In recent years, the judiciary has profoundly reformed the legislation on preventing and combating corruption. This is aimed at countering the expansion and transformation that affected the phenomenon and to comply with the obligations assumed at international level. At the same time, efforts are being made to spread a culture of legality, which has now become aware of the partiality of legal instruments in combating corruption.
The evolution of the anti corruption policy and legislation arises in the wake of the acknowledgment that corruption has become system over time and has changed from a predominantly bureaucratic-administrative dimension, in which the public service market becomes concrete in identifiable acts.
The pact between the corrupt and corruptor is not characterized only by a greater diffusion, but, through the creation of a stable and undetermined network of relationships. This stands as an almost structural component of the functioning of the Public Administration (PA). This new phenomenology fueled by the crisis of capitalist economies, in which the same techniques are not unrelated to interventions in the market and the competition between companies is consumed in the almost obsessive search for relationships with power is even more harmful.
It affects, in addition to traditional goods such as good performance and the impartiality of the administration, even the public economy – latently understood.
The criminological metamorphosis of corruption, together with the urgency to comply with the commitments undertaken in the inter-supranational led the legislator to favor a decidedly prevention-oriented approach. With the typical tools of administrative law, rather than entrusting anticorruption strategies exclusively or mainly to the penal-repressive apparatus, reputed not sufficiently effective.
In this context, the reasons that led the new anti corruption policy and legislation to expand the conceptual definition of corruption – previously reserved for the criminal dimension of the bargaining of the public function between a subject belonging to the administration (intraneus) and a public or private subject, external, are taken into account.
To assume a broader qualification, so to speak, administrative, such as to include even criminal and irrelevant conduct. sometimes not even otherwise punishable, which the State nevertheless aims to avoid as potentially suitable to generate wrongdoing; in particular. These are situations of political or administrative malpractice (conflict of interests, nepotism, cronyism, absenteeism, waste) in which there is an abuse of public power, instrumental to obtaining undue private advantages.
The current anti-corruption discipline is based on two broad regulatory provisions, supplemented by other details. Demonstrated by the continuous regulatory interventions, the recurrent, variegated criticisms made in various locations and the frequent jurisprudential contrasts.
The change in perspective in the fight against corruption is essentially manifested, as mentioned, in the centralization of the administrative-preventive component, to which a large part of the Reformation is dedicated, through a re-based approach.
Leave a Reply