|
In his speech at the 3rd All-Belarusian People's Congress, the Belarusian President announced, “A new stage of short-term development of state machinery is to be conducted under the slogan 'The State for the People’. Its primary objective is to cut red tape. Accordingly, we should employ methods to simplify procedures for dealing with a variety of issues, speed up the decision-making process, bring the authorities closer to the people and make their functioning more transparent and easier to understand. We’ve already started on this path.”
To all appearances, cutting red tape envisages greater public accessibility to the authorities, less scope for official discretion and more extensive liability for civil servants who cause damage via illegal action. However, one of the most important elements of this process, in the context of private business, is the removal of excessive administrative barriers - regarded by entrepreneurs as one of the greatest disincentives to private
12/02/2007
The process gets moving ...
It should be noted that the process of eliminating red tape for individual citizens is now taking place. It is primarily driven by the following presidential decrees:
1. Presidential Decree N432, On Certain Measures to Streamline Interaction between State Agencies and Individual Citizens, dated 13th September 2005, states that laws and edicts issued by the President and the Council of Ministers shall lay down the procedure for interaction between state agencies and other bodies and individual citizens (hereinafter referred to as the procedure for interacting with individual citizens). This mandates the following:
• Procedures for considering written applications or/and properly logged oral statements made by individual citizens to secure certificates or other documents confirming facts of legal importance (hereinafter referred to as certificates);
• Exhaustive lists of documents and /or information which individual citizens should submit to state agencies or other bodies (hereinafter referred to as a state agency) to obtain certificates (hereinafter referred to as lists), unless the President of Belarus and the Cabinet of Ministers provide otherwise;
• Processing periods and validity of certificates; and
• Fees charged for issuing certificates.
2. Presidential Decree N58, On Certain Issues Relating to the Repossession and Allocation of Land Plots, dated 28th January 2006, renders these procedures less complex and envisages the introduction of a one-stop shop principle in relation to land plot allocation.
3. Presidential Decree N72, On State Regulation of Relations Arising out of the Location of Housing Construction Projects, Engineering Networks and Transportation and Social Infrastructure, simplifies procedures for allocating state-owned land to investors, leasing plots to developers or transferring titles for plots to investors involved in housing construction, either permanently or temporarily.
4. Presidential Decree N152, On the Adoption of the List of Administrative Procedures Performed by State Agencies and Other Bodies in Fulfilling Applications for Certificates and Other Documents Lodged by Individual Citizens, dated 16th March 2006.
A number of edicts have been adopted by the Government and other ministries to streamline procedures regulating interaction between state agencies and individual citizens, cut processing times and toughen civil servants’ liability for complying with established rules.
A clear-cut strategy, rather then stop-gap measures, is required
At the same time, it seems that some state agencies and civil servants regard de-bureaucratisation as yet another campaign and treat it as a formality. The de-bureaucratisation drive often focuses on improving questionable procedures, rather than analysing whether they are now redundant. Almost nothing is being done to abolish unjustified procedures - whose origins can, at times, be traced back to our ‘socialist’ past. Paradoxically, the aforementioned Presidential Decree N152, dated 16th March 2006, exemplifies this trend. On the one hand, it does contain a systematised list of administrative procedures, yet, its 200 pages are unwieldy: the list runs to 414 administrative procedures and between 3 and 9 documents must be submitted for an average procedure.
The need to reduce red tape in the regulation of private business is even more acute and the Cabinet seems to be aware of this. It should be noted that the Plan of Joint Action by the Government and the National Bank, adopted on 13th January 2006, envisions ‘the analysis of legal relations arising out of issue of permits (assessments and approvals) required for the establishment and pursuit of business activities by entrepreneurial entities and the development of an action plan to streamline and simplify regulations governing issuance procedures’ (Item 10.7 of the Plan). There remains a great deal to be done: IFC surveys show that a complete list of permits has yet to be compiled. As streamlining seems some way off, this invites guarded optimism. A similar objective was set out in the Council of Ministers' Edict N1685, dated 24th December 2003, On Measures to Stimulate Private Business Development; it remains unfulfilled.
It should be noted, in all fairness, that some steps have been taken to reduce the red tape regulating business. These include cutting the number of licensed lines of business and creating clearer regulations regarding license-issuing procedures (by the Government rather then state agencies). In addition, Presidential Decree N151, dated 15th March 2006, modifies control procedures and Presidential Decree N6, dated 10th April 2006, simplifies business registration procedures.
However, efforts to reduce red tape regulating private business can hardly be described as systemic or all-encompassing, relying as they do on short term solutions rather then a well-considered, comprehensive strategy. Half-hearted measures compromise efficiency; business registration can be taken as an example. Presidential Decree N6, dated 10th April 2006, is the ninth legal act amending Decree N11, of 16th March 1999 - a keynote legal act in this area - over the last seven years. This does not promote legal stability and forces entrepreneurs and civil servants alike to adjust to new conditions - entailing certain costs. A gradual approach may be more welcome in some cases eg in reducing the tax burden, but is hardly called for in business registration. Specifically, recent modifications in business registration have failed to address the following key problems (noted by independent experts and those drafting presidential decrees):
• The silence-is-consent principle is yet to be introduced.
• A single business registration authority has not yet been created.
• The list of documents required for registration has not been reduced.
• State agencies can still request additional information; and
• The list of reasons for declining registration has not yet been reduced. Many of those remaining are illegal, leaving a great to the discretion of civil servants.
It is not enough to declare de-bureaucratisation and make attempts to modify procedures. The mindset of those charged with mapping out reform needs to be altered. State efforts to impose blanket control need to be abolished and, more importantly, over zealous administrative interference in private matters should be curtailed. Entrepreneurial activities are particularly affected: in accordance with Article 1 of the Civil Code, this includes all independent activity pursued by legal entities and individual citizens under civil law, on their own behalf, at their own peril. Mutual trust between the state and entrepreneurs is vital alongside the introduction of the ‘presumption of innocence’ principle. At present, the state seems to treat entrepreneurs as potential violators of the law rather then respected individuals who are one of the pillars of a democratic, lawful and socially-minded state. Unless these core principles form the basis of change, attempts at cutting red tape will be nothing but another populist drive.
V. Fadeev
|
Expert Opinions 