LOBBYING LANDSCAPE IN CYPRUS

Lobbying in Cyprus remains unregulated and shrouded in secrecy; there is no legislation or regulation. Due to the lack of any lobbying regulation, there is no specific obligation to register lobbyists or publicly disclose the interaction between public officials and lobbyists. There is also no self-regulation of lobbyists activities and Cyprus has no professional association of lobbyists.

Due to the fact that lobbyists are not legally required to register their attempts to influence laws, policies and public decisions, the scale and intensity of lobbying activities along with the estimates of total expenditure, cannot be measured. Although on paper lobbying does not exist, lobbying practices are simply happening in the shadows. It is a widespread belief that practices pertaining to lobbying activities are rife and very much prevalent within the political scene. Due to the fact that lobbying occurs on the side-lines of the democratic process, it maximizes the risk of altering policy to the benefit of narrow interests at the expense of the wider public. In addition to that, when deals between lobbyists and public officials are made behind closed doors, a sense of distrust is generated among the voters and there is no participative democracy.

Given the lack of monitoring mechanisms and because no professional lobbyists exist in it is difficult to determine  who is actually practicing lobbying. However, it is evident that there are a lot of individuals in Cyprus who are lobbying in an unofficial manner as a means of gaining access to public officials and luring influential people participating in decision making processes by various means so that they will defend specific interests.

Although the society in Cyprus is aware that pressure groups representing specific interests are able to influence the decisions of public authorities, the practice as such is not identified as ‘lobbying’.

Lobbying, and consequently, the practice of lobbying in Cyprus is perceived mainly in negative terms with considerable suspicion and mistrust, as the term has been linked with favouritism, nepotism, corruption, manipulation and bribery. Because lobbyists are perceived as the bad guys, both the term lobbying, and the practice as such, have been assigned with negative connotations.

Currently in Cyprus the public does not have sufficient knowledge in reference to the lobbying of public representatives, what issues are being lobbied, when and how they are being lobbied, how much is being spent in the process and what is the result of the lobbying efforts.

Recommendations (TI)

 In a country where corruption and nepotism thrives, transparency is not guaranteed as citizens have no access to information. It seems that what is problematic in Cyprus is the fact that legislation to safeguard lobbying activities is scattered across different sections of various legislation instead of having a unified legislation. Although Cyprus has in place some legislation and good practices, which are closely related to safeguarding lobbying activities from corrupt practices, there is currently no consolidated legislation for lobbying.

1. Lobbyists and the practice of lobbying ought to be formally defined in Cypriot legislation. There appears to be guidelines set out by the Ministry of Finance in drafting legislation and there are good practices followed by the Parliament. However, there is no ‘consolidated’ legislation on the procedures to be followed. This would not only raise awareness for the practice of lobbying in Cyprus, but it would also enable citizens to distinguish lobbying practices from corrupt incidents. Due to the fact that lobbying is not addressed in Cypriot law, the practice is largely unregulated, leading Cypriots to associate the practice of lobbying and lobbyists with negative connotations, and raising the risk of corruption. Therefore, by providing solid definitions and equivalent Greek words for the terms ‘lobbying’ and ‘lobbyists’, citizens would start to acknowledge that lobbying can also be a positive force within the decision-making process of a modern democratic state;
2. The Political Parties funding legislation ought to be amended and take into consideration GRECO’s suggestions in order to foster transparency on party financing. By amending the legislation, donations and sponsorships to the parties would be monitored and be publicly disclosed, limiting thus the opportunities of the rich and powerful to bribe politicians and decision-makers. At the same time, it would force political parties to publicly disclose their annual audited consolidated accounts and, more importantly, disclose where the funding received from the public budget has been spent.
3. For the sake of greater transparency and in order to provide citizens with greater access to information, while also enabling citizens to keep track of the influence of external advice on new policies, legislation and amendments, the Cypriot government should take action by making mandatory a ‘Legislative Footprint’ as an annex to all legislative records. The format of the ‘Legislative Footprint’ will detail with whom key parliamentary actors met, received, and heard from while drafting legislative texts. This way, citizens will have sufficient information about whom their representatives are meeting with in the process of drafting legislation, improving electorate accountability. Whilst this information is now available on the Parliament’s website, it is not user friendly to those interested in accessing it.
4. Citizens not only have the right to demand accountability of public funds, but they also need to be reassured that decision-makers and officials are not bribed by powerful pressure groups or individuals. In order to promote transparency and accountability elected and appointed officials should publicly declare their assets. Asset declaration should be made mandatory through legislation in an effort to prevent illegal gains made through undue influence. Such legislation would be a preventive factor against unethical behavior and a valuable deterrent in detecting abuse of power and corruption.
5. In order to maintain public integrity and trust in government, revolving door regulation aiming to prevent real or perceived conflicts of interests should be streamlined with lobbying regulation. Regulation should be well-defined, with a prescribed two-year coolingoff period for all public and high-ranking officials as a means of ensuring that public sector employees cannot work for the private sector, where they can unfairly use their previous insider position, action or decisions to influence their former government colleagues and/or benefit their new employer. Conflicts of interest rules should be introduced in order to assist in identifying and managing conflicts of interests to ensure that the decisions of appointed and elected officials are not biased or affected by any self-interest. By avoiding situations that could potentially create real and/or apparent conflict of interests for officials, citizens would be reassured that lobbying is conducted in the highest ethical manner. Similarly, in enforcing the legislation on the revolving door, an annual report should be made publically available. The annual report can disclose the number of cases the investigative committee reviewed and the overall outcome without necessarily publishing personal information.
6. In addition to proposing the introduction of a robust transparency register to be held at the Parliament and to be made publicly available at the Parliament’s website, it is also strongly recommended that the lobbied ought to publish their ‘Lobbied Register’. Through such a register, public officials could provide information about who is trying to influence them and what they were lobbied for. The responsibility to disclose such information lies with those being lobbied. Thus, MPs, decision-makers and other high-ranking governmental officials should be held accountable to provide meaningful information regarding who is trying to influence them, why and with what means. A ‘Lobbied Register’ would enable MPs, decision-makers and other high-ranking governmental officials to provide transparency to the public in a structured manner, and showcase their integrity pertaining to and if and how they were influenced by pressure groups. Such a register would not only enable the public to scrutinize influence on particular policy decisions, but it would also promote trust in the integrity of decision-making processes and reduce the risk of corruption. This, in turn, would ensure that the contact between lobbyists/pressure groups and MPs/decision-makers/other high-ranking governmental officials is conducted in an ethical, transparent and accountable manner, fostering thus integrity within the decision making process. In addition, it would improve electorate accountability and the image of politicians in the country. Given the fact that the costs associated with operating such a register are not significant, the cost of development of the register could be financed by the public purse.
7. In an effort to guarantee integrity within the decision making process, a robust Code of Conduct and Ethics for Public Officials, which will specifically address lobbying, should be introduced for all elected and appointed officials (e.g. Ministers, Commissioners, President of the Republic etc.) to ensure that lobbying activities adhere to the principles of transparency, ethics and accountability. Furthermore, there ought to be an ethics/disciplinary committee to ensure the enforcement of the Code of Conduct and Ethics for Public Officials.
8. In order to ensure equality of access and allow for diverse participation in the decision-making process, the legal framework for Consultation and Public Participation in decision making must be updated. A ‘Stakeholders Register’ for all those wishing to be invited by Parliamentary Committees to discuss bills or amendments to legislation ought to be made publicly available. Through the creation of this register, which could potentially be set up online thus making it easier to access, interested stakeholders would be able to register to receive invitations for the meetings of the Parliamentary Committee that they are interested in and have the right to be included in the discussion of the legislative process. In addition, by enacting legislation to make it a legal obligation for advisory groups and think-tanks to participate in decision-making processes, Cyprus would be able to effectively integrate modern scientific knowledge within political decision-making; something that would benefit Cypriot citizens. In view of the risks of lobbying, which often lead to the undue and unfair influence for vested interests over decision-making processes, it is rather crucial to safeguard the public interest through stricter regulation of lobbying activities.

]