Canker of the State Apparatus

Seven-time Italian Prime Minister Andreotti, currently under investigation because of connections with the Mafia, turned around the old saying that "power corrupts people, while absolute power corrupts absolutely", when he said that "power corrupts those who don't have it". Does Serbian Vice-Prime Minister Ratko Markovic hold the same view? His signature is to be found on the Serbian Government's stand in which it opposes the Democratic Party (DS) proposal for the passing of a law on the registering of the personal property of Republic of Serbia state officials. Under such a law the officials would have to declare their property and that of their family members, at the latest 30 days after accepting a post. The declaration would cover - real estate, transport, property, authors', patent and other rights, moveable objects of great and artistic value, money, papers of value. After completing their term in office, the property would be registered once again. A three year jail sentence would be meted to those who had failed to register their property.

The law would refer to the President of the Republic, the Assembly speaker and vice-speakers, deputies, government members, the president and judges of the Constitutional court, the Supreme court and the Commercial court and presidents of political parties with deputies in the Serbian Assembly.

As soon as the draft law was submitted, DS President Zoran Djindjic, perhaps with the idea of anticipating all speculation on his account, put a list of the property he owned before the public. This launched an avalanche of ironic comments.

Member of the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) Main Committee Zoran Andjelkovic said on October 13 that Djindjic "was a political fraud", "who was running around Serbia and peddling honesty." A barbarian rhetorical question followed: did Djindjic acquire what he had "by saving from his assistant's or professor's salary, or had he inherited something from his grandmother or aunt in Germany, or was it profit from the election campaign," adding that he had "turned the DS into a private firm".

The opposition has sunk into quarrels and scandals and wasn't much nicer. Member of the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO) leadership and deputy Aleksandar Jankovic said that the SPO would support the draft law, "on condition that the matter wasn't just cheap political marketing".

New Democracy (ND) deputy in the Serbian Assembly Nebojsa Lekovic said that the draft law was "very good", "because it was in fact an idea launched by New Democracy". In April last year the ND suggested that the Serbian Assembly set up a committee which would look into the property of deputies who were directors, and that of their families. Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) spokesman Jovanovic supported the proposal that "state officials must submit evidence on the origin of their property, just as is done in a great number of countries." Serbian Radical Party (SRS) member Vucic said that "all the Radicals together didn't have as much as Djindjic alone".

The Serbian Government's explanation signed by Ratko Markovic in early February gives a negative view of the law that all officials must register their property, claiming that it is the duty of all citizens to declare their property in order that it might be taxed, and that "everybody can take a look at these registries and get information on the property of officials". The publication of the contents of safes, registers, domestic and foreign bank accounts is out of the question, according to the government, because this is contrary to the federal law on banks and endangers the secrecy of bank accounts.

The Serbian Government believes that the adopting of such a law would "violate the equality of citizens, because certain citizens have to submit to certain rules because of their office".

Professor of comparative law at the Belgrade School of Law Stevan Lilic told VREME that: "The worst thing this government can do is reject such a proposal without an explanation, because that which has been given as an explanation is not worth talking about". "In our circumstances a law controlling the property of officials would be necessary because of war and other profiteers. It would be a symbolic step in making people who wished to be in public office, prove that they were serving the people and that in doing so they were prepared to give up profit. The Government has passed up the chance of returning the citizens' trust in the institution of the state, and the authorities an opportunity of saving face. In the English-speaking world such a refusal would be taken as serious proof of corruption and the abuse of state office", said Lilic.

To what extent the feeling for measure has been distorted was shown by Minister for Private Enterprise Radoje Djukic, who, in order to show how successfully his ministry and the government were operating under sanctions, recently took foreign and domestic journalists on a tour of his family knitwear firm "Djukic".

If in other countries the media harass the government for all sorts of trifles, the government here is systematically persecuting the media, citing "state reasons" and the "protection of property". The refusal to agree that public officials must submit to a rigorous public control and the throttling of the media are parts of the same story.