COMMENTARY
What does the ‘Qatargate’ corruption scandal in
the European Parliament tell us about corruption?
DATE
31 Jan 2023
AUTHORS
Riccardo
D'Emidio
Drawing
from anti-corruption research, Riccardo D’Emidio outlines how the ‘Qatargate’
scandal in the EU Parliament challenges traditional approaches of corruption
analysis pushing the boundaries of how corruption is understood, and the
measures needed to tackle it.
The
European Parliament has been rocked by what has been defined by analysts and
journalists alike as the ‘the most egregious’ corruption scandal in its
history. Over the past month, media headlines have reported on the alleged
implication in the scandal of (now) former Vice President of the European
Parliament, Eva Kaili, her partner Francesco Giorgi, and former Italian Member
of the European Parliament (MEP) Antonio Panzeri.
The Belgian
police seized bags of cash worth more than a million euros in the house of the
MEP and former MEP as part of an investigation into suspicions of corruption to
the benefit of Qatar.
While the
contours of the investigations continue to broaden, the Belgian federal
prosecutor is investigating allegations of participation in a criminal
organisation, corruption and money laundering. The scandal also involves NGOs
and trade unions – used to ‘move money around’ – and it seems not circumscribed
to Qatar, but could also implicate Moroccan authorities.
The scandal
brings to the fore many of the unresolved issues and misconceptions
characterising the study of corruption and integrity, placing the spotlight on
the murky waters of corruption, conflict of interest, lobbying, foreign
interference and the role of the state.
Corruption
research has traditionally focused on the nation state as the main locus or
unit of analysis of corruption and anti-corruption measures. However, the
Qatargate scandal sheds light on the international dimensions of corruption,
involving a third country allegedly trying to pay their way to shape EU policy,
unduly interfering in the work of a unique supra-national parliament with 705
elected members belonging to different countries, parties and political
cultures.
This is not
an irrelevant detail since political cultures matter: if there is one thing
that 30 years of anti-corruption research and policy has taught us, it is that
context matters. Different measures work in different settings. On this
occasion, the European Parliament relied on the collaboration of five national
security agencies and the work of the Belgian police to uncover the criminal
organization.
This
suggests that as corruption evolves, crossing borders and besetting new
institutions, anti-corruption measures should follow suit. EU institutions will
need to find their own tailor made solutions, which will inevitably need to
take into account the blurring boundaries between the public and the private,
and between political and economic powers.
In this
regard, former MEP Antonio Panzeri together with some of the actors allegedly
involved, fit the description of Janine Wedel’s ‘flexians’ or ‘institutional
nomads’. These are elite players who leverage their influence and power by
moving in and out of multiple roles crossing political and economic playing
fields – often beyond public scrutiny.
The alleged
involvement of members and former members of the European Parliament shatters
the misguided assumption that corruption is only an issue in the Global South
or in contexts of limited state capacity.
Nonetheless,
a couple of days after the story broke on Belgian media, the European
Parliament President, Roberta Metsola, opened the plenary session with these
words: “The European Parliament is under attack. European democracy is under
attack. Our way of open, free, democratic societies are under attack. The
enemies of democracy for whom the very existence of this Parliament is a
threat, will stop at nothing…”.
This speech
was defined as a ‘political communication masterpiece’ yet it dangerously
depicts corruption as an external insidious attack from ‘autocratic third
countries’. This reinforces the notion that corruption creeps into Europe from
elsewhere.
Most
importantly, this framing precludes any reflection on the structural factors
that enabled corruption to take place in the first place. Chief among these
factors is the role of lobbying within EU institutions and EU policy making.
Last year
The Economist reported that 25,000 lobbyists with a combined annual budget
conservatively estimated at more than €3bn seek to influence EU policy,
dwarfing the sums seized by the Belgian police.
Approximately
7,500 lobbyists are accredited with the European Parliament, meaning that they
are regularly able to meet with MEPs who are – for now – under no obligation to
register the meetings in the EU Transparency Register.
From an
ethical standpoint, a provocative and unresolved question remains: what
difference is there between €600,000 stacked in suitcases and €600,000 spent in
expensive trips to exotic destinations, luxury hotels, fancy dinners and
events?
While the
answer to this question is not an easy one, the Resolution adopted by the
European Parliament outlines some important steps for transparency and
accountability in European institutions.
Among other
demands, the text proposes the introduction of cooling off periods for former
MEPs, the strengthening of the Transparency Register and the alignment of its
whistleblower measures to the EU Whistleblowing Directive. Most importantly it
calls on the EU Commission – which holds exclusive legislative initiative – to
set up an independent ethics body overseeing all EU institutions (for more
information on this see here).
While these
are important steppingstones towards curbing corruption, they might not be
enough to instill integrity within EU institutions. Way too often in both
research and practice integrity is dealt with implicitly, assuming that this
will emerge simply by tightening checks and balances and reducing discretion.
The debate
in academia on corruption control vis-à-vis integrity building is a lively one
(see here and here) and it could prompt the EU to go beyond renewed regulatory
frameworks and drive forward the promotion of pro-integrity values and
practices. This could potentially tackle what Transparency International called
‘the culture of impunity’ in the European Parliament
In the past
thirty years, the fight against corruption might not have registered
ground-breaking successes, nonetheless it has acquired a substantive amount of
knowledge and lessons learnt. It is of paramount importance, that in times of
crisis such as this one, EU institutions tap into existing knowledge without
falling back on outdated – yet intuitively sound – measures.
Conversely,
the Qatargate case pushes the boundaries of anti-corruption research both in
terms of grasping the multiple dimensions and nuances of corruption, as well as
the possible anti-corruption measures to be put in place.
By Riccardo
D’Emidio, PhD Candidate, Centre for the Study of Corruption, University of
Sussex.
The views
expressed in this piece are his own.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário