Combating corruption in Cyprus is impossible, just as weakening it as a mode of operation in politics, the economy and society more broadly is impossible. Our very mindset, our way of life and the model of organisation and functioning of our state do not yet allow it. As absolute, provocative and discouraging as this observation may sound, it reflects reality. The use of personal connections, in whatever form, with or without financial gain, is part of the fabric of our historical and political evolution and a consequence of an entrenched mentality born of accumulated experiences in how we interact.
In simple terms, Cyprus will always suffer from corruption because the core institutions that shape it, the Church, the family, its productive structure, each government and political authority, and all of us, have not taken the necessary decision to change the operating model of the state.
This does not mean that everyone is corrupt or that everything has collapsed. But, as with many aspects of how the state and economy function, corruption as a phenomenon varies in scale, degree, extent and intensity. Moreover, because of its characteristics within a given state, it can coexist, both organically and parasitically, with the rule of law, the concept of a well-governed state, and the separation and oversight of powers, however contradictory that may sound.
Corruption is also not uniform across all sectors. A country may rank relatively well in international corruption indices by organisations or NGOs such as Transparency International, yet a specific sector of political or economic activity may concentrate the majority of corruption cases. This arises for a range of reasons, often linked to the functional characteristics of that sector.
Similarly, a country like Cyprus, which lies roughly in the middle of international corruption rankings, may underestimate the true scale of the problem because citizens do not perceive certain behaviours as corrupt when they see them as “normal” within the existing social contract. This is where the example cited by the President of the Republic, of changing a child’s school through misleading address declarations, is telling. Such everyday examples reveal our perception of what constitutes corruption. Yet corruption, like deception and theft, ultimately undermines the fundamental principles of justice and mutual respect.
Naturally, as with all forms of wrongdoing, there is an evaluative distinction in the seriousness of offences, based on motives and consequences, and always in relation to the moral and legal norms of a given society, norms which themselves evolve over time.
This brings us to the question of what kind of state we want to be. We may have constitutionally entrenched the protection of fundamental human rights in non-amendable provisions. We may have joined the European Union and adopted its functional requirements. We may place international law at the forefront of our identity and have established numerous institutions and oversight mechanisms. But the most important step has not been taken.
And that is that we have not adjusted our social contract or changed our mentality to the degree required for all this “progress” to truly move us away from what characterised us 50 or 100 years ago. We were there and remain there, and we will stay there until we are compelled to change our mindset and behaviour, two traits that go beyond laws and relate first and foremost to our maturity as individuals and as a society.
