the way corruption moves

We've probably all heard of the trickle down theory of economics. The basic premise is that if the powerful and rich get economic breaks and are allowed to improve their own positions, benefits will tumble down to the rest of us, like crumbs falling off an over-laden table. A similar-sounding precursor to the idea is that of the horse and sparrow: as the horse's oat feed increases, more falls out of the trough for the sparrows to eat. The theory is too paternalistic and snobbish to get much positive attention, but there is an interesting corrolary to explore: whether or not benefits trickle down---does corruption?

The answer is no. It is an outgrowth of corruption in society. Dzerkalo Tizhnya worded the problem well in its extremely negative review of Tymoshenko's first 100 days in office. (Though the article is so negative it makes me wish they'd sit down with Taras Kuzio some time and hash things out---maybe pick up a glimmer of optimism, or half; I'd take half a glimmer.) In their words:

Everybody demands to put an end to corruption in the highest echelons but resist any attempts to fight it at the grassroots level: taxi drivers still drive their passengers with the meter off; draftees’ parents still pay conscription officers for exemption from military service; marketplace vendors still give short weight; students still “buy” their test and exam grades.

During the Orange Revolution, Ukrainians demanded “jails for bandits”. Of course, they meant “oligarchs”, not obstetricians who would never even enter the prenatal ward unless palmed with $300… Those who rule Ukraine are not from Mars, Washington, or Moscow. They are the very flesh of the flesh of those “little Ukrainians”, only vested with authority. The symptoms are the same.

In contrast to DT, I think the call "bandits to jail" did reflect a desire for accountability at all levels, very much including the bribe-taking doctors and short-weight kiosk workers, but in proportion to their crimes. And I think it also clear that the "everybody" and "they" used of Ukrainians here refers to the same kind of "everyone but me" group that always seems to oppress the self-righteous. Nevertheless, the source of corruption that DT identifies is, I believe, right on.

Nipping it in the Bud 

Corrupt officials do not crawl out of Hades directly into elected office. They creep up. It begins with a government official at the lowest level that uses undemocratic and immoral means to become richer, or stifle opponents, or curry favor with higher-level officials. As a fictional example bureaucrat, we'll use Viktor Exemplarov. He begins in a low-level position at AVIR extorting small bribes for expediting the intermidable process of updating an international passport. Since there is plenty enough red tape to frustrate average citizens, he succeeds, and since not many people complain, he continues bribe-taking. From there he moves up by covering the tracks of a superior who is an embezzler and also a deputy in one of the parties in power. Now he's part of politics.

After serving on a city council and voting with the party reliably for a couple years, Viktor gets another break. The next election rolls around, and he takes one of the last seats, because the party is on the rise that year and has extra seats to dispense (voters don't have many choices, and didn't like the other party very much, either). He's sent back to his hometown, only now he's in charge.

Breaking this cycle is tricky. First: to rebuff bribe solicitations forcefully at even the lowest levels. Second, to find the political clout and legal power to stop Viktor when he's still a bribe-taking low functionary. Third, to to hold accountable those Viktors who make it past the local level. The third level is where the worse troubles start, because regional officials are appointed, not elected. Since voters can't choose their regional government directly, the power of their votes is dilluted. They vote on a national level, about nation-level issues like foreign relations, taxation, and nation-wide policy. And then, when the dust settles, they get whatever local officials the winning-est party sends them. This is a terrible way to structure things in a country with any history of high-level corruption.

I've never heard of any city locals demanding to know who their mayor would be before casting their national ballots, have any of you? But, aside from agitating for direct local elections, this would be the only way Ukrainians could keep the government accountable for decisions made on the regional level.

The task is gargantuan but if Ukrainians can manage even modest success, I think we'd all be amazed and what can flower in the country if a few of the creeps are weeded out.