CORRUPTION

International Affairs Forum Fall 2016
the idea. In Ukraine, where an excellent
whistleblower protection law is being considered
as a way to combat serious corruption there,
civil society groups favor of mechanism. Yet,
some progressive members of parliament
are worried that it will be twisted or warped in
some fashion by fraudsters who would see it
used for financially defrauding the government.
Financial rewards are one of the thorniest areas
of whistleblower protection, and there is no one
“right answer” for this mechanism.
What does make sense however is if a
portion of financial savings is set aside for the
whistleblower (say, twenty percent of recovered
fraud monies) then an equal amount of the
savings should be put into a “whistleblower
protection fund.” This fund, which might work
a bit like a Legal Aid fund, would then be
used to support the legal and other costs for
whistleblowers involved in cases that do not
involve financial fraud, as mentioned previously.
In this way, society can at least give some
practical support to those who step forward
in the public interest for non-financial crimes
or wrongdoing. This hybrid system is being
discussed informally in several countries at the
moment, although I do not know of any country
that has adopted one yet. This surprises me in
one way. I would have thought it would be a votegetter
for a savvy politician in this climate where
so many citizens no longer have high levels of
trust for many institutions.
Whistleblowers need to be kept informed of
the status of their disclosure as it winds its
way through investigations and action. Having
interviewed numerous whistleblowers as well as
journalists who worked with them, I discovered
this turns out to be quite important to them
personally. In one sense, the tribulations they go
through makes the narrative of the wrongdoing a
very personal one for each whistleblower. They
often have a strong sense of justice needing
to be done in order to justify all the heartache.
Thus a good regime will require investigators to
brief the whistleblower regularly—perhaps every
2-3 months—about the status. This is not just a
practical matter, but one of human dignity.
Newer elements for a good regime might include
protection from extradition for a whistleblower. If
he or she cannot expect a fair trial or treatment
in their home country, such protections become
very important to prevent reprisal. This will also
put pressure on the home country to devise fair
ways to deal with a returning whistleblower.
Much has been made about how law
enforcement, military, and intelligence services
should only have internal whistleblowing
regimes. This is incorrect. It assumes that
somehow these areas are immune from the
kind of high level corruption seen in other areas
of government. If anything, the very lack of
transparency endemic to these environments
actually creates a climate where wrongdoing can
fester and hide for long periods.
The law needs to protect ALL citizens making a
public interest disclosure. A good regime in this
area should have internal channels, avenues
to disclose to parliaments or Congress without
reprisal, and even, if necessary, to the media.
Clearly, the thresholds for disclosure should
be higher for this sort of protected information,
but should include immediate danger to public
health, safety or the environment, or serious
illegal conduct. Only as much data as is needed
to reveal the wrongdoing should be disclosed.
I have interviewed whistleblowers from these
sensitive areas and one theme that occurred
over and over is a kind of mental anguish they go
through in deciding to speak out. They want to
be loyal to their country and their organizations;
Fall 2016
45