When politicians in this country speak of transparency they must, at long last, realise that this is not a word which can be viewed or used in terms of communication stunts. Transparency is not just 'another idea'. It is an infrastructure of trust and by extension, constitutes one of the foundations of Democracy.
We take the time to actually note this, following an Auditor General recent report on the Social Welfare Fund, chaired by First Lady Philippa Karsera. Based on the findings outlined in the report, the fund is moving across several gray zones,
Such grey zones include a number of cases in which companies that donated quite substantial amounts to the Social Welfare fund, were actually financially connected to the state in some way or another. The Auditor General discovered firms that were negotiating public work contracts to the tune of millions, while at the same time, donating to the fund.
Donations
One of the said companies was negotiating a state contract of more than 10 million euro, while also making donations during the same period. In yet another case, an individual, whose company secured a license to build a commercial establishment, donated a total of 400 thousand euro in 2023 and 2024, 200 thousand each year.
In another case, the Auditor General's report indicates that while competing on a state long term contract, a company donated almost 700 thousand euro to the fund, 395 thousand of which in 2023 and 300 thousand in 2024, while its previous donation was made back in 2018 to the tune of 100 thousand.
There is also reference to shipping companies who had made no donations between 2018-2022, but in the 2023-24 period ,donated significant amounts. One of the two companies in question, donated 400 thousand over the two years, while the other 400 thousand in 2023 and half a million in 2024.
There was also a third shipping company, which donated 50 thousand in 2024, but had made no previous donations. The names of these companies have naver been made public, with citizens and the media left in the dark.
How the fund responded
Τhe Accountant General, handling the money, responded on behalf of the fund, accusing the Auditor General's Office of political expediencies and noting that 'connecting the Presidency of the Fund with the first lady, which is completely legal, gives out the wrong impression on abuse of power, without taking into account the constitutional and legal framework'.
At first glance, the problem is not about the first lady or the Accountant General. Not really. It's about the donors and the refusal to publisise their names by exploiting the legal and constitutional framework on personal data. To the average citizen, things are very simple. If we know the names then we know if they've won tenders for public works, so we can all understand why they donated to the first lady's fund.
The request to make the names public, is based on the logical thinking that when the data and decisions are out there, that limits prejudice and raises social consensus. Accountability prevents abuse of power and facilitates controls on journalists, institutions and citizens.
All political parties and social actors have agreed to this, however President Christodoulides referred the relevant legislation to the Supreme Court on the grounds of personal data violations.
In a country where people have become increasingly suspicious over the past few decades on issues of corruption, we believe that public interest must rise above the personal data of certain businesspeople that donate to politicians charities. Unfortunately not even the Supreme Court agreed with us and thus reluctantly continued the lack of transparency, contributed to suspicion skyrocketing and further undermined public confidence in democracy.
Digression
But if we may be allowed a brief digression here, the law on personal data is indeed there for the right reasons-protecting people from being publicly humilitated by the mass media and keeping their lives firmly away from the long arm of the digital era. In practice though, many use it as a shield over illegal activities or a shelter from transparency.
Who are these people
1. Public bodies or officials, citing 'personal data' to avoid providing information to audits or journalists (involving contracts, disciplinary cases or hiring people).
2. Companies and organisations that twist legislation to block accountability, for example refusing to disclose those benefitting from public contracts or subsidies.
3. Private individuals or politicians that use personal data to prevent the publising of information on possible shady dealings, conflict of interest or financial activities.
4. Attorneys or communication companies, that use the law to send threats or legal warnings (SLAPPs) to scare off investigators and journalists.
So while the law was made to protect citizens from abusing information, some exploit its terms to protect themselves from the truth getting out.
Corruption
So how could this problem be resolved in Cyprus? Firstly by doing away with the Social Welfare Fund, not necessary in a European state. Secondly, if they still insist that the fund is useful, then they must adopt a transparent donation process. All these classified information and personal data arguments, are simply excuses, at least that's what the citizens believe, designed to conceal critical evidence.
When the budget, supplies and decisions are public, trust is raised, the cost drops and corruption finds it difficult to take root. A government that provides data in real time, in rcognisable expenses, with open tenders, real beneficiaries and actual schedules, then its building legality without any PR stunts.
On the contrary, when President Christodoulides works away from the transparency realm inside the very inner core of his family, when 80% of citizens believe that he appoints relatives and friends, when he handles millions offered up by businesses that are also working with the state, it is fair to say that he cannot convince on the obvious. That both Caesar and his wife must always look and most importantly, be honest.
In his case, Christodoulides is facing a really tough situation, as criticism is directed by the very Auditor General that he recently appointed himself. We hope that he takes the report seriously and actually complies. Meanwhile, transparency must become practice. In other words, we should know where each euro is going and who affects every decision. That's how a modern, cheaper and just state actually works.