meetings or scheduling meetings with diplomats."

It was a head start on an unconventional path. After entering the University
of Dayton undecided on a major and then choosing education, Reiter changed
her mind after working in a home for street children in Colombia.
"That's when I knew I wanted to do this," she said.

According to Ensalaco, the program's reputation has spread to the point that
high school students are contacting the University of Dayton as early as
their junior years to express an interest in the program.

It was because of that reputation that Franciscans International approached
Ensalaco about creating an internship specifically for UD human rights
majors.

The Rev. John Quigley, director of the Geneva office, said, "UD provides the
perfect educational program to coordinate with our work for human rights at
the United Nations in Geneva."

While Reiter appreciates the educational basis for her career, she says
there are intangible attributes one needs to succeed in this field.
"One needs to understand human rights issues, have a sense of the whole
person and carry out a grassroots campaign on an international level,"
Reiter said. "It also helps to be really good at networking as we try to
create a lot of dialogue to keep topics going."

(source: PR Newswire)