By: Dr Štefan Šumah
In Slovenia, there is a lot of talk about corruption, and many rumours are true, while many are not. “Corruption” is literally oozing from every pore. However, despite all the talk, there is little action taken against it. Can anyone explain why so few corruption cases in Slovenia have resulted in convictions? Probably not. Clearly, the system that should combat corruption is not functioning properly. The judiciary, the prosecution, the police, and the media, which should be the “watchdogs” of legality, all seem to be failing in this regard.
Therefore, in this column, I have decided to present one possible solution to reduce corruption, based on the “broken windows theory” described by George Kelling and James Wilson in their 1982 article in The Atlantic. This theory aimed at establishing order in dangerous urban neighbourhoods. They did not see the solution in increasing the presence of police officers on the streets but elsewhere. They observed that broken windows in disorganised neighbourhoods (which remained unrepaired for a long time) themselves “invite” further damage to the same building and the surrounding area. This leads to the spread and escalation of vandalism. If there are no broken windows, there is no incentive for the next vandals.
It is challenging to prove or disprove this theory, but according to Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioural economics at Duke University, its logic is compelling. He suggests that small crimes (in this case, instances of petty corruption) should not be overlooked, excused, or neglected because doing so will only exacerbate the problems. This applies especially to politicians, directors, public officials, and celebrities. While he questions whether it is fair to hold them to stricter standards than ordinary people, it is essential to recognise that people who are more scrutinised by others also have a more significant influence on the behaviour of viewers (and followers). Consequently, the consequences for society are more severe when they commit wrongdoing. To all instances of corruption, even the smallest ones, we should, therefore, react immediately and without mercy because the only way to fight corruption is zero tolerance towards it. Directors, public officials, politicians, and the like should be under even stricter scrutiny regarding both their actions and their financial status. Unfortunately, the oversight that should primarily be carried out by the media and non-governmental organisations in our country does not work, as the majority of both are literally intertwined with “transition-era wealthy individuals” and politicians who are the generators of corruption and are much more similar to crying puppies than “watchdogs” of democracy. With this, they are more a part of the problem than the solution.
Additionally, I would like to add to Ariely’s theory: The use of the reversed burden of proof, implemented in Slovenian legislation in 2011, should be applied more frequently (for wealth assessment). To combat or limit corruption, one of the easiest and most effective ways is to confiscate unlawfully acquired property from individuals. In this case, there is no need to prove the guilt of those suspected of corruption. Instead, they must prove the source of their wealth, and if they cannot convincingly demonstrate it, their assets can be confiscated.
The reversed burden of proof allows the seizure of assets from corruption suspects without a criminal trial. In practice, if there is an apparent disproportion between the individual’s declared income and their accumulated wealth, that property can be seized (as such disproportion can result from criminal activities, including corruption, or from hiding income to avoid taxation). In this process, the burden of proof regarding the source of the wealth is shifted to the owner of the property, and if they cannot justify or demonstrate its source convincingly, it can be confiscated. This provision is rarely used or almost not used in our legislation, but it could be one of the most powerful tools in the fight against corruption.