EDITORIAL

These days the European Commission is analyzing a highly important project focussed on making the EU structures and activities transparent. The debate starts from the initiative belonging to Estonian Siim Kallas, a vice president of the Commission in charge of administrative matters, audit and anti-fraud. More exactly, it is about a document titled "The European Initiative for Transparency". It has already undergone public debate, a source for the laws to pass in the time to come. The project is aimed at a transparent administrative process at the EU level by 2008. Here are the main objectives: to publish information on the beneficiaries of EU funds, to fight against fraud, to make lobby clear, to set ethical standards on union lawmakers. Most EU members have already got a regulation for such practices or for a considerable part of them. The Commission is now trying to harmonize procedures and turn them into rules to be unanimously shared by the component entities. But Romania's voice can't be heard in this European debate. Why?

On the one hand we have got laws allowing access to information of public interest, providing the decision making process with transparency and deciding on incompatibility. They all passed because of the accession to the EU, because this is "the EU requirement." On the other hand, in daily life we run across representations of the secret-keeping in institutions and in front of their desks. If you are too curious, the official invokes the secret of state, the politician invokes the protection of personal data and the clerk invokes the professional secret. Therefore we have got some theory, but poor practice and scarce benevolence.

Instead of enlightening us in a transparent manner, the nation's leaders give us some more mysteries. From the president we learn that, as head of the state, he has failed access "to the domestic contracts of the smart guys with the energy providers." Basescu has pointed to the sudden transfer of the OPSPI (Office for State and Privatization Participation in Industry) to the AVAS (Authority for State Assets Recovery). Tariceanu has reminded him that this was under debate, but in the meantime the Democrat Party got out of game.

Lack of transparency? Enough examples from both palaces show it. The curtain fell from Cotroceni Palace ever since the Romanian hostage crisis. It has been so even for the law projects on national security (not even now adopted). As for Victoria Palace, since we have invoked the OPSPI, it has already become a custom to give explanations a few days after the normative documents pass. The shut door policy governs both locations.

Institutional secretiveness and twisted or inappropriate communication, still fashionable for us, can only fuel people's distrust in democracy, in its representatives and practices. Romania is about to join the EU, but we still get information by the 'back door', from 'sources'. Those in charge of decisions are in the habit of telling half-truths.

After January 1, 2007 we will probably become aware of how important openness is. Those interested in structural funds will wonder how come there is no public list of all the beneficiaries of funds for projects. Romanian lobby doers will notice that in their country there is no regulation on their activity and anti-fraud departments will worry that their investigations start from information published in newspapers only.

Here is a last argument for transparency: the ZIUA Internet edition published the contract on the privatization of Petrom Company. In only one week it attracted almost 10,000 curious people. The Internet page of Romanian Presidency hosts about 9,000 visitors a week.

Articol disponibil la adresa http://www.ziua.net/display.php?id=212831&data=2006-12-14