EU must reform ethics if it wants to maintain any legitimacy: Politico
5 Min Read
An opinion written in Politico slams the failure to implement anti-corruption measures in the European Parliament and recommends steps to take in case the EU wants to sustain any popular legitimacy in the eyes of Europeans.
-
There should no longer be any doubt that the Parliament must reform its ethics practices.
A Politico opinion written by Jeff Hauser, the founder and director of the Revolving Door Project at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, slams the failure to implement the European Parliament's resolution passed last year, which called for a new ethics body to establish anti-corruption measures.
While European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she was committed to implementing the resolution swiftly, nothing happened so far.
Hauser tells that last week, he and two colleagues "presented a research paper at the European Parliament about the urgent need for an independent ethics body," denouncing the Commission’s delay in implementing the resolution and recommending steps on how to set up an effective agency.
The writer adds that on his flight back home, "news broke that demonstrated yet again the urgent need for a serious ethics agency. This news also helped explain why so many powerful forces in Brussels have offered tendentious objections to a robust ethics enforcer."
Belgian police carried out over 20 raids across Brussels to seize evidence that MEPs received consequential sums of money or were given sizeable gifts and were part of money laundering on behalf of Qatar. "Authorities say they have seized more than €1 million in cash and allege that the crime ring extends all the way up to European Parliament Vice-President Eva Kaili. Four people so far have been charged with money laundering and corruption," Hauser adds.
If the Parliament wants to sustain any popular legitimacy in the eyes of Europeans, "there should no longer be any doubt that the Parliament must reform its ethics practices," he says, adding that the scandal “has unveiled an inconvenient, and for most Europeans already obvious, truth.”
"Disgraceful as it may be, the emerging 'Qatargate' scandal does provide a clear opportunity to seize on the first lesson from our paper: rise to the challenge after a scandal to regain the public’s trust," the writer advises.
In the United States, after the many scandals of President Richard Nixon administration (collectively remembered under the metonym Watergate) were brought to public light, "the most foundational ethics laws emerged in 1970. The post-Watergate reforms included laws mandating disclosure of campaign contributions, setting limits on lobbying activity, and requiring financial divestments for executive branch appointees."
The laws addressed "many of the vulnerabilities that Nixon’s rapacious greed and overwhelming political paranoia had made evident," the writer says, emphasizing that "Watergate bred a new interest in government ethics within civil society and the media. Watchdog groups and political journalists began trawling through these new disclosure documents regularly, and politicians realized that anything obviously suspicious would get caught. Moreover, they saw corruption would have legal, or at least electoral, consequences."
Hauser believes that "the story of how ethics broke down in the United States is instructive," but, he stresses, "when it comes to explicit tit-for-tat corruption, the story gets a bit more granular."
"The US created a panoply of complex, tailored rules for different institutions to be overseen by a series of officials without adequate powers. And complex rules offer corrupting forces opportunities," he explains.
The hard rules banning corrupt acts have over time grown less relevant to how influence flows in the US. Hauser focuses on moneyed forces who find creative ways to "dance around the hard restrictions."
Nowadays, Washington leaders "inhabit an insular, bizarre world." To any observer, the writer explains, "politicians partying at night with former colleagues paid to influence them by day seems clearly anti-democratic. But politicians and officials turn round and say 'well, it’s not illegal, is it?'"
In any case, he adds, the epidemic of so-called "soft corruption" in the US government "offers a second lesson: no one can predict and prevent every loophole."
Hauser advises EU officials to "try to foster that crucial culture of accountability," perhaps over time it may help Europeans "to have a bit more faith in the EU, instead of simply expecting the rich to profit and the poor to get poorer."
"Writing rules alone does not make them credible," he notes. "What punishment, if any, the guilty parties ultimately face in the Qatargate scandal will have an enormous impact on whether European citizens can trust the Parliament. After the 2008 financial crisis, the United States government only prosecuted one mid-level banker for crimes mostly unrelated to the systemic fraud that shook the global economy. That sent a message about elite impunity."
Hauser argues that the corrupt officials should not particularly "face draconian or overzealous punishment," but should at least be banned from participation in EU politics and should face "massive fines, reasonable jail sentences, restructuring or shuttering corrupt businesses when relevant, and so on should all be regular features of EU ethics enforcement." If such measures are not taken, Hauser says, "then right-wing populists will benefit and beckon."
