Our View: Naïve to think new authority will stamp out corruption

It is difficult not to view the anti-corruption authority, whose members were appointed by President Nicos Anastasiades on Tuesday, with a dose of cynicism. This has nothing to do with the identity of the appointees, whose honesty and integrity are not in doubt, but with the traditional lack of political will to fight corruption.

Politicians may pay lip service to the fight against corruption and campaign against it when there are elections but their actions do not match their words. One example is the way politicians go about completing their so-called capital statement, which most seem to treat as a joke, including only what suits them and omitting information they do not want to make public. It does not show a political establishment that is committed to fighting corruption, when such a bad example is set.

The same applies to the government. President Anastasiades came up with the anti-corruption initiative because he was being attacked from all sides about the golden passports, from which his family law office benefited directly. Should we also mention the free travel on private jets belonging to people that were given Cypriot citizenship? Actions, as it is said, speak louder than words, and it would be naïve to think that the creation of an authority will end corrupt practices and bring transparency.

For years, despite the recommendations of the Council of Europe, political parties refuse to pass a law that would make them disclose the identity of their donors. Presidential candidates are still not obliged to give the names of their campaign donors. When this complete lack of transparency is preserved, how could we expect the anti-corruption authority and the Transparency commissioner, who will be running it, to change anything for the better. The powers of the authority are limited anyway.

Laws that could be used to tackle corruption exist, but they are rarely used. Twenty years ago, the Clerides government passed a law making nepotist appointments and promotion in the public service a criminal offence. Is it because there was no nepotism in those 20 years that nobody was investigated, let alone charged? Why would things be any different with the creation of an authority which would still have to refer cases to the state legal services for investigation and legal action?

We can only hope that the anti-corruption authority will prove us completely wrong by shaking up the system, reporting cases of graft and exposing the politicians that try to prevent it from carrying out its duties. The signs, however, are not very good.