How to combat corruption is a question that has frequently been in the focus of attention of analysts. Based on European experience, a “local integrity system” index was created in Bulgaria and presented by Transparency International.

In 2011 Transparency International made an assessment of the local integrity systems in more than 25 countries, among them Bulgaria. It encompassed all structures of the state institutions and the leading players – businesses, political parties, media, civil society who put together the transparency system. The conclusions are that to have a stable system of transparent, integrity-based institutions, with stable relations with each other, it takes a certain capacity, a sufficient level of independence and administration mechanisms in each of the sectors.

“Many of the Bulgarian institutions we evaluated back then, unfortunately have low scores, most of all regarding their role in the integrity system,” comments Dr. Linka Toneva, programme coordinator of the Bulgarian branch of Transparency International. “They have a good capacity – human and financial resources, statutory independence to exercise their functions. But if we take a look at their role in the local and the national integrity system, we see that they are not guaranteeing the effective functioning of the mechanisms they are supposed to implement. For example, the police – there is no effective detection or solving of corruption crimes and malfeasance. Or businesses are not playing an effective role in initiating an anti-corruption policy, or supporting citizens in their efforts to initiate stable reform policies.”

The Bulgarian branch of Transparency International is now launching the first of its kind comparative rankings of key local institutions and social players which go into the building of an integrity and responsibility-based system of administration locally. The index presents a comparative picture of the anti-corruption capacity, the role and the importance of the municipal council, the mayor, the municipal administration, the political parties, the judicial authorities, the police, businesses, the media and civil society. The local integrity system is divided up into the following indices – capacity, role and governance. Regarding state bodies “role” denotes the place, depending on the powers given among all other bodies. “Capacity” – the potential at hand – financial, administrative and human. “Governance” includes a subjective element that shows how the system is governed – with or without: good will, effort and pragmatism. There are 169 indicators used to collect and summarize the information with 27 Transparency International teams having been engaged in the analysis. First place is shared by Sofia and Bourgas; Vidin, Varna and Haskovo are bottom of the list.

“Sofia and Bourgas are the cities with the most comparatively transparent local administration,” Linka Toneva goes on to say. “But Sofia is the capital after all and a comparison with other towns is a difficult thing; still it is top of the rankings, alongside Bourgas, mostly because of good practices introduced between the institution of the mayor and the other pillars of the integrity system such as the municipal council, civil society and businesses. The good results of the work of the Sofia ombudsman is an additional stimulus in these rankings. For Sofia the score is lower for the police, the political formations and the media, the prosecutor’s office and the law courts. What we take into account are the integrity systems, because in the past 25 years there have been effective practices in many Bulgarian towns which must be encouraged. But we do not know much about them – in Bourgas, for example, where the municipality has made public an enormous amount of information about the work of the municipal council, the mayor and his team. When we have the information, civil society is able to exercise control more efficiently. This is vital, because it is a stimulus to other municipalities to endeavor to rival the best.”

Varna’s score is surprisingly low, and it occupies second to last place, with Haskovo bottom of the list. The responsibility for this lies most of all with the municipal council over the 2011-2015 term of office, Transparency International analysts explain. The reason – the almost complete lack of any transparency or accountability in its work, pressure from outside factors etc. Parties are the other problem – there are no data regarding election campaign financing, information about the rules of electing a given candidate etc.

“The index will form a new basis for an exchange of good practices and capacity development among all participants in the political process, civil society and businesses locally,” analysts from Transparency International, Bulgaria say.

English version: Milena Daynova