The proposal by opposition to amend the Constitution so as to include in it the vetting of high-ranking state officials has brought about media noise and two opposite political stands. The opposition has declared the vetting of politicians as a non-negotiable condition, while the governing majority appears to be at best skeptical, if not openly against the vetting.
Once again, as just about every single time before, facing these two irreconcilable stands citizens have understood very little about the said proposal and the respective pro and con arguments. Below we have tried to shed some light on what the vetting for politicians is and what it aims at.
The vetting of politics aims at clearing away from high state institutions those individuals who have inappropriate contacts with persons involved in organized crime. The purpose is to keep institutions like parliament, government, municipalities, and other constitutional institutions clean from individuals who have contacts or are associated with persons involved in criminal activities. Consequently, prime minister, ministers, members of parliament, mayors, heads or members of constitutional and legal institutions voted by parliament, are expected to undergo a vetting process.
The so-called Vetting Law for the Judiciary stipulates that inappropriate contact means a meeting, electronic communication, or any other type of wilful contact, which is not in compliance with the assumption of office by the assessee, regardless whether a business or any other relation is established for the assessee. Such definition or an adjusted version of it could also be used in the vetting of politics.
The vetting process will have to go through two phases. The first phase is a self-declaration, i.e. submission of a detailed declaration regarding contacts, association or other relations with individuals with criminal activity. In case the self-declaration made under legal responsibility proves to be purposely filed with false information, the pleader is to be criminally charged.
The second phase is the verification of self-declarations and the collection of any other official information from state institutions. Verification implies a thorough investigation of whether the official has contacts with individuals pertaining to organized crime. In case the investigation proves the existence of such contacts, the official is banned from getting elected to Parliament or as a mayor, his/her mandate is suspended or he/she is removed from such office. The same consequences apply when the official doesn’t comply with self-declaration or files false information.
The vetting of politics does not override neither the decriminalization law nor the judicial reform or the activities of ILDKPKI (The High Inspectorate of Declaration and Audit of Assets and Conflict of Interests). Quite on the contrary, this process is a complementary step in ensuring the integrity of high-ranking public officials.
How is vetting of politics different from decriminalization
The so-called decriminalization law aims at removing from high public offices and from public administration individuals with criminal offences in their past.
The vetting of politics aims at removing or excluding from office officials who are uncondemned, but who in a way or another have an association with individuals involved in criminal activities – an association that, apart from damaging the moral and ethical persona of the state official, could serve as encouragement or indirect protection for the criminal.
Both vetting and decriminalization aim at cleaning up politics from criminals or those in association with criminals. In this sense, the vetting of politics is a deepening or completion of the process of decriminalization of politics.
Why the vetting of politics does not interfere with the work of SPAK and BKH
Through courts, prosecution and special units of investigation and trial, the judiciary system aims at investigating and ruling on cases related to organized crime and corruption of senior state officials. In this case we are dealing with clear judicial processes at the end of which the official might actually be sentenced to imprisonment, while at the same time guaranteed maximal rights to defend him/herself.
The vetting of politics is an administrative process the result of which might be banning from getting elected, termination of mandate or removal from office. This process limits the right of an individual to serve in high positions in politics and government for reasons that might not necessarily constitute criminal offences.
In this sense the vetting of politics expands or completes the process of vetting of high-ranking officials in all three powers in Albania – it adds to the current vetting of the judiciary power the vetting of the executive power and that of the legislative power. Both processes aim at cleaning up all three branches of power from criminal influences and restoring public trust in state institutions.
The above explanations show that the vetting of politics does not collide with any of the reforms undertaken by the Albanian state. On the contrary, it is another positive development on the way to guarantying the highest standards regarding political and institutional representation for Albanian citizens.
This article is the first in a series of explanatory articles on the vetting of politics.
