El día 11 de noviembre de 2009, en las páginas de “El País”, se publicaba un extraordinario artículo titulado “No debemos resignarnos a la corrupción”, firmado por los miembros del Consejo de Dirección de Transparencia Internacional en España. En dicho artículo, entre otras muchas consideraciones y propuestas, se aludía al importante papel que corresponde a la función pública en la prevención de la corrupción y al negativo efecto que sobre dicha labor producen políticas de personal que no respeten los principios de igualdad, mérito y capacidad en la selección del personal de las Administraciones Públicas y en la ordenación de la carrera administrativa. El análisis no podía ser más lúcido.
Esta Asociación quiso hacer pública su total coincidencia con los planteamientos de dicho artículo, y por ello dirigió a los firmantes un escrito de agradecimiento por su posicionamiento público, y ese mismo escrito se remitió a diferentes medios de comunicación, por si deseaban publicarlo como “Carta abierta a Transparencia Internacional”.
Para sorpresa de esta Asociación, el citado escrito aparecía publicado el pasado miércoles en las páginas de “El Periódico de Aragón”, suprimiéndose del mismo, de forma incomprensible, todas las referencias a Transparencia Internacional, tanto en el título como en su contenido. De ese modo, ni era posible saber a quién se dirigía la “Carta abierta” ni cuál era el motivo por el que se escribía –aunque se hacía referencia a un artículo, se suprimía título, autor y medio en el que se había publicado- y, de su lectura, podían sacarse dos conclusiones: que, evidentemente, la carta estaba mal escrita, al omitirse datos necesarios para darle sentido; y que, acaso, lo que se elogiaba en dicha carta era algún artículo de “El Periódico de Aragón”.
Ante lo sucedido, esta Asociación va a expresar su disgusto al Director de “El Periódico de Aragón”, por algo que no cabe sino calificar de manipulación o alteración intencionada de un pronunciamiento público de esta Asociación, suscrito por su Presidente. ¿Existe alguna razón para querer suprimir la mención a Transparencia Internacional? ¿Asiste algún derecho a un medio de comunicación para alterar el contenido y el sentido de las declaraciones de una asociación?
Afortunadamente, ese mismo día, el “Diario del Altoaragón” recogía, igualmente en la sección cartas al director, el texto íntegro de la “Carta abierta a Transparencia Internacional”, de modo que su simple cotejo permitía advertir las alteraciones que en el texto remitido se habían llevado a cabo por “El Periódico de Aragón”.
Like the battle of Waterloo, the battle for Scotland was a damn close-run thing. The effects of Thursday’s no vote are enormous – though not as massive as the consequences of a yes would have been.
The vote against independence means, above all, that the 307-year Union survives. It therefore means that the UK remains a G7 economic power and a member of the UN security council. It means Scotland will get more devolution. It means David Cameron will not be forced out. It means any Ed Miliband-led government elected next May has the chance to serve a full term, not find itself without a majority in 2016, when the Scots would have left. It means the pollsters got it right, Madrid will sleep a little more easily, and it means the banks will open on Friday morning as usual.
But the battlefield is still full of resonant lessons. The win, though close, was decisive. It looks like a 54%-46% or thereabouts. That’s not as good as it looked like being a couple of months ago. But it’s a lot more decisive than the recent polls had hinted. Second, it was women who saved the union. In the polls, men were decisively in favour of yes. The yes campaign was in some sense a guy thing. Men wanted to make a break with the Scotland they inhabit. Women didn’t. Third, this was to a significant degree a class vote too. Richer Scotland stuck with the union — so no did very well in a lot of traditonal SNP areas. Poorer Scotland, Labour Scotland, slipped towards yes, handing Glasgow, Dundee and North Lanarkshire to the independence camp. Gordon Brown stopped the slippage from becoming a rout, perhaps, but the questions for Labour — and for left politics more broadly — are profound.
For Scots, the no vote means relief for some, despair for others, both on the grand scale. For those who dreamed that a yes vote would take Scots on a journey to a land of milk, oil and honey, the mood this morning will be grim. Something that thousands of Scots wanted to be wonderful or merely just to witness has disappeared. The anticlimax will be cruel and crushing. For others, the majority, there will be thankfulness above all but uneasiness too. Thursday’s vote exposed a Scotland divided down the middle and against itself. Healing that hurt will not be easy or quick. It’s time to put away all flags.
The immediate political question now suddenly moves to London. Gordon Brown promised last week that work will start on Friday on drawing up the terms of a new devolution settlement. That may be a promise too far after the red-eyed adrenalin-pumping exhaustion of the past few days. But the deal needs to be on the table by the end of next month. It will not be easy to reconcile all the interests – Scots, English, Welsh, Northern Irish and local. But it is an epochal opportunity. The plan, like the banks, is too big to fail.
Alex Salmond and the SNP are not going anywhere. They will still govern Scotland until 2016. There will be speculation about Salmond’s position, and the SNP will need to decide whether to run in 2016 on a second referendum pledge. More immediately, the SNP will have to decide whether to go all-out win to more Westminster seats in the 2015 general election, in order to hold the next government’s feet to the fire over the promised devo-max settlement. Independence campaigners will feel gutted this morning. But they came within a whisker of ending the United Kingdom on Thursday. One day, perhaps soon, they will surely be back.
(Artículo de Martin Kettle, publicado en "The Guardian" el 19 de septiembre de 2014)
41 comentarios:
Me parece muy feo lo hecho por el Periódico.
No doy crédito a este tipo de conductas.
Nueva Zelanda, Dinamarca y Singapur encabezan la lista de los países más transparentes del mundo de acuerdo con este estudio de "percepción de la corrupción", que incluye a 180 naciones y que se basa en 13 sondeos efectuados por 10 organizaciones independientes.
Como cada año, los países en guerra son percibidos como los más corruptos, con Afganistán y Somalia como los dos peores.
En el texto, Transparencia Internacional, con sede en Berlín, no ahorra críticas a los países industrializados.
"El dinero producto de la corrupción no debe poder encontrar zonas de refugio. Es hora de poner fin a las excusas", indicó la presidenta de la organización, Huguette Labelle.
El secreto bancario "afecta los esfuerzos tendientes a combatir la corrupción y recuperar los haberes robados", según Transparencia Internacional, que sin nombrarlos apunta contra los países industrializados que no sufren por su parte en el problema de la corrupción.
Desde 1955, la organización publica en forma anual un índice de percepción de la corrupción que va de una calificación de "10" para un país percibido como "transparente" a "0" para uno visto como "corrupto", detalló AFP.
La ONG insiste en la necesidad de hace más para combatir la corrupción en un momento en que los gobiernos intentan relanzar la economía internacional inyectando una enorme masas de capitales públicos en programas de ayuda al crecimiento.
La percepción de la corrupción en España ha subido, por lo que el país ha caído en el índice que elabora anualmente la ONG Transparency Internacional. En la lista - Indice de Percepción de la Corrupción 2009- España pasa del puesto 28 que ocupaba en 2008 al 32, con una nota de 6,1 puntos frente al 6,5 de hace un año. En la presentación en Berlín, la organización ha cargado contra los paraísos fiscales -"No debe haber refugios seguros para el dinero corrupto. Es tiempo de poner fin a las excusas", ha dicho su presidenta, Huguette Labelle- y ha destacado que los países en guerra son los que se perciben como más corruptos.
EL PAIS.
En Madrid, los encargados de la presentación del informe, uno de los cuatro índices que la organización elabora a nivel internacional, han sido los integrantes del comité de dirección de Transparencia Internacional España, Jesús Lizcano, Antonio Garrigues Walker, Jesús Sánchez Lambás y Manuel Villoria.
Garrigues Walker, patrono vitalicio de la Fundación Ortega y Gasset, ha querido dar un mensaje de esperanza: "Que nadie crea que la corrupción no se puede combatir, se puede y se debe afrontar. Y yo diría que es un tema hasta fácil". Aunque también ha alertado: "Si España sigue bajando puestos será una cosa mala, una cosa mala en todos los sentidos. No podemos resignarnos ante este fenómeno". Durante la presentación, todos los ponentes han dejado claro que la escalada de España en la lista de percepción de la corrupción no es tanto debido a que haya aumentado las acciones corruptas en el sector público, sino a que al haber más investigación y al aflorar más casos hay una mayor sensibilidad y una mayor preocupación y mayor sensación de que existen más corruptos.
EL PAIS.
Jesús Sánchez Lambás, director general de la Fundación Ortega y Gasset, ha hecho especial hincapié en este asunto y ha destacado la mejora en la lucha contra la corrupción en España, con una mayor eficacia de la Guardia Civil, la policía, la fiscalía y los aparatos del Estado, aunque también subraya que está "empezando a despertarse una mayor conciencia": "Había cierta tolerancia y ese mirar hacia otro lado se ha roto".
También ha querido enviar un mensaje a los políticos y funcionarios públicos -"deben tener una mayor cultura de transparencia y dar ejemplo"- y a quienes custodian la información pública: "Es una verdadera lacra que España siga siendo un candado y cerrojo a una información que es de los ciudadanos" Y ha zanjado: "No pueden seguir secuestrando la información a los ciudadanos con el prejuicio de que puede ser malutilizada. No somos súbditos, somos ciudadanos y tenemos derecho a conocer y utilizar esa información". Lambás también ha señalado que para luchar eficazmente contra la corrupción, más que establecer nuevos tipos penales, en España sería necesario "reformar una justicia que es del siglo XIX". "La justicia lenta sigue sin ser justicia", ha dicho.
EL PAIS.
Jesús Sánchez Lambás, director general de la Fundación Ortega y Gasset, ha hecho especial hincapié en este asunto y ha destacado la mejora en la lucha contra la corrupción en España, con una mayor eficacia de la Guardia Civil, la policía, la fiscalía y los aparatos del Estado, aunque también subraya que está "empezando a despertarse una mayor conciencia": "Había cierta tolerancia y ese mirar hacia otro lado se ha roto".
También ha querido enviar un mensaje a los políticos y funcionarios públicos -"deben tener una mayor cultura de transparencia y dar ejemplo"- y a quienes custodian la información pública: "Es una verdadera lacra que España siga siendo un candado y cerrojo a una información que es de los ciudadanos" Y ha zanjado: "No pueden seguir secuestrando la información a los ciudadanos con el prejuicio de que puede ser malutilizada. No somos súbditos, somos ciudadanos y tenemos derecho a conocer y utilizar esa información". Lambás también ha señalado que para luchar eficazmente contra la corrupción, más que establecer nuevos tipos penales, en España sería necesario "reformar una justicia que es del siglo XIX". "La justicia lenta sigue sin ser justicia", ha dicho.
EL PAIS.
Por su parte, Manuel Villoria, catedrático de la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, ha señalado que "sería bueno que nuestro país entrará en el G-20 de los países menos corruptos" y que el trabajo de prevención de estos casos "sigue siendo muy débil". Y en este punto coincide con el resto de los directivos de la sección española de Transparencia Internacional: es necesario un pacto de Estado entre todos los partidos para trabajar fundamentalmente en los mecanismos de prevención. Ha destacado el clientelismo existente en la Administración, "sobre todo" en la municipal, donde, dice, muchas veces la carrera depende de factores políticos y no de los méritos.
EL PAIS.
Según el catedrático y presidente de Transparencia Internacional España, Jesús Lizcano, España se encuentra en el puesto 18 de los 30 países europeos analizados, por delante de Grecia, Italia, Portugal y la mayor parte de los países del Este. Respecto al resto del listado de 179 países, Lizcano ha subrayado que hay que destacar que en la corrupción siempre hay dos partes: muchos de los países corruptos reciben sobornos de los países que están en los mejores puestos del ranking. Y también subrayado que muchos paraísos fiscales, "que son un cáncer", son de países que salen muy arriba en el índice. Por eso ha apostado por "soluciones globales para problemas globales".
"¿Es restable ser corrupto en España?", interrogó una periodista. "Empieza a ser poco rentable y cada vez menos", ha dicho Villoria. Garrigues Walter ha lamentado como una "mala noticia que los ciudadanos piensen que todo el mundo es igual y que la corrupción no haya tenido un gran coste político para los políticos corruptos". "España sigue siendo bastante permisiva con la corrupción", ha dicho.
EL PAIS.
España baja en el índice de percepción de corrupción hasta el puesto 28 por los casos de corrupción urbanística, según el informe presentado por la organización anticorrupción Transparencia Internacional (TI) correspondiente a 2009.
Así lo ha confirmado el presidente de Transparencia Internacional España, Jesús Lizcano, quien ha añadido que, aunque España aún sigue teniendo buena nota, ya que ocupa el puesto 28 de 190 países, la tendencia de seguir bajando es "inquietante y nada halagüeña".
En concreto, ha indicado que en los últimos cinco años, España ha descendido del puesto 22 al 28.
Una de las causas que inciden en que España baje en la lista, ha explicado, es la corrupción urbanística, que "afloró gracias a las acciones de los jueces, de las fuerzas de seguridad y a los medios de comunicación".
Lizcano ha añadido que en España se es "más permisivo con la corrupción que en otros países, ya que nuestra cultura nos hace admirar a los más pillos y a los que defraudan mejor.
RTVE.
La impresión de que España es cada día que pasa un país más corrupto va en aumento. Según el Índice de Percepción de la Corrupción (IPC) 2009, que elabora Transparencia Internacional, España es el decimotercer país europeo en el que empresarios y expertos perciben que hay más corrupción, superando sólo a los estados del Este, así como a Italia, Grecia y Portugal; y muy por detrás de naciones como Gran Bretaña o Alemania.
A nivel global, el IPC, que mide los niveles percibidos de corrupción del sector público en un país determinado a través de encuestas a empresas y expertos, no es tan negativo, pues España ocupa el puesto 32 de 180. No obstante, esta posición supone un retroceso de cuatro puestos con respecto a 2008. Su puntuación, en una escala del 1 al 10 –en la que la cifra más alta representa el menor nivel de corrupción posible– es de 6,1 cuando hace un año era de 6,5. Desde 2004, en que llegó a 7,1, no ha parado de menguar. Nueva Zelanda es percibido como el país menos corrupto del mundo, con una puntuación de 9,4.
LA RAZON.
Sectores
En contra de la creencia generalizada, los encuestados consideran que el sector privado español es el más corrupto de todos. Así lo afirmaron un 29% de los encuestados. Le siguen los partidos políticos (27%) y los funcionarios (15%). No obstante, los consultados consideran que la intensidad de la corrupción es mayor en los partidos que en las empresas. De hecho, representando el 5 el nivel extremo, puntuaron a las formaciones políticas con un 3,6.
Uno de los encargados de la presentación del informe, Manuel Villoria, catedrático de la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, cree que la explicación a la caída de España en la clasificación global hay que buscarla en los numerosos casos de corrupción que están aflorando en los últimos meses. «Cuantos más salen, mayor es la percepción de corrupción que hay», explicó. Ello, advirtió, no significa que la corrupción real haya aumentado. De hecho, tanto para Villoria como para Jesús Sánchez Lombás, director de la Fundación Ortega y Gasset, la lucha contra la corrupción tanto de las fuerzas de seguridad como de la Fiscalía está siendo muy eficaz.
LA RAZON.
Prevención
Lo que falla, sin embargo, son las políticas preventivas. «Hay que mejorar los mecanismos de transparencia: que las cuentas públicas no sean tan opacas, que las licitaciones públicas sean más transparentes...», explicó Villoria. «El mero hecho de que los ayuntamientos sean más transparentes ayuda a prevenir este fenómeno», aseguró Antonio Garrigues, patrono vitalicio de la Fundación Ortega y Gasset, para quien la corrupción, aunque no al 100 por ciento, sí es un mal que se puede controlar.
DATOS
9,4 MÁXIMA NOTA: Nueva Zelanda es el país en el que la percepción de la corrupción es menor. Su nota es 3,3 puntos superior a la de España.
29% EMPRESAS: Los encuestados creen que las empresas son el sector español más afectado por la corrupción. Le siguen los partidos políticos (27%).
44% MEDIDAS INEFICACES: Casi la mitad de los consultados consideran que las medidas del Gobierno socialista para luchar contra esta lacra son ineficaces.
By Huguette Labelle, the chairwoman of the anticorruption organization Transparency International (THE NEW YORK TIMES, 13/11/09):
The perils of corruption, particularly for the poor, are real. Corruption flourishes in the dark, seeps into daily life and before long becomes the norm. Even a small bribe can deny a family food or a child medicine.
That is why it is imperative to put a spotlight on corrupt practices everywhere and to pursue ways to prevent and punish them. Next week in Doha, Qatar, 141 governments, party to the United Nations Convention against Corruption — the only global initiative to tackle this problem — are invited to do just that.
The core agenda item at the meeting is the adoption of a monitoring mechanism that will be used to verify whether governments’ actions match their commitments. Not surprisingly, this is a contentious issue. The Doha meeting will be the third attempt since the convention came into effect in 2005 to agree on a formula.
After 18 months of negotiations, there is still no firm consensus on an acceptable monitoring blueprint. The stumbling blocks going into the meeting concern how the reports detailing a county’s compliance are generated.
A few governments are resisting measures that would ensure that country reviews are fair, public and credible. At issue are the very terms “transparency and accountability.” At stake are the effectiveness and the credibility of the convention. What nobody wants is a milquetoast compromise that robs the convention of its authority.
That is why it is essential that any monitoring mechanism should be robust and impartial. Nongovernmental organizations can offer expertise and give voice to the citizens most affected by corruption, and they must have the opportunity to contribute their views to the process.
In addition, the final reports must be published, and the review team should visit the country under review. Publishing information about individual countries lets others learn by example and, at the local level, gives citizens a chance to hold their governments to account. If the reports are written with advice from independent experts, their credibility is further strengthened.
The convention itself is an excellent, far-reaching document that covers all types of corruption, from bribery to embezzlement to money laundering. It provides for systems for recovering public assets taken by corrupt officials. It goes beyond punitive measures and includes provisions on how to strengthen public institutions and private entities against corrupt practices. It promotes international cooperation and provides technical assistance for countries with weak institutions struggling to break up complex, possibly endemic corruption networks.
Simply put, signatories to the convention agree to institute the necessary legislation and practices to prevent abusers of power from reaping the rewards of corruption.
Numerous countries agree that a monitoring mechanism for the convention — one that includes civil society participation ensures the publication of reports and guarantees countries are visited by government peers — is not only workable but effective.
There are successful precedents. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Working Group on Bribery and the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), for example, mandate country visits and publish their reports to good effect.
Some countries, however, are calling for a watered-down process whereby questionnaires are used instead of country visits, civil society is excluded from providing any inputs and the final reports are not published.
Transparency International is part of a 300-plus group of organizations strongly resisting these compromises. It is pushing for a review mechanism that is fair and credible, one that spurs countries to enforce the bribery laws they have and introduce legislature reforms where they fall short.
Transparency, not secrecy, will lead to fair treatment. People who are forced to pay bribes to secure everyday items, such as driving licenses or even jobs, should have recourse to legal protection — as should companies asked for bribes to win contracts.
Stalling the adoption of a review mechanism will send the wrong message to citizens, particularly at a time when trust in governments following the world financial crisis is at an all time low.
In September the G-20 leaders in their communiqué about world poverty specifically called for an “effective, transparent and inclusive review mechanism” for the UN Convention against Corruption.
It is time for the international community to take action, resolve its differences and support a credible mechanism to fight corruption.
Stapenhurst, F. "Public participation in fighting corruption", .
Rose-Ackerman, S. "Redesigning the State to fight corruption", Viewpoint, No. 75, May 1996.
De plus en plus de personnes associent entreprises et corruption
Article publié le 05 Juin 2009
Par Yves Mamou
Source : LE MONDE
Extrait :
Plus d'une personne sur deux (54 %) pense que les entreprises privées ont « recours à la corruption pour manipuler le processus d'élaboration des politiques de leur pays ». Le Baromètre mondial de la corruption 2009 - un sondage réalisé sur 73 132 personnes dans 69 pays et territoires entre octobre 2008 et février 2009 par l'ONG Transparency International et publié mercredi 3 juin - révèle que la majorité des citoyens de la planète a le sentiment croissant de vivre dans un monde truqué où les règles du jeu fonctionnent au profit des plus forts ou des plus riches. « Une hausse notable » par rapport au sondage mené il y a cinq ans, selon l'ONG.
Marta Erquicia "studied journalism in Spain and France. Since 2003, she has worked as a Programme Coordinator in the Americas department of the leading NGO fighting corruption worldwide, Transparency International (TI). As TI does not investigate corruption cases but believes that it the role of journalist to do so, TI in Latin America and the Caribbean (TILAC) joined forces with the Press and Society Institute (IPYS) and launched in 2002 the Journalism Award of the best investigate corruption report. This initiative promotes qualified investigate journalism in the region, provides technical skills to journalists and gives them international support. Ms Erquicia is responsible at TI for the Award."
The following is the complete list of the Board of Directors of Transparency International:
PRESIDENTA.
Huguette Labelle holds a Doctor of Philosophy, Education. She is a Companion of the Order of Canada. She has been awarded honorary degrees from twelve Canadian Universities and has received the Vanier medal of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, the Outstanding Achievement Award of the public service of Canada, the McGill Management Achievement Award and l’ordre de la Pleiade.
She has served for a period of nineteen years as Deputy Minister of different Canadian Government departments including Secretary of State, Transport Canada, the Public Service Commission and the Canadian International Development Agency. She has served on more than 20 Boards.
She is currently Chancellor of the University of Ottawa, Chair of the Board of Transparency International, member of the Board of the UN Global Compact, member of the Group of External Advisors on the World bank Governance and Anti-corruption Strategy, member of the Advisory Group to the Asian development Bank on Climate Change and Sustainable Development and member of the Board of CRC Sogema. She also serves on additional national and international Boards. She provides advisory services to national and international organizations.
VICEPRESIDENTE.
Akere T. Muna is founder and former president of Transparency International Cameroon. A lawyer by training, he is President of the Pan African Lawyers Union and former president of the Cameroon Bar Association. In October 2008, Akere Muna was elected President of the African Union's Economic, Social and Cultural Council. Muna is a member of several national commissions on legal reform and curbing corruption.
He was a member of the National Ad-hoc Commission for the Fight against Corruption and has served as a Commonwealth Observer for Zanzibar's elections in 2000. He was appointed as a member of the High Level Audit Committee of the African Unit in August 2007, who undertook a general audit review of the Organs and Institutions of the African Union as well as the nature of the relationships among them. The Committee concluded its work in February 2008.
Mr Muna was actively involved in the TI working group that helped to draft the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption and has written a guide to the convention published by TI.
He was elected to the TI Board at the 2004 Annual Meeting, elected as Vice-Chair of the TI Board in 2005 and re-elected to that office at the 2008 AMM.
MIEMBRO DEL CONSEJO DIRECTIVO.
Sion Assidon, a mathematician by training and a businessman by profession, was the founding Secretary General of Transparency Maroc and remains a member of its National Council. Mr Assidon was imprisoned from 1972 to 1984 for his efforts in campaigning for democracy in his country.
He is active in several NG0s in the Moroccan civil rights movement including AMRASH which works for sustainable development in villages of the Atlas mountains and Espace Associatif which promotes the work of NGOs in Morocco.
Sion Assidon was first elected as a Member of the Board of Directors of TI in 2005 and re-elected at the 2008 Annual Membership Meeting.
MIEMBRO DEL CONSEJO DE DIRECCIÓN.
Jeremy Carver has more than 37 years experience as an international lawyer with Clifford Chance LLP, where he was a partner for 30 years. He has represented and advised many States and governments in boundary disputes, treaties, investments and development.
An emphasis in his practice is oil and gas, having started work with Shell while at Cambridge University in order to be a petroleum engineer. He is currently a part-time consultant with Clifford Chance, retaining the title of Head of International Law, and has served as a Trustee/Director of TI-UK since 2001. Jeremy is President of the International Law Association British Branch and active in other international bodies, including International Rescue Committee, a leading humanitarian agency.
Jeremy Carver was elected to the TI Board in October 2009 in Berlin.
MIEMBRO DEL CONSEJO DE DIRECCION.
John Devitt is founder and CEO of TI Ireland. He is a communications specialist by training. A former press officer at the British Embassy in Dublin, he was also the first Irish member of its Public Diplomacy Committee. Before joining the TI movement he served as Trade Representative at the Irish Consulate in New Zealand. He currently serves on the EU Steering Committee, NIS Advisory Committee and TI Sports Steering Committee.
A graduate of European Studies at the University of Limerick and of Public Relations at the Public Relations Institute of Ireland, he is a member of the National Union of Journalists and Institute of European Affairs, and Research Associate of the School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.
John Devitt was elected to the TI Board in October 2007 in Indonesia.
MIEMBRO DEL CONSEJO DE DIRECCION.
Boris Divjak is an economist by profession. He has been affiliated with Transparency International since late 2000 as a founder and Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr Divjak has conducted research, analysis, evaluation and design of recommendations of legislation, institutional capacities and requirements; has led the training of government officials, NGOs and media; implemented surveys and polls preparation, conducting, monitoring and analysis; and worked on public procurement and aid related corruption.
He has worked in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia & Montenegro, Kosovo, Albania since 1996 and holds a Masters in International Studies from the University of Reading, UK.
Boris Divjak was first elected as a Member of the Board of Directors of TI in 2005 and re-elected in 2008. Since November 2007, he also chairs the TI Membership Accreditation Committee.
MIEMBRO DEL CONSEJO DE DIRECCION.
Delia Ferreira Rubio is the President of Poder Ciudadano – TI’s National Chapter in Argentina - and has served on the Chapter’s Board since 2004.
Delia graduated Summa Cum Laude with a Ph.D. degree in Law from Madrid’s Complutense University. She served as Chief Advisor for several Representatives and Senators at the National Congress from 1990 to 2005, advising the Constitutional Committee of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and also served as Chief Advisor at the National Accounting Office for two years.
She has consulted on anti-corruption and transparency related issues with various international organizations and NGOs around the world, and has worked on projects promoting greater transparency and accountability for political campaign/party financing.
She is a researcher at the CEPPA Foundation in Buenos Aires and has authored numerous publications on democratic culture and political institutions, Comparative Politics, government by decree, public and parliamentary ethics, political financing and electoral systems, among other subjects.
Delia Ferreira Rubio was elected as a Member of the Board at the TI Annual Membership Meeting in Athens on 29 October 2008.
MIEMBRO DEL CONSEJO DE DIRECCION.
Geo-Sung Kim is Chairperson and founding secretary-general of Transparency International Korea, the South Korean chapter of TI, established in 1999.
Kim is an ordained pastor of the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea (ROK) and holds a degree in theology. For his role in the democracy and human rights movements in Korea he was imprisoned twice between 1977-1980, and has served in various civil society organisations thereafter.
In 2006, he was awarded the Moran Medal of the Order of Civil Merit by the Korean government for his contribution to the anti-corruption movement. He was a Commissioner of the Korea Independent Commission against Corruption from 2005 to 2008, and is the Standing Executive Officer of the Council for the Korean Pact on Anti-Corruption and Transparency (K-PACT Council).
Reverend Kim was elected to the Transparency International Board of Directors in 2004 and re-elected for a second term in 2007.
MIEMBRO DEL CONSEJO DE DIRECCION.
Sergej Muravjov is the executive director of TI Lithuania. He joined the chapter in 2005 and has overseen its steady growth and broader engagement, both nationally and regionally. Sergej has been involved in numerous cross-regional TI initiatives and represented the movement internationally. He advocated for a more effective UNCAC at the Conference of State Parties in 2007 and 2008.
He has published extensively on transparency, corruption and good governance, and is also the editor of a number of books on public and private sector accountability. He has conducted consultancy tasks for the European Commission, UN Development Programme and the UK Department for International Development.
He represents TI Lithuania on a special anti-corruption commission launched by the government of Lithuania, advising their anti-corruption efforts.
Sergej Muravjov was elected to the TI Board in October 2009 in Berlin.
MIEMBRO DEL CONSEJO DE DIRECCION.
Rueben Lifuka is the President of TI Zambia (TIZ). He has been involved with the Chapter from early on, shaping the first two strategic plans which helped establish a strong TI-Zambia.
Rueben is an Architect and Project Manager by profession and a graduate of the Copperbelt University in Zambia. He has also studied Integrated Environmental Management at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom. He is an experienced Project Manager and Strategic Planning Expert and runs a consultancy firm offering Organisational Development and Programme /Project Management services locally and internationally. He has also served in various capacities on different professional and quasi government Boards in Zambia and worldwide.
Rueben Lifuka was elected as a Member of the Board at the TI Annual Membership Meeting in Athens on 29 October 2008
MIEMBRO DEL CONSEJO DE DIRECCION.
Iftekhar Zaman is the Executive Director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB). Before joining TIB in September 2004, he was Executive Director of the Bangladesh Freedom Foundation for five years. Iftekhar’s TIB leadership saw a robust growth of the Chapter to nearly 200 staff and 3000 volunteers. He has been a resource person for TI Secretariat work in the Asia Pacific region and has made many contributions, including towards the protection of anti-corruption advocates.
He holds a PhD in Economics and has worked with the Department of International Relations of the University of Tokyo as a post-doctoral fellow. The main areas of Iftekhar’s expertise and experience are development, governance and corruption, politics, security and regional cooperation, on which he has published extensively. He is also involved with numerous international associations worldwide.
Iftekhar Zaman was elected as a Member of the Board at the TI Annual Membership Meeting in Athens on 29 October 2008.
MIEMBRO DEL CONSEJO DE DIRECCION.
Gerard Zovighian has been an Auditor and Managing Partner of BDO-Fiduciaire du Moyen Orient since 1996. Prior to this, from 1976-1980, he held the post of Middle East Regional Coordinator of BDO-Fiduciaire du Moyen Orient in London, and worked in Paris with Price Waterhouse & Company as an auditor.
Mr Zovighian also has various professional memberships that include the role of Vice Chair-person and founding member of the Lebanese Transparency Association (LTA, the TI national chapter in Lebanon), the Lebanese Association of Certified Public Accountants, a lawyer of the Paris Bar, a Member of the ‘Chambre Nationale des Conseillers Financiers’ (CNCF - Paris), an Advisor for fiscal and financial matters to the Beirut Chamber of Commerce & Industry and Advisor to the Board of the Order of Malta, as Knight of the Order.
Gerard Zovighian was fist elected as a Member of the Board of Directors of TI at the 2005 Annual Membership Meeting and again in 2008.
Buen plantel humano, sin duda.
Lizcano ha considerado que España es un país “más permisivo con la corrupción que otros, ya que nuestra cultura nos hace admirar a los más pillos y a los que defraudan mejor”.
Los ciudadanos tienen que reaccionar contra la corrupción, según Lizcano, y ha recomendado mayor participación ciudadana mediante el asociacionismo, porque en su opinión, la corrupción afecta a la sostenibilidad económica.
Public corruption is a crime as old as government itself. In the fifth century BC, Plato talked about it in his Laws. Two centuries later, the Indian political reformer Kautilya1 listed 40 temptations that civil servants might yield to. But the state of corruption today is unprecedented in at least two respects: scandals are erupting the world over, and people are no longer in the mood to tolerate them.
MICHEL BESSIERES, UNESCO.
Before you can measure corruption, you have to know what it is. The United Nations and the World Bank have adopted the sober definition offered by Transparency International, which calls it “the misuse of public power for private profit.”
But even its authors recognize the limits of this description since it takes no account of private sector corruption.
L’amoralité est la seule déontologie dans notre administration. Le pauvre ou celui dont les poches ne pèsent pas en terme de numéraire n’a pas droit au traitement accordé au ‘’bédaineux’’ pleins au as. Les dossiers de l’insolvable n’ont qu’a moisir ! Faut-il faire appel à des magistrats étrangers pour reconditionner le système administratif pourri, et édulcoré par les détournements et la corruption ? Sommes-nous fiers que Transparency International ait classé la terre de Toumaï parmi les pays les plus corrompus au monde ? Pourquoi cette passivité et clémence de la justice et de l’État face a l’encrage dans nos mœurs de la corruption et des détournements des deniers ? Pourquoi perdure ces pratiques néfastes pour l’image du pays et pour notre économie ? Qui sont les obturateurs de la lutte contre ces déchéances morales ?
TCHAD.
In broad terms, political corruption is the misuse of public office for private gain. All forms of government are susceptible in practice to political corruption. Degrees of corruption vary greatly, from minor uses of influence and patronage to do and return favours, to institutionalised bribery and beyond. The end-point of political corruption is kleptocracy, literally rule by thieves, where even the external pretence of honesty is abandoned.
Corruption arises in both political and bureaucratic offices and can be petty or grand, organized or unorganized. Though corruption often facilitates criminal activities such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and prostitution, it is not restricted to these activities. For purposes of understanding the problem and devising remedies, it is important to keep crime and corruption analytically distinct.
Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary suspends the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the unequal provision of services. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and officials are hired or promoted without regard to performance. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance.
Corruption also undermines economic development by generating considerable distortions and inefficiency. In the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting red tape, an emerging consensus holds that the availability of bribes induces officials to contrive new rules and delays. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.
Corruption also generates economic distortions in the public sector by diverting public investment into capital projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of public sector projects to conceal such dealings, thus further distorting investment. Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations; reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure; and increases budgetary pressures on government.
Political corruption is widespread in many countries, and represents a major obstacle to the well-being of the citizens of those countries. Political corruption means that government policies tend to benefit the givers of the bribes, not the country.
Even in countries where national politics is relatively honest, political corruption is often found in regional politics.
Publicar un comentario