Shameless Portfolios

On Monday, December 7, 1998, in the evening hours, after they adopted the budget and imposed new taxes on the population, after they rattled on and on about their concern for children, mothers, youth and pensioners, tired from all their worry for the people, the MP’s in the People’s Assembly of Serbia took care of themselves and their kin, increasing their own salaries and those of officials around them, according to which a minister (measured by average salaries) is worth as much as two Titos.  According to the same yardstick, an MP, let us say Bidza or Raka, is worth 1.3 Titos at the parliamentary cash desk, while Marjanovic, Tomic and several others will be taken care of at least as well as Tito’s wife Jovanka.

The proposal for this bill included lifetime settlements for a great number of MP’s — the government president and the president of parliament get 10 percent for life for each six months of doing their job, while MP’s get 10 percent for every year in parliament, with people’s representatives also having come up somewhere along the way.
Such benefits are a public eyesore and a sign of the shameless and brutish privatization of state authorizations.  A government which under deplorable national conditions signs a lifetime insurance policy for its ministers is simply not worthy of any trust.  Such benefits for the ruling elite are being sought at a time when, according to research conducted by Liljana Vijanovic published in the periodical “Socijalna politika u tranziciji” (“Social Policies in Transition”), 462,676 people are living below the level of extreme poverty, and as many as 6,186,268 people are classified under the category of poverty, only 15 percent of those questioned can afford two meals a day, and among non-qualified and semi-qualified workers, that percentage is climbing up to 30 percent.

The public is beginning to stir, opposition leaders are beginning to make sharp statements.  Zoran Djindjic (DS) compared this action to the establishment of a new feudal system in which society is being divided according to the poor and the powerful, while Milan Panic (Alliance for Changes) stated sarcastically that he would immediately guarantee everyone of those pensions under the condition that they all resign immediately.  He even added that he would increase those pensions.  As an aside, he noted that this is a good sign — someone getting ready for retirement should naturally be concerned about his pension.

Through government amendments at the parliamentary session, lifetime privileges have been limited practically just to the president of the Republic, and to a lesser extent to presidents of government and parliament.

EXCUSES: Some of those who proposed this law (Aleksandar Cotric from SPO) made excuses in the parliamentary discussion that the initial proposal did not contain any proposals for lifetime security for officials, that it was added to the proposal at a later point by the government.  The day after, Tuesday, December 8, the President of SPO, Vuk Draskovic, spoke using the same arguments, adding that the objective of this initiative was to merely raise judges salaries, and that under the present conditions officials’ salaries should not have been raised, and that the government withdrew compromising decrees because of enormous pressures from SPO.  These semi-convincing excuses, that through amendments the government withdrew the mentioned decision on lifetime security, is a fact — certain SPO members of parliament did vote against or withheld their vote, but it is also a fact that MP’s from this party did not submit amendments at the session which would limit the salary hikes just to judges and prosecutors.  This proposal must be especially unpleasant for this party, for at the very least, it could be said that the once embittered fighters against the regime, whose slogan was “you Red mob”, have now changed their tune to “how small your salaries are!”  The initiative was signed by 20 MP’s from the four biggest parties, but the first four signatures came from SPO ranks: Dr. Milan Bozic, Aleksandar Cotric, Dr. Aleksandar Milutinovic, Poboljub Pejcic...  Following in their footsteps is Dr. Vladimir Stambuk of JUL.  The irony of our political pendulum is witness to the adoption of this law on the second anniversary of those events in which the revolting populace was led by Coalition “Zajedno” (SPO, DS, GSS, DSS, DC), events in which eggs were hurled at court houses, state institutions and state media.  A simply natural exchange has occurred — one egg down, pogy’s what you get.

The most outspoken critic of the law was Dragan Veselinov, from Coalition Vojvodina, who observed that this law is potentially politically dangerous, and that salary increases of up to three to fours times is an attempt at corrupting the entire state.  Dr. Milena Andric stated that the adoption of such a law is extremely tasteless, given the sate of affairs in education, healthcare, etc.  Even Zarko Jokanovic from New Democracy finally spoke, but was soon thwarted by Tomislav Nikolic, Serbia’s Radical, who heckled that the government will stop some taxes if Jokanovic accepts to give back the apartment given to him by the government.  Serbia’s Radicals kept a solemn silence regarding this law, pretending that they are not from here, but ultimately gave it unanimous support.  The defender of this law before parliament was Justice Minister Dragoljub Jankovic, whose name also awakens melancholy associations with the events of two years ago.  He claimed that salary increases are an attempt at improving the image of certain officials, which is merely a variation on the singular theme according to which this government operates: “Even God gives a helping hand to high-climbers.”

PRACTICALLY NO OBLIGATIONS: This “law on officials’ salaries” is officially called the “Law on Special Rights and Obligations of Elected Individuals”, but its content does not justify the latter part of its name.  Admittedly, Article 4 of this law states that elected individuals are obliged to perform their duties conscientiously and responsibly, and to observe the constitution and all laws, which goes without saying.  Beside this very general and contentless decree, there is another one in Article 5 which obligates elected individuals to guard state secrets even after their mandates have expired, which is also regulated by law, so that mention of this in such an “explanation of salaries payout” looks more like a demeaning offer — keep the money and keep quiet.  The impoverished citizens of Serbia must be irritated by this attempt at ensuring lifetime security for an incapable political establishment which only managed to not ruin that for which it had no time.  Perhaps it’s better that way.  As they instituted automatic giving of awards, perhaps a law should be adopted according to which they should each get a monument erected for them at state expense — so that the people never forget such movers and shakers.

However, there is something else which makes this law on officials’ obligations more scandalous than those insulting 1:18, if indeed such a term at all exists in legal vocabulary, and that is that it comes nowhere near the area in which far greater earnings are possible than the manifold presidential salary.  For instance, this government never told the public what percentage of public property which had been smuggled abroad during sanctions had been brought back into the country, and what percentage remains in private bank accounts, and has never forced its directors-ministers to prove that they did not protect their companies.  This government persistently avoids issuing regulations which prevent conflicts of interest which arise when the same individual holds private companies and political office — when money and power mix.  This law does not contain any limitations for individuals in power which would curb corruption, protectionism and monopolistic behavior.  There is even an explanation that the increase in the salaries of the powerful is part of the battle against corruption, with a masked promise that this matter stands to be regulated.  Perhaps on No-saints-day which falls on February 30, in No-year-at-all.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING: The proposal for urgently adopting the Law on Special Rights and Obligations of Elected Individuals on December 4, 1998, was signed by vice-president of the Serbian Government, Professor Ratko Markovic.  In January 1995, Professor Ratko Markovic, who was vice-president of the Serbian Government even then, signed an opinion in which the Government of Serbia contradicted the proposal by the Democratic Party (DS) for adopting a law on the declaration of personal property holdings by state officials of the Republic of Serbia.  This law was supposed to obligate public officials to declare their personal property and property held by their family members 30 days after being elected — real-estate, vehicles, rights to property, authorship and patents, objects of considerable financial and artistic value, money, valuable papers.  It was proposed that after their term was up that their property be once more accounted for.  A three year prison term was suggested as penalty for concealing property.

Such obligations were supposed to be honored by the president of the republic, the president, vice-presidents and members of the assembly, MP’s, presidents and judges in the Constitutional, Supreme and Higher Commercial courts and presidents of political parties who have members in the Parliament of Serbia, therefore the greater part of the list which is now getting a salary hike.

The Serbian government stated in the mentioned explanation that its obligation for declaring property by officials is superfluous since a regulation already exists requiring all citizens to declare their property for income tax purposes, and that “everyone can have a look into those registries and get information on officials’ property holdings”, while the release of information on officials’ safe deposits and bank accounts would threaten bank security.  The Serbian government at the time claimed that the adoption of such a law “would deny equality between citizens, because certain citizens would be under obligation as a result of their position (position of an official).”

One year later, in 1996, the MP’s Club of the Democratic Party (DS) proposed the putting together of an information council of the People’s Assembly of the Republic of Serbia which would assess the operations of public enterprises, commercial reserves and private companies owned by ministers in the Government of Serbia.  A similar demand was put forth by New Democracy (ND), which requested that the Serbian Parliament form an information council for assessing property holdings of MP’s who are directors, as well as of their family members.

Attempts at public pressures on the government fell through (the Democratic Party’s advertisement regarding Marjanovic’s export of wheat was sentenced as libel in 1996), while the latest restrictive Law on Information has clearly been adopted and implemented so as to discourage all those who dare to meddle into business dealings by government officials.  Prior to that, two ministers in the government (Vlajkovic, Mihajlovic) were sentenced for corruption, and after that, for unbecoming behavior (not for material gain), the Higher Court sentenced Ph.D. Nenad Djorjdevic, Director of the Republican Institute for Social Security.  Along with that, during the scandal with the Radical Party, the public learned along the way from the vice-president of the Serbian Government, Ph.D. Vojislav Seselj, that the promotion of a judge was prevented, among other things, because the security service found in his dossier an unsolved case of corruption.  This should mean that some type of control exists and that it is in the jurisdiction of the security service, but the fact that this was only mentioned after a scandal broke out in one party, speaks eloquently that such control is hardly sufficient or adequate, for it only leads to officials with bad records being loyal to the center of power.  It would be better if this matter were subject to public control, but our legislators will never accept that.
MP Zoran Kostadinovic reminded the Assembly President in the newest discussion in the Assembly of the “law on salaries” (1998) that as early as May 13, 1996, he had submitted a proposal which was intended to protect people holding positions of responsibility from corruption: upon election to public office they would be obliged to leave positions of directors of big public enterprises and public companies, given that someone heading a big firm can put his company in a position of privilege.  He pointed out that such a law was present in the Kingdom of Serbia.  This draft, like all others, is collecting dust somewhere in the archives.  It is collecting dust because officials of the ruling parties are sitting on executive boards of public enterprises, and because there is no political will in Serbia which would even marginally disassociate money from political power.

CORRUPTION FIRST: On two occasions VREME published research (1995 and 1996) on security measures implemented in other countries for monitoring the property of officials and on how democratic countries have protective mechanisms for eliminating so-called conflicts of interest which affect people in power.

It could be seen that in organized countries at the top of the list for political issues was the urge to purge the state, politics and business from corruption, political patronage in business, etc.  Expressions like “white collar misfits”, endemic corruption or simply, cleptocracy maintain the situation in Central and Eastern Europe, although more organized Western countries are very much engaged in the battle against this phenomenon.

Anti-corruption investigations were carried out on the former Russian Minister of Defense, Pavel Grachov (without results), Russian Vice-Minister of Defense and General Matvey Burlakov (replaced).  In mid November of 1994, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma ordered the arrest of the former president of the government, Juhim Zvjahilski, for laundering millions of dollars.  Corruption scandals have broken out in Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary...

The Italian action “Clean Hands” toppled Silvio Berluschoni, a fighter against previous corrupt establishments.  Mark Thatcher, son of the former Prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, defended himself against accusations that he made 12 million pounds, the Greek parliament sentenced its former premier Konstantin Mitsotakis, who was freed, and then Andreas Papandreou was exposed to criticism because of suspicions of tax fraud; in Belgium, Willi Klaus, NATO General Secretary, was ousted because of a corruption affair.

Well, if all those countries have laws on public control of officials, and if there is expressed political will for limiting abuses, and if here there are no such regulations, but there are lukewarm announcements of fights against corruption, and if legislators shamelessly claim to have “followed Europe’s example” in drafting a law on their salary hikes, does that tell us anything about the corruptibility of our system?

One Minister — Two Titos

Josip Broz Tito had a salary that was 7.5 times the average salary.  According to Article 21 of this law on “rights and obligations”, the magic word is “coefficient of establishing salary rates”:
- for the President of the People’s Assembly and President of Government it amounts to 18.00 (eighteen average salaries)
- for the President of the Constitutional Court, President of the Supreme Court and vice-presidents of Government that amounts to 16.5
- for the vice-presidents of the People’s Assembly and the Republican Public Prosecutor it is 16.00
- for ministers, 15.00
- for presidents of MP’s groups, 13.00
- for the president of the permanent working body of the People’s Assembly, 12.00
- for judges of the Constitutional Court, vice-presidents of the permanent working body of the People’s Assembly, and vice-presidents of MP’s groups it is 11.00
- for MP’s permanently employed in the People’s Assembly and presidents of Higher Courts, it is 10.00
- for Supreme Court judges, Assistant Public Prosecutor of the Republic, presidents of regional courts and regional public prosecutors, it is 9.00
- for presidents of Community Courts, community public prosecutors, assistant public prosecutors, community court judges and commercial courts judges, it is 6.00
- for assistants of community public prosecutors and community court judges, it is 5.00
These salaries grow by 0.5 percent for every year of work, with the maximum increase being 20 percent.
- the President of the Republic has a right to a salary that is 20 percent higher than the highest total official salary (coefficient 18) based on the value of his work

 Residences

The President of the Republic and the President of the Government have a right to a residence determined by the Government.

The President of Parliament and the President of the Government have the right to private security, to an official limousine and chauffeur, and the right to representation which includes the right to the use of representative buildings and other real-estate and appropriate services, which are monitored by the security, service for conducting work of republican officials.

Following Mandates

The President of the Republic, upon stopping his responsibilities, has the right to 85 percent of the presidents salary, the right to personal security, security of his close family and security of the buildings in which he lives; a government car; a chauffeur; the right to ensuring conditions for conducting business associated with the position which he held; the right to an employee for administrative work; as well as to three employees to do housework.

The President of the People’s Assembly and the President of the Government, after their mandates are up, have the right to government cars and chauffeurs, and lifetime personal security.