Contains information selected according to the below mentioned criteria that RECEIVED ASSESSMENT by Delna and is indicated on the left side of the profile. The criteria are as follows:
1. CORRUPTION AND OTHER CRIMINAL OFFENCES. According to our understanding, corruption is the abuse of the delegated authority in order to gain private benefit. It is bribery and any other action of those individuals, who have received authority in the public or private sector and who are exceeding their authority that derive from the duties as state officials, privately employed persons, independent entrepreneurs or other relations of similar status, and that are aimed at acquisition of undeserved advantages towards oneself or others.
Corruption and types of corruptive actions are, for instance:
Also other information regarding Criminal Law has been summarised for the purpose of this criteria, as Delna believes that every crime committed, inflicted or tried according to any section of the Criminal Law has to be regarded as a serious threat to the reputation of the candidate and suitability to the office, and compared to corruptive actions. Regardless, if the sentence has been served and limitation period of the criminal liability has or has not become applicable, power attained by a politician, who has such history, can seriously lower the trust of the electorate in the politics in general and in the integrity of politicians.
The selected information has been separately assessed according to the status of the crime:
2. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. According to the understanding of the creators of this data base and to the law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials”, the conflict of interest is a situation where in performing the duties of office of the public official, the public official must take a decision or participate in taking of a decision or perform other activities related to the office of the public official which affect or may affect the personal or financial interests of this public official, his or her relatives or counterparties.
The selected information has been separately assessed according to the status of the violation:
3. POOR GOVERNANCE. Since good governance plays an important role in the fight against corruption as it can be the consequence of poor governance, and observing the principles of good governance goes hand-in-hand with the decline of the corruption level, poor governance has been included as one of the assessment criteria of the candidates.
We believe that poor governance is the opposite of the good governance. According to the recommendations of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, hallmarks of the good governance in the public sector is: rule of law, equality, impartiality, proportionality, legal certainty, taking action within a reasonable time limit, participation, respect of privacy (data protection) and transparency.
In the data base following situations have been classified as cases of poor governance:
In the evaluation of the above mentioned violations, Delna considered, whether controlling authorities have established any of the violations, as well as if they have fined, expressed reprimand or informed the candidate about violations in any other way:
4. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. The society has the right to require public officials and other individuals that tend to gain power to act ethically, set an example and demonstrate high standards of ethics in performing the duties of the office.
The values and actions that were considered reference-points when selecting information for the data base are: integrity (being honest), fairness (being fair), responsibility (acting responsibly), respect (to be respectful), independence (maintaining independence), and nonconformity (not conform to the influence).
The cases noted below and other situations were treated as unethical conduct:
|Assessment||Description||Nature of the violation|
|Dangerous||Information about the candidate indicates systematic involvement in unethical conduct, practice of poor government or conflicts of interest, but most significantly – in corruptive deals and other criminal offences, seriously violating the interests of the society and the state.||Corruption and other criminal offences considered to be criminal acts, including poor governance, unethical conduct, and conflicts of interests.|
|High risk||Information about the candidate indicates several or repeated violations, mainly in the form of conflict of interest, corruption or other criminal offences, or doubtful activity with potential consequences of systematic nature that are contrary to the public interests.||Corruption and other criminal offences that can also include conflicts of interest, poor governance and unethical conduct.|
|Medium risk||Information about the candidate indicates repeated violations, as well as doubtful activity, mainly regarding conflict of interest, poor governance and unethical conduct, thus creating concerns about suitability for the position of a parliamentarian.||Conflicts of interest, poor governance and unethical conduct.|
|Low risk||Information about the candidate indicates violations mainly in the field of ethics and good governance; it does not have systematic nature and broader influence.||Poor governance and unethical conduct.|
|Worth to consider||Information available indicates only the potential violations of ethical conduct, as well as other risks to the reputation of the candidate, but per se it does not establish grounds to question the suitability of the candidate.||Unethical conduct and other cases that influence the reputation of the candidate.|
|No infomation||No information about the candidate regarding the criteria of data base can be found.|
SEVEN FACTORS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN ASSESING CANDIDATES:
|No||Factor||Type of criteria|
|1||Type of violations||
|2||Harm to the state and the society||
|3||Influence on the society||
|4||Frequency of the occurrence||
|5||Status of the candidate||
|6||The involvement of the candidate||
|7||Time of the occurrence||
* In separate cases the mass media as a trustworthy and objective source has been assessed when describing a case as well as the way the case has been reflected in mass media – for instance, if it has been mentioned only in one or several sources; also the whole information has been considered, namely, the information on the candidates’ profiles was assessed in the context of the information specified on the other profiles.
Assessment of Delna WAS NOT APPLIED to the candidates for the following informative criteria:
1. PARTY SWITSHING. The candidate has switched political parties for several times. Why is it important? Frequent party switching weakens party system and implementation of the pre-election promises, and does not indicate maturity of political culture of parties and candidates.
2. OTHER EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES that are not related to the ethical conduct of the candidate, but affect reputation and perception of electorate.
3. HATE SPEECH. There is no definition of the concept „hate speech” in the international human rights documents, therefore creators of the data base used the definition of the European Council, which is also used as a reference by the European Court of Human Rights.
The following aspects were assessed during selection: if the candidate has publicly expressed intolerant opinion or instigated hateful action against particular groups of the society, for example, racial discrimination, xenophobia, antisemitism or other forms of hate based on intolerance arising from aggressive nationalism, ethnocentrism, discrimination and hate towards minorities, migrants and people with foreign origin. Why is it important? “Hate speech” illustrates the attitude of the candidate regarding socially, ethnically and historically sensitive issues.
Attention is paid to the following:
4. FINANCES OF THE CANDIDATES. Information about finances of the candidates were included in the data base, if it was publicly available:
In case a candidate has previously been elected to the Saeima and/or European Parliament, following information is available:
Our work was performed with professional accuracy and was based on the information obtained from the mass media, online media, and public data bases. Please do inform us immediately in case there is a reason to believe that we are not up-to-date about all the circumstances, so we can assess additional information and correct this Assessment accordingly.
Without carrying out additional independent verification, we assume that all information and data obtained are accurate and corresponding information channel takes full responsibility thereof. Delna shall not be responsible and shall not provide any guarantees regarding accuracy of such information.
Effective legal acts of the Republic of Latvia and interpretation of those acts are taken into account when preparing this Assessment.
Interpretation of the legal acts by third parties, public sector institutions, and courts may differ from the interpretation of Delna in particular cases. Delna does not take responsibility for the modifications in this Assessment in case changes are required due to amendments to legal acts.
Opinion expressed in this assessment is not binding to the third parties, courts or other public sector institutions, and it shall not be deemed as a description of actual conditions, and/or as a guarantee that third parties, courts or other public sector institutions will agree to the opinion expressed by Delna. Delna does not take any responsibility regarding this Assessment, if it is used by the third parties or if the third parties rely on it.
Assessment provided shall be used only for the informative purposes.
Last changes 05.05.2014