Author: Allison Pirog
Albania has looked to the international community for ways to root out judicial corruption, but experts say their solutions often lack local input and long-term thinking, thus missing elements that can lead to failure.
For example, proponents of reform in Albania, advised by the US and the EU, based the country's Special Anti-Corruption Courts – which are investigating corruption in the judiciary and elsewhere – in Romanian and Croatian agencies. But Andi Hoxhaj, a researcher at Warwick Law School in the United Kingdom who researches anti-corruption efforts, said they are imperfect models because of the two countries' unique socioeconomic conditions. What works in one country may fail in another, he said.
Romania was chosen as a model because it also had a history of communism, said Hoxhaj. However, Romania transitioned to democracy after a popular revolt, while it was the communist elite that forced a regime change in Albania, he added.
"So this is a big difference, which means that the public reaction [to the reforms] may be different in these countries," said Hoxhaj.
If the international community is involved, Hoxhaj said they should work more with locals, including grassroots organizations on the ground, to plan reforms.
"You read a lot of reports written by experts abroad, but they don't engage much with the locals," said Hoxhaj. "Sometimes you just hear what the international community wants to hear."
Another expert on the subject, Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, a professor of democracy studies at the Hertie School in Berlin, agrees with this assessment.
She suggests examining why Georgia's former president is a success story for good governance. Mungiu-Pippidi says he ignored the advice of foreign donors but took their money. Estonia, which established successful anti-corruption programs, also had "absolute sovereignty" over these reforms, she said.
"People have to reform their countries," said Mungiu-Pippidi, reflecting on what happened in Albania. "They [the international community] should not reform other people's countries, because this creates a discouraging effect for the latter, who should ultimately be the reformers of their own country, but who expect solutions to come from Brussels (by referred to the EU).”
The American government has advised Albania on reforms in the last 30 years. When the latter was asked to respond to critics who say that Albanians should be the sole initiators of reforming their judiciary, the US Embassy, through the Office of Public Relations in Albania, responded in an email that the amendments [for justice reform] in the Albanian Constitution ensure an advisory role for international partners in reform efforts.
"From the beginning, it was clear that opponents of reform would create obstacles in an effort to maintain their ability to manipulate the justice system," the office wrote.
Americans from the Office of Foreign Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT), which sends US prosecutors to embassies as advisers, helped draft legislation and constitutional amendments to reduce corruption in Albania, the office wrote. OPDAT advises on ways to implement plea agreements, cooperation agreements, a wider scope to seize assets and victims' rights, they added.
"OPDAT continues to help Albania in the implementation of these critical changes in the system, with seminars and assistance in the drafting of by-laws, regulations and instructions necessary for the functioning of Albanian justice institutions", writes the Embassy office.
But good governance programs only work if a country reaches a "critical mass" of people who want reforms, not when foreign advisers create programs like they have in Albania, Mungiu-Pippidi said. None of the eight cases of EU-funded good governance programs that Mungiu-Pippidi studied were effective, she added. She is worried that Albania will have the same fate.
Mungiu-Pippidi is not alone in her view that reform must come from within a country and not be imposed from outside. A report of the Council of Europe in March 2020 found that Albania was not using its "internal problem-solving capacity" to full capacity to tackle corruption, and was instead seeking international assistance after years of international involvement.
The report recommended the EU train Albanian officials to implement sustainable approaches that use Albania's domestic resources.
But the USA continues to invest millions in Albania. The State Department and the Agency for International Development spent $4.89 million on democracy, human rights and good governance in Albania in 2020, according to a data sheet of the State Department. The embassy in Tirana works with a "broad spectrum" of the public, including students, politicians, NGOs, state institutions, the media and the military, writes the Office of Public Relations.
NGOs can apply for grants from the US Embassy. Applicants submit a proposal and priority is given to projects that "combat the culture of corruption" and "promote the role of civil society in advancing democratic processes," among other objectives, according to the Embassy's website.
But Hoxhaj sees two problems in this process and the way reforms are often implemented in Albania, from abroad. He says that donor countries that fund anti-corruption efforts in Albania, mainly the US and the EU, tend to work with a small group of NGOs that have a financial incentive to avoid major improvements. If corruption is reduced, these organizations are likely to lose their funding.
Another problem, Hoxhaj said, is that donor money is sometimes spent on good governance programs that teach ethics, despite the fact that corrupt officials already know the difference between right and wrong.
Albania's government must focus on eradicating income inequality and improving education, the main causes of corruption, if it wants to make progress in the long term, Hoxhaj said, citing social policy advances in Denmark, Sweden and Estonia that have led in less corruption.
"Another problem that leads to the failure of well-intentioned reforms, said Alban Dafa, researcher of governance and security at the Institute for Democracy and Mediation in Tirana, is the delay in setting up the vetting institutions themselves, a process which took much longer than the eight months originally determined".
Some EU officials have blamed the opposition for slowing down the vetting process by filing a constitutional appeal against the process, but Dafa said the opposition was simply exercising its constitutional rights.
Due to the current chaos in Albania's judicial system directly related to the reforms, public disillusionment with the EU and US reforms is growing and will damage the reputation of donors, Dafa said.
"Unfortunately, this [disappointment] has not caused reflection in policymaking," Dafa said. "They are determined enough to stay the course."
As for judicial corruption in particular, another expert suggests that there may be a way to reduce it in Albania and elsewhere, simply by geographically separating justice system buildings from other government offices.
Juan Wang, an associate professor of political science at McGill University, said judicial corruption is more likely to occur when there are close relationships between judges and other members of the government, often referred to as "institutional closeness."
“You can imagine [institutional proximity] as a vehicle,” Wang said. "It is a means of transport where corruption can enter it."
She added that the more frequent and informal interactions between judges and other officials become, the more institutional proximity becomes a tool for corruption, especially in criminal cases where police regions are located close to the court.
Wang said reducing the frequency of interactions between judges and officials by keeping court buildings separate from other government offices could help solve the problem.
As for Albania, Mungiu-Pippidi said it will take more time to determine whether the reforms will make a difference, but she is not optimistic they will be successful.
"It's too early to judge," Mungiu-Pippidi said. "Sure, I hope it works."
