Cooling-off periods could curb perceived corruption, Allas argues

Cooling-off periods for top public officials could address the problem of perceived corruption and increase public trust in state institutions, Johannes-Emmanuel Allas, a master’s student in public-sector management and innovation at Tallinn University of Technology and a member of the Centre Party, writes in an opinion article published by ERR.

Corruption is understood differently by different people. It can mean accepting a bribe, but it can also include giving a doctor a large fruit basket as a gift for pleasant communication. Although the law provides a framework for assessing such conduct, it is not always possible to determine with certainty whether a particular situation is corrupt.

One disputed area is the so-called revolving-door effect, in which senior officials move from the public sector to the private sector in the same field while bringing important inside information with them.

The government recently said that Estonia does not have such a problem. However, two years ago, Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur of the Reform Party said that a cooling-off period should be introduced for senior officials leaving office. Allas argues that now is the right time to hold a public debate on the issue.

Whether the revolving-door effect constitutes corruption depends on the perspective. The state describes it as a conflict of interest that may, but does not necessarily, lead to corruption. From a citizen’s perspective, however, the effect may still appear corrupt.

Allas said the issue is not merely theoretical and has recently become increasingly common among senior officials. For example, former Deputy Secretary General of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Timo Tatar moved to a job in the same sector immediately after leaving office. The same applies to former senior defence officials who have moved into private-sector defence jobs.

The Kapo annual report has stressed that a cooling-off period would be needed to contain the revolving-door effect and ensure fairness and equality.

According to Allas, the problem exists but the available solutions are inadequate. Good practices are in place, including guidance for officials on dealing with lobbyists, but good practices alone are not enough. Values need to be supported by effective mechanisms, he writes.

With elections to Estonia’s Riigikogu, or parliament, approaching, political parties are preparing their platforms and pledges. Because not every potentially corrupt situation can be defined unambiguously, Allas says this is the right time for a public debate about what corruption means to society.

Regulations designed to prevent future cases of perceived corruption should be consistent with society’s moral standards, he writes. A cooling-off period for top officials is one potentially necessary measure, but the debate should not end there. Such a period could address perceived corruption and strengthen public trust in state institutions.