Vest

Etika lobiranja je te dni vroča tema, nedavna kriza pa je spodbudila poslovne lobiste, da poskušajo zamajati podrobnosti vala nove zakonodaje, namenjene finančnemu sektorju.

Lobiranje se je ponovno znašlo v središču zanimanja v nedeljo (20. marca) z objavo zanimivega članka o treh poslancih Evropskega parlamenta v časniku Sunday Times. Poslanci, vsi nekdanji ministri v svojih matičnih državah, naj bi privolili v to, da predlagajo spremembe v svojih odborih v Evropskem parlamentu v zameno za provizijo.

To, da se take stvari pojavljajo, ravno ne preseneča, še zlasti, če upoštevamo veliko sivo območje okoli navzkrižja interesov. Mnogi poslanci iz kmetijstva, na primer, prejemajo honorarje in ugodnosti od kmetijskega sektorja, medtem ko sedijo v Odboru za kmetijstvo. Na splošno ti politiki samo poskušajo zastopati državljane, ki so jih izvolili na skrbniške položaje. Ti ne skrivajo svojih namenov, ko očitno podpirajo programe, kot je skupna kmetijska politika, vendar možnost korupcije vseeno obstaja.

Povsem zakonito je, da imajo izvoljeni uradniki dodatne vire prihodkov, vendar morajo biti viri in zneski postranskih prihodkov javno objavljeni. Potem, ko razpolagajo s to informacijo, predlagajo politične stranke kandidate, ki jih na koncu državljani izvolijo na skrbniške položaje.
Dejanja, ki so jih razkrili v Sunday Timesu pa so precej drugačna. Če obtožbe držijo, so bili ti poslanci pripravljeni vložiti predloge sprememb, ki so jih pripravili lobisti, brez kakršnega koli lastnega političnega razmisleka. V zameno bi poslanci lahko zaračunali lobistom svoje “svetovalno delo”. To ni način odgovornega zastopanja interesov svojih volivcev.

Ni lahko priznati, da ste se ujeli v past, ki so vam jo nastavili novinarji. Dva od treh poslancev, Avstrijec (krščanski demokrat) in Slovenec (socialni demokrat), sta v svojo obrambo dejala, da sta ves čas vedela, da so “lobisti”, s katerimi sta sodelovala, novinarji. Oba poslanci sta odstopila.

Romunski poslanec (socialni demokrat), ki je poslal račun za 12 000 EUR novinarju Sunday Timesa, ki se je predstavljal kot lobist, trdi, da ni storil ničesar, kar ne bi bila običajna praksa v Evropskem parlamentu. Od ponedeljka (21. marca) dalje je izključen iz skupine Socialdemokratov. V Romuniji, kjer je politična korupcija nekaj običajnega, je njegova nacionalna stranka (PSD) prav tako zahtevala njegov odstop. Ko te tako zasačijo, se je nemogoče zagovarjati, tudi v Romuniji.
Potrebno je dodati, da je ta romunski poslanec daleč od tega, da bi bil revež. Po poročanju romunskega časopisa Cotidianul, ima različne bančne račune, na katerih so sredstva v višini več kot 925 000 evrov.

“Denarja za zakone” ne bo možno nikoli zagovarjati. Jasno je, da bo potrebno ponovno preučiti predpise o etiki lobiranja in politični etiki zato, da preprečimo škandale v prihodnosti. Če politične stranke ne bodo odpravile prikritih postranskih prihodkov svojih političnih skrbnikov, bo vera v predstavniško demokracijo precej omajana. Upajmo, da bo prišlo do čiščenja notranjosti politične ladje, tako da bo možno pomembno zunanje politično delo opraviti na bolj odprto in pregledno.

Jan A Johansson

…

Lobbyists and corruption in European Parliament

The ethics of lobbying is a hot issue these days, with the recent crisis prompting business lobbyists to attempt to sway the details of a wave of new legislation aimed at the finance sector.

Lobbying was again thrown into the limelight on Sunday (March 20) by an interesting article about three Members of the European Parliament (MEP) in the Sunday Times. The MEPs, all of them former ministers in their home countries, allegedly agreed to table amendments in their European Parliament committees in exchange for economic kickbacks.

It’s no surprise that things like this occur, especially with the large grey area that exists around conflicts of interests. Many MEPs with an agricultural background, for example, receive fees and benefits from the agricultural sector while they sit on the Agricultural Committee. In general, these politicians are merely trying to represent the citizens that elected them to the trustee positions. They do not hide their aims as they openly support programs like the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), but the possibility for corruption does exist.

It is lawful for elected officials to have additional sources of income, but the source and amount of side incomes must be openly declared. With this information, political parties nominate candidates and, ultimately, citizens vote them into trustee positions.

The acts exposed by the Sunday Times, however, are quite distinct. If the accusations are true, these MEPs were willing to table amendments prepared by lobbyists without any political reflection by the MEPs themselves. In return, the MEPs would be able to charge the lobbyists for their “consultancy work”. This is not the way to represent the interest of your voters in a responsible manner.

To admit that you have been caught in a trap set by journalists is not easy to do. Two of the three MEPs, the Austrian (Christian Democrat) and the Slovenian (Social Democrat), said in their defence that they knew all along that the “lobbyists” they worked with were journalists. Both MEPs have since resigned.

The Romanian MEP (Social Democrat), who sent a bill for 12 000 euro to a Sunday Times reporter posing as a lobbyist, claims that he did not do anything that is not common behaviour in the European Parliament. As of Monday (March 21st), he has been excluded from the Socialist & Democrats Group. In Romania, where political corruption is common, his national party (PSD) has also demanded his resignation. Getting caught in the act in this way is impossible to defend, even in Romania.

It must be added that the Romanian MEP in question is not a poor man. According to the Romanian newspaper Cotidianul, he has various bank accounts with assets totalling over € 925 000.

”Cash for laws” can never be defended. It is clear that regulations on lobbying and political ethics must be re-examined to prevent future scandals. If political parties do not eliminate concealed side incomes among their political trustees, faith in representative democracy will be considerably damaged. Let us hope for a cleansing of the inner political vessel so that important outward political work can be done in a more open and transparent manner.

Jan A Johansson