Increasing the effectiveness of anti-corruption as a condition for ensuring national security

Kiseleva Elena ORCID: 0000-0002-4330-9775 PhD in Law Associate Professor, Southern Federal University 344000, Russia, Rostov-On-Don, B.sadovaya str., 105/42 elenarum27@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

In modern conditions, the problem of ensuring national security is becoming increasingly complex and multifaceted, as it affects a very wide range of aspects that have a direct impact on the formation and manifestation of threats against it and, accordingly, determine the direction of leveling these threats.

One of the serious threats undermining the stable and sustainable development of any State is corruption. That is why the problem of interdependence of effective anti-corruption and ensuring national security is in the focus of attention of many domestic researchers, among whom, in particular, we can mention S. R. Gosteva, O. V. Kazachenkova, V. V. Kolesnikov, Yu. V. Latov, M. G. Magomedov, S. V. Mazurin, Yu. A. Petryanina, I. A. Tereshchenko, A. G. Khabibulina and a number of other authors.

This phenomenon, which at first glance seems to be quite private, has a significant destructive force capable of destabilizing the political system of the state, the national economy, as well as shaking public foundations.

In this context, it seems advisable, first of all, to consider its essential content. It should be noted that for the first time among domestic researchers, the definition of the concept of "corruption" was proposed in 1913 by A. Ya. Estrin, in whose interpretation it represents the phenomenon of bribery and venality characteristic of officials and politicians ^[1].

Turning to modern legal thought, it is possible to identify the presence of two of the most common approaches to the disclosure of the substantive side of the concept under consideration.

Within the framework of the first of them, there is a definition of the essence of corruption in a rather narrow way, which implies its identification with such a concept as bribery ^[2]. Historically, such a point of view goes back to the understanding of corruption, characteristic of both Russian pre-revolutionary and Soviet legal thought. An example of such an approach is the very first interpretation of the Russian-speaking essence of corruption, given above. 

           However, with its undoubted clarity, an excessive simplification of the essence of corruption arises, which does not allow the proposed definitions to cover the entire spectrum of manifestations of this negative phenomenon. By focusing exclusively on bribery, its adherents overlook other forms of corruption, the range of which is constantly expanding.

In turn, the second approach is focused on a broader understanding of corruption as a set of acts, the main qualifying feature of which is abuse of official position for selfish purposes ^[3]. Unlike the first approach, this point of view emphasizes the diversity of forms of corruption, which quite naturally determined its prevalence in modern scientific research. At the same time, recognizing its undoubted advantage relative to the first position, it should be noted that to a certain extent it is characterized by a certain blurring of the boundaries of the concept of "corruption", which may make it difficult to clearly distinguish its manifestations from other forms of misconduct.

The presence of such a danger has determined, in particular, the position of domestic legislators in formulating a normative interpretation of the analyzed phenomenon. Considering the definition of corruption presented in Federal Law No. 273-FZ dated December 25, 2008 "On Combating Corruption", it can be noted that it is based on an approach that focuses on listing the acts that are its manifestation. At the same time, based on the totality of these acts indicated in the text of the law, it can be stated that they are committed by individuals, however, legal entities can also act as beneficiaries.

There are also attempts to synthesize the meaningful content of the interpretation of the category in question, inherent in the two approaches considered. In particular, A. I. Dolgova understands corruption as a social phenomenon consisting in the bribery (venality) of officials and the use of their official capabilities, powers and authority to satisfy personal, narrow-group or corporate interests ^[4]. In our opinion, it seems appropriate to define corruption as the use of official or official powers by a person endowed with them, as part of the implementation of his managerial, organizational and administrative administrative and economic functions in order to obtain material and/or non-material benefits.

Regarding the extent of the phenomenon in question in the Russian Federation, it should be noted that in 2022 over 35 thousand corruption-related crimes were registered ^[5]. Moreover, in just nine months of this year, the damage caused by corruption crimes exceeded 37 billion rubles ^[6]. At the same time, considering the dynamics of such crimes, it should be noted that their number in 2022 approximately corresponded to the level of the previous year, while in 2019-2021 it was in the range of 30.5-31 thousand. Thus, it is possible to state a certain leap of the analyzed concept into a higher zone of average annual values.

In this regard, assessing the degree of importance of corruption, it can be described with good reason as an economically based socio-legal phenomenon affecting the vital interests of not only individuals and organizations, but also the entire state as a whole. To a large extent, this is due to the fact that such qualitative features as consistency, integrity, multidimensionality and multilevelness are inherent in it. At the same time, the destructive nature of corruption finds its expression in causing damage to legally protected rights and interests.

In particular, many domestic researchers identify corruption as one of the most important threats to national security. Thus, V. S. Kuchmas, A. Ya. Belich and V. V. Merkulov see the manifestation of this threat in the fact that corruption undermines people's faith in justice, compliance with constitutional norms and respect for their rights, which are enshrined in national legislation ^[7]. According to V. V. Kolesnikov, V. N. Bykov and O. A. Borisov, the definition of corruption as one of the main threats to national security is determined by such key factors as, firstly, the very significant scale of the spread of this phenomenon and, secondly, a very tolerant attitude at the level of public consciousness towards corruption as objectively existing and the inevitable evil, that is, the definition of it as one of the stereotypes of social behavior ^[8]. In turn, Yu. V. Latov emphasizes that a high level of corruption can fuel public discontent, which can manifest itself, including in the form of protest actions ^[9].

That is why corruption has been identified as one of the key threats to national security in many countries of the world. Thus, the relevant government memorandum issued in June 2021 qualifies the fight against corruption as a key national security interest of the United States, since it can undermine public trust, impede effective governance, distort market signals and undermine ongoing efforts to ensure the country's development ^[10]. The UK National Security Strategy also defines the implementation of a set of measures to combat corruption as the most important direction of its provision, based on the fact that this phenomenon is determined by a fundamental threat to the security of the state. In particular, this was reflected in the adoption at the government level of the UK Anti-Corruption Strategy for the period from 2017 to 2022.

Thus, in many countries of the world, combating corruption as one of the key threats to national security is recognized as a state task of strategic importance. The Russian Federation is no exception to a wide range of similar countries.

In particular, such a fundamental act as the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, adopted in 2021, pays quite significant attention to this issue. This is evidenced by the fact that the term "corruption" itself is used six times in the text of this policy document, in particular. in the context of its classification as a threat to national security, which refers to such factors and conditions that form a direct or indirect possibility of harming national interests.

At the same time, the eradication of this phenomenon is designated among the strategic priorities of ensuring national security, and the use of the term "eradication" in this context in relation to corruption allows us to state the orientation of the state to achieve as the ultimate goal of the process of combating this phenomenon such a state of the public sphere, which is characterized by its complete absence.

Also, anti-corruption is attributed to the areas of international cooperation of the Russian Federation focused on ensuring strategic stability, along with the fight against such phenomena as terrorism, extremism, cross-border crime and drug trafficking.

The directions of their practical implementation formed in the National Security Strategy were found in the National Anti-Corruption Plan for 2021-2024, which was published almost immediately after its adoption, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation on August 16, 2021, for the first time covers such a long period of time, since previous plans were adopted for a period of one or two years.

The plan contains a list of measures aimed at preventing corruption, countering corruption manifestations, as well as leveling their consequences in the context of the 16 most important areas, within each of which a set of priority measures that must be implemented is given.

The main directions of their implementation cover such areas as improving the system of restrictive anti-corruption measures existing within certain areas of activity, countering the manifestation of conflicts of interest, increasing the reliability of data on financial and property status, tightening responsibility for non-compliance with anti-corruption standards, ensuring the effectiveness of anti-corruption expertise procedures, countering corruption manifestations in the procurement of products for the needs of the state, increased use of information technology in anti - corruption activities , etc .

The plan includes provisions concerning Russia's participation in various international anti-corruption organizations and the fulfillment of obligations assumed by the country in accordance with international agreements. The plan also aims to systematize and update anti-corruption legislation, eliminate gaps and contradictions, as well as ineffective and outdated norms. Important attention is paid to the implementation of anti-corruption measures at the regional level.

The Plan emphasizes the importance of informing citizens about anti-corruption measures and increasing the transparency of government agencies, as well as the implementation of anti-corruption education measures.

At the same time, one of its sections is directly focused on enhancing the involvement of citizens of the Russian Federation and civil society institutions in the implementation of the state's anti-corruption policy. This is to a large extent the paradigm of ensuring anti-corruption as a phenomenon that, on the one hand, poses a threat to the interests of the state, and on the other, undermines the foundations of public order and tranquility, which, in turn, is an equally dangerous manifestation of its spread from the point of view of ensuring national security.,

In the text of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, corruption is designated as a threat not only to national but also to public security, which, in our opinion, seems to be a fundamentally significant fact. Speaking about the essential content of this concept, it is necessary to refer to its interpretation contained in the Concept of Public Security in the Russian Federation adopted in 2013, which defines this form of security as a state of protection of a person and a citizen, material and spiritual values of society from unlawful encroachments, social and interethnic conflicts, emergency situations.

Thus. While in the context of ensuring national security, manifestations of corruption pose a rather serious threat to economic and political stability, from the point of view of maintaining public security, the main threats are manifested in relation to the values of citizens and behavioral practices manifested in the system of public relations.

Such a dualistic nature of corruption threats makes it possible to state that their elimination, including with regard to ensuring national security, seems impossible without the active involvement of the public and its associations in the system of implementing anti-corruption measures.

In this context, it should be pointed out the importance of more intensive development of such a form of anti-corruption as public anti-corruption control. Speaking about the essence of this activity, several definitions can be given that reflect its essential content. So. According to M. V. Shediy, it is a form of accountability of authorities and their officials to citizens, allowing the latter to receive the necessary information about the activities of these bodies and persons and impose appropriate sanctions if the information provided or explanations are found unsatisfactory ^[11]. In turn, from the point of view of V. N. Ageev and his co-authors, such control is a form of interaction between authorities and society, allowing citizens to participate in a public audit of the activities of these bodies and identify inherent corruption risks ^[12].

           Analyzing these positions, it should be noted that the focus of these authors is on various aspects of the role that public control should play in the process of countering corruption. If the first definition focuses on the accountability of authorities to civil society, then the second one focuses on the interaction of these parties. At the same time, the question arises about the forms and methods of imposing sanctions by the company on officials who have not provided information about their activities that satisfies the company. On the other hand, in the second definition there is no indication of what consequences the participation of citizens entails in assessing the degree of corruption in the activities of authorities and management.

        In our opinion, public anti-corruption control can be defined as a dualistic mechanism of interaction between authorities and public institutions, involving, on the one hand, the implementation of joint activities aimed at countering the manifestations of corruption, and on the other, having various forms of its manifestation, accountability of the first of these interacting parties to the second.

      The Institute of Public Control in modern Russia began to take shape in the early 2000s. In 2005, the Federal Law "On the Public Chamber in the Russian Federation" was adopted, which gave such chambers at the federal and regional levels appropriate powers in the field of public control procedures. The Federal Law "On the Foundations of Public Control in the Russian Federation", adopted in 2014, has become the defining legal act in the field of regulation of a wide range of aspects related to this activity. In particular, among the forms of public control, he defines monitoring, expertise, verification, hearings and discussion, however, leaving this list open.

The Law also defines public chambers, public councils, supervisory commissions, inspections and public control groups as subjects of activities related to its implementation. They have the right to request the necessary information from controlled structures, visit them, prepare final documents based on the results of control measures and send them to the relevant authorities. At the same time, the final conclusions and suggestions made based on the results of control measures are of a recommendatory nature.

At the same time, the achievement of the necessary level of effectiveness of public anti-corruption control procedures is hindered by insufficient legal regulation of many important aspects of its implementation, rather limited powers of its subjects and the lack of necessary formalization of their interaction with state and law enforcement agencies ^[13].

In the process of eliminating these problematic issues, an analysis of foreign experience in regulating public anti-corruption control, including that accumulated by our closest neighbors, can play a very positive role. Thus, in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Combating Corruption", adopted in 2015, public associations are entitled to take direct part in the development of anti-corruption legal acts and conducting public expertise of these projects, the activities of anti-corruption commissions established under state structures and meetings of the relevant collegiums of these structures with the right of advisory vote. In addition, the Council for Public Control in the Field of Combating Corruption functions directly under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus, whose activities are regulated by the relevant Regulation.

In our opinion, the implementation of activities in the field of public anti-corruption control should inherently imply the possession by the persons carrying it out of a set of relevant knowledge and skills that can be defined as anti-corruption competencies. Mastering them to the degree necessary for the implementation of anti-corruption control functions can be ensured as part of the implementation of anti-corruption training procedures.

The implementation of an anti-corruption training mechanism based on the implementation of a competence-based approach is focused on the formation of a set of knowledge, skills and personal characteristics among those undergoing training that allow them to understand the essence of manifestations of corruption, recognize them and have the ability to resist these manifestations. The anti-corruption competencies being formed must be adequate both to the needs of the individual in terms of the realization of his value orientations, and to the interests of the state, which consist in preventing corruption manifestations.

In this context, based on the focus of the activities of persons who should have similar competencies, they can be divided into the following two groups:

1. Basic competencies, which involve the possession of key knowledge and skills that allow for the formation of an anti-corruption worldview and its implementation in one's life.

2. Professional competencies that allow you to successfully perform functions that are directly related to countering corruption, including within the framework of implementing public anti-corruption control procedures.

              Moreover, speaking about the peculiarities of the formation of anti-corruption competencies, it is important to note that, while the first group of them (basic competencies) begins to form already in the process of anti-corruption education, the successful acquisition of professional competencies is possible only within the framework of anti-corruption training procedures.

Thus, a significant reduction, and in a favorable case, the elimination of threats caused by corruption in relation to national security, should involve the use of the potential possessed by the involvement of public structures and directly citizens of the state in this process. Only their active participation in anti-corruption activities, based on their worldview, on the one hand, and possession of an appropriate set of competencies, on the other hand, is able to ensure the implementation of the most important targets defined in strategic documents adopted by state bodies and aimed at ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation.