The abusive influence of parties on the executive, including in the governmental hiring and firing process, is perceived as the main cause of the Government’s corruption. In the National Integrity System Assessment report, Transparency International – Moldova (TIM) recommends that the political parties should refrain from exerting influence on the executive, IPN reports.

In order to reduce people’s perception that the executive is corrupt, the experts of Transparency International – Moldova recommend clearly stipulating in the legislation when the Premier can decide to hold a closed-door meeting. The Government is also asked to follow the implementation of its decisions and mechanisms aimed against corruption.

The members of the executive are requested to exactly fulfill the legal provisions concerning the regime of incompatibility and to declare the personal interests and conflicts of interest, the incomes and property. The posts of deputy heads of administrative authorities should be filled by public contest.

Among the recommendations formulated in the report are also to work out a code of ethics for the Cabinet members and to improve the legislation concerning ministerial responsibility. It is also recommended assessing the ministers in accordance with the Law on the Examination of Public Post Holders and Candidates.

The report presented by Transparency International – Moldova says that though the Government declared the fight against corruption a priority, its efforts are often reduced to the working out and approval of normative documents, their social impact not being followed, while the reactions to the problems being insufficient.

At the same time, the Government hasn’t yet formulated the normative framework for different anticorruption laws, like the Law on the Implementation of Polygraph Testing, whose goal is to verify the integrity of the representatives of law enforcement bodies and the judiciary system. Moldova is among the few states that adopted such a law, but this law is not implemented because the normative framework wasn’t adopted and a state commission for polygraph testing wasn’t set up.