ts and MEDIA > text prepared for the press conference organized by Transparency Serbia 15.05.2003.

Research preliminary results
Conflict of public and private interest and free access to information

Transparency Serbia is a branch of the oldest, specialized, international corruption-fighting organization, Transparency International. Experts from Transparency Serbia have taken part in preparing the draft of the Law on preventing conflicts of public and private intersts of state officials, and the organization has also had a series of ACTIVITIES the purpose of which was to achieve a better communication between the citizens and state organs. The organization has, since September last year, been given an opportunity to broaden its ACTIVITIES within the Transparency International regional project, supported by the Government of Finland.

With the intention of examining the Serbian citizen's standpoint regarding the conflict of state officials' interests and accessibility of information, Transparency Serbia has ordered a comprehensive field research, the most important results of which are being presented here. This research presents only one of many ACTIVITIES that Transparency International regional project includes.

The research included four fields:
      - concept of public interest,
      - conflict of public and private interest of state officials,
      - right to a free access to information,
      - and a possibility of citizens' action potencial in the struggle against the conflict of
        interests and for achiving the free-access-to- information right

The research has been performed on the stratified, multi-stage sample that represents the entire adult population in Serbia. The sample comprises 993 valid questionnaires that were filled in by the citizens in 19 municipalities in Serbia. The sample is representative with respect to nationality, sex, age, education, and the place of residence has also been taken into consideration (village or town).

Field work was performed in the period from 24 March to 4 April 2003.

State of emergency resulted in a greater number of citizens not wanting to participate in the research, but this number is bigger only by 25% than the number of citizens who usually refuse to take part in the polls.

The poll was anonimous.

Conflict of interests

The questioned citizens believe that conflict of interests presents the basis for non-ethical and unacceptable conduct of the state officials.

One fifth of the citizens polled believe that the conflict of private and public interests actually means giving priority to private over public interest (22%).

Opinion of the remaining part of the sample ranges in the following manner: from (predominant) making material profit, misuse and illegal accumulation of wealth (45%), abuse of power and political profit (11%), to corruption (9%) and performing several functions (4%).

In terms of understanding the mere concept of the conflict of state officials' interests, based on the offered situations, it can be seen that the citizens are mostly capable of recognizing the conflict of interests.

Here is where the citizens see a conflict of interests:

Offered situation	%
1. When a state official accepts a gift from a person that might ask for something in return	86.7
2. When a minister is the owner of a private company related to this ministry's field	77.8
3. When a state official presents the position of a party at a press conference, where he is invited as a state official	74.6
4. When a state official reveals information ABOUT a company that is the subject of a privatization tender, to a party interested in purchasing this company	72.8

It is interesting that the subjects have categorized the following behavior as conflict of interests, although such behavior in itself is not a conflict of interests:

Offered situation	%
1. When a state official favors the interests of his/her own party	59.7
2. When a state official starts to build a house during his/her term of office	48.4
3. When a high-ranking state official uses personal guard and official car for the needs of performing state business	23.6
4. When a state official brings criminal charges against somebody	21.5
5. When a state official engages in scientific or artistic work after regular working hours	13.7

Assessment of overlapping between public and private interests

The subjects show a very high level of perception regarding certain "crossing" forms between state officials' public and private interests. It should be mentioned that the situation when a state official is at the same time the owner or co-owner of a private company (73%), is emphasized most frequently.

The citizens resent the following situations:

The incidence of state officials also being:	noticed %	assessed as harmful %
1. Party officials	85.3	37.2
2. Owners or co-owners of private companies	73.3	73
3. Managers/members of state companies' managing boards	68.4	67.8
4. Managers/members of private companies' managing boards	64.9	72.2
5. Representatives in several parliaments	49.8	63.3
6. Managers of non-governmental organizations	37.2	57.4

State officials' harmful actions

State officials' forms of behavior considered incompatible with the public interest are ranked as follows: giving priority to the members of their own political party when giving employment in a state organ - 65%, nepotism (giving priority and helping the members of family and friends to profit from the state - 60%) and finally, discretion (interpretation of laws and regulations as convenient 55%).

State officials' actions	frequently %	sometimes %	total %
1. Giving priority to the members of their own party for the employment in a state organ although there are more qualified candidates	65	28.9	93.9
2. Giving priority to the members of their own family and friends for the employment in a state organ although there are more qualified candidates	60.4	30.5	90.9
3. Assisting the members of their party in making deals with the state	55.8	34.5	90.3
4. Interpreting the laws and regulations as convenient to them	55	39.9	94.9
5. Assisting the members of their family and friends in making deals with the state	54	34.4	88.4
6. Accepting gifts from the people and organizations that may, in the future, expect a favor in return	47.8	35.3	83.1
7. Providing members of their party an access to the information that may ensure material and non-material profit	46.1	39.7	85.8
8. Using the state function as a means of achieving illegal profit	43.8	44.8	88.6
9. Providing members of their family access to the information that may ensure material and non-material profit	42.2	38.6	80.8

List of state officials' ASSETS

The public is very interested in the data regarding the state officials' ASSETS. The subjects (four fifths of them) believe that ALL relevant state officials should make public the data regarding their ASSETS. It is very interesting that not a single subject believes that it is not necessary for the officials to have their property made public, and only every fiftieth subject has no opinion on the matter.

To the question when the ASSETS should be reported, the citizens gave the following answers:

The ASSETS that should be reported by the officials	%
1. Real estate	90.7
2. Personal income on any basis	85.3
3. Received gifts in the course of the term	70.5
4. Savings	61.3
5. Debts towards anyone	58.9
6. Income and ASSETS of the family members	58.6
7. ASSETS of the persons with whom they have a business interest	43.6
8. They do not have to report anything	2.5

It is important to point out here that the citizens are not acquainted with the regulations in this field. Namely, only a fourth of the subjects knows that, according to the present regulations, state officials are not legally bound to report their ASSETS.

On the other hand, even 45% of those polled believe that such an obligation already exists! The citizens' replies indicate on one hand, that there is a need for such a regulation that is to control the conflict of interests, and on the other, that the citizens are used to laws not being applied, believing that it is the case in here as well.

Attitude towards gifts

For a great majority of citizens (between 80 and 90%), it is unacceptable that a state official accepts and keeps gifts in the form of money, jewelry, forgiving a debt or free summer vacation.

When an official in the course of his/her term accepts a gift or a promise, in addition to reporting the value of the gift and the name of the one who gave it (35%), to the authorities, the citizens believe that it is his/her obligation either to refuse the gift (20%), or to give it to a humanitarian organization (26%).

The subjects are most tolerant towards accepting honorary titles (three fifths). Most of the citizens accept the gifts that could be characterized as a ''treat'': lunch, souvenir, health services, but on one condition- that the value of a gift does not exceed 100€.

Ways of fighting the conflict of interests

The citizens believe that the state officials' conflict of interest can be prevented most efficiently by a prohibitionistic model. This means that the citizens wish to have the mechanisms for dismissing a state official who places private interest before the public one.

This method is assessed as efficient by three fifths (58%) of the subjects. Another fifth believes that state officials should have extremely high income and a ban on performing other jobs. ''Aristocratic'' model implies that only the people who have enough money and time should go into politics and that they should receive no compensation for their work. This model is acceptable to every tenth subject (9%).

Sanctions in case of conflict of interests

The citizens believe that penal mechanisms towards officials in case there is a conflict of interests, should be very stern. They range from ''total'' to ''limited'' penalties ("lustration"):

• for dismissal and life-long ban to perform state functions - 28% subjects,
• for dismissal and a prison sentence - 17%,
• for dismissal from the performed function - 16%,
• for dismissal and a ban to perform state functions for some time - 12%,
• for dismissal and a fine - 15%,
• at the end, there are the pedagogical measures: a reprimand and a fine (3%), i.e. being subject to ''public judgment'' (4%) .

Free access to information

The period of transition that our society is in at the moment, implies democratization of the operation of state administration and authorities. One of the most important segments of this process is that this operation should be public. It should not only be left to the MEDIA to give the information on the operation. The citizen should have the right to ask for and obtain information he/she is interested in, not depending on the MEDIA's interest in the topic at the time.

However, the research has shown that four fifths of the citizens let the MEDIA inform them on the operation of state organs. The stories by well-informed friends and acquaintances is another source stated by 15% of the subjects. Only every fiftieth subject states that he/she turns directly to the state institutions for information. Over half of the subjects are not acquainted with their right to obtain information directly from the state institutions, and over two-thirds do not know their rights in case they do not receive the required information. The citizens also do not know what kind of information they have the right to ask for directly from the state organs. 56.4% of the citizens are not familiar with the types of rights, totally unfamiliar with 2.2, and partially familiar with only 34.8% of the citizens. Only 6.5% of the subjects know what type of information they have the right to obtain from the state organs.

When asked whether they knew how to access the required information, the citizens gave the following answers:
      - do not know 2.5%,
      - not familiar 49.3%,
      - partially familiar 38.5%,
      - totally familiar 9.7% of citizens

However, four fifths of the subjects believe that the information of general importance should be accessible to everyone.

Subject's attitude	Agrees %	Does not agree %
1. All the information of general importance should be accessible to everyone	81.4	18.6
2. Without the right information, the citizens can not achieve their rights and interests	75.3	24.7
3. Anyone who deprives citizens of the information they are entitled to, should be punished	75.2	24.8
4. Procedure of declaring information a state secret must be specifically controlled	71.8	28.2
5. Secrecy of information on the operation of state organs creates a possibility of abuse	66.5	33.5
6. State organs should make all information on their operation accessible	65.9	34.1
7. It is a citizen's obligation to be informed as much as possible on the operation of state organs	49.8	50.2

How to access the information adequately

One third of the subjects believes that the solution is to legally bind the state organs to make the information accessible and to introduce sanctions if the legal regulations are not obeyed.

One fourth believes that the question of accessibility can be solved by printing PUBLICATIONS in which the citizens would be acquainted with the ways of achieving their right to obtain the information on the state organs' operation.

The most suitable way of providing an access to the required DOCUMENTS and information by the state organs:	%
1. That they are required by law to provide an access to information, DOCUMENTS as requested by the citizen who turns to them, and that they are punished if they do not comply with this	31.0
2. To print PUBLICATIONS where they would acquaint the citizens with the manner of exercising their rights	25.1
3. To appoint an official whose responsibility would be to provide all the information and copies of the requested DOCUMENTS, to the interested citizens	17.8
4. To put on the bulletin board detailed instructions of how the citizens can get the required DOCUMENTS and information	13.9
5. To publish all information on their operation on the internet	9.5
6. I don't know	2.7
Total	100

Question of state officials' privacy

The privacy of every person, and therefore of state officials as well, must be protected. Considering the social importance of the function that the state officials perform, it is implied that the privacy protection can be limited when this is in the public interest.

In which situations should the information that concerns a state official's privacy, be made public	%
1. If the state official has jeopardized the function he performs, by his behavior	37.7
2. If the information is important considering the function he performs	29.1
3. If the state official has agreed to that	15.5
4. Privacy must always be protected	15.5
5. I don't know	2.2

It is clear that democratization of the operation of state administration and authorities is necessary. In order to achieve that, it is imperative to make the operation public.

Transparency of operation must become a rule. Monopoly on information creates power that has a tendency of self-reproduction. Lack of information prevents us from assessing and valorizing the operation of those we have elected, and therefore whether they behave responsibly will depend only on their character.

What are the citizens ready to do

Two thirds of the polled citizens of Serbia believe that the conflict of public and private interests of state officials on the republic and municipal level, presents a considerable problem. Regarding free access to information, 60 percent of the cases show that the citizens consider as a great problem the abuse of information that the state organs have on them. A considerable problem for 58% of the subjects is unavailability of information on the laws and regulations, while a half of those polled considers as a great problem the fact that they do not have all the information on the state organs' operation. Somewhat less than 40% of the subjects believe that it is a big problem not to have information on the state officials. Not reporting gifts presents a problem for a half of those polled.

The stated opinions had an idirect effect on the evaluation of political sanctions. It can be seen from the following table:

Would you vote for a politician	no %	yes %
1. who has deprived the public of the information on himself that he was bound by the law to provide	91.0	9.0
2. that has been proven as having a conflict of public and private interests	89.6	10.4
3. that has prevented the citizens from getting to know the information on the state organs' operation	89.0	11.0
4. that has not reported his ASSETS, gifts and income	86.1	13.9

Public interest and political community

There is a high level of agreement among the citizens of Serbia on the meaning of the term public interest.

Namely, somewhat more than a half of the Serbian citizens polled believe that public interest presents the interest of all citizens independently from their ethnic, religious, social or any other background.

Democratic definition of public interest, according to which it is the interest of the majority of members of Serbia as a political community, is supported by 15% of those polled. Finally, 12% of the subjects identify the public interest with the state interest, and the same percentage considers the public interest of Serbia equal to the interest of Serbian people being the majority.

The content of public interest is reflected in the priorities that should be insisted upon in the development of a society, so that the citizens in such a society could fulfill their rights and requirements.

Among the first three priorities, the subjects have stated the following:

• struggle against crime, for 77% of the polled,
• a greater care by the state concerning social system (health, education and employment) - 56%,
• 54% of the subjects have opted for a greater possibility of exercising the civil rights.

The second group of priorities includes:

• economic development (52%),
• development of market economy (36%),
• reduction of the differences between the poor and the rich (35%),
• and joining the EU (32%).

The least important priorities for the citizens, among the offered answers, were the following: independent state of Serbia (16%), becoming a member of NATO, integration in the Balkan area and decentralization of Serbia, 5% each.

Among the citizens, there is an agreement that public interest should present the interest of citizens, as a whole or as majority. Consensus is also evident in terms of the public interest contents, and these are struggle against crime and a greater exercise of rights, including the social ones as well.

Summary

The research has shown us that it is necessary to familiarize the citizens with their rights.

On the other hand, operation of state organs and authorities can not be made public by merely passing the law on a free access to information, since the majority of citizens has to be acquainted with the contents of the law. This implies not only merely informing oneself ABOUT the new rights and obligations of the state organs, but also ABOUT the practical consequences this law will have in our society. This mostly refers to: increased risk of corruption, increased responsibility of the authorities, transforming public services into true service for citizens and increased interest of the citizens in public questions.

It is clear in the end that the research can present an indicator of the situation, but it can also give some useful suggestions both for the citizens and for the state institutions and politicians.

The citizens must be informed ABOUT their own rights, but they must also be ready to engage in getting to know and exercising these rights.

Their attitudes on overlapping and conflict of interests, but also on accepting gifts and bribe, clearly indicate the fact that these elements as well influence the opinion on politicians. On the other hand, it is obvious that the evaluation of the present condition is not positive. The citizens are very strict when suggesting preventive and restrictive measures towards politicians.

The results can assist politicians in correcting their behavior on time, but they can also assist the entire society, in finding the mechanisms for the citizens and state institutions to cooperate more closely.

ts and MEDIA > text prepared for the press conference organized by Transparency Serbia 15.05.2003.