After being a
successful journalist, he lost out as a result of elections, and now
has to live on less than $500 a month. The lively discussion that
followed his complaint in the social networks and the media showed
not only extreme polarization of opinions even in the pro-Maidan
community, but also a dangerous degree of support of even more
dangerous illusions.
One of the key
arguments against Nayyem was that “he is a grown-up man, and he
knew what he was doing, so it was his conscious choice, and he should
not complain.”
Although it looks
like a valid argument at first glance. I, for example, would not even
consider a proposal for such a low-paid job because the pay would not
even cover my monthly mortgage. These days I, of course, volunteer a
lot like many other people under the current circumstances. But
that’s because my volunteering does not take all of my time, and it
does not restrict me from supplementing my income elsewhere either.
Unlike me, a
parliament member is a full-time employee with an extremely
responsible job that imposes tight restrictions on other sources of
income. They are, however, allowed to accept royalties for
intellectual work, so Nayyem’s risk of running out of money was not
that high.
While it looked
ridiculous when former President Viktor Yanukovych, who could barely
spell, claimed in his declarations that he was paid as a book author,
in Nayyem’s case this type of income would be perfectly natural.
Although, I would prefer that he spends his time on studying the
bills he is voting.
On the other hand,
Nayyem’s point was most likely not to complain, but to raise an
important issue, and he certainly succeeded in it. So, leaving his
personal circumstances alone, let’s zoom out to take a broader look
at the problem.
Many people who
engaged in the discussion have said that a high salary, however high
it may be, cannot prevent corruption, because the temptation is
measured by the millions. So, it makes no sense to pay more. A
corrupt lawmaker will still be corrupt, regardless of how high his
wage is. An honest one will remain honest with a low income.
But people who make
that argument confuse the necessary and sufficient conditions. A high
salary is by no means a sufficient condition for fighting corruption.
But it’s a necessary one of many, because corruption is an
economic crime. It means that a person acts
honestly or becomes corrupt depending on the relative gain.
Of course, all
people are different and some of them will choose to accept a bribe
that equals their monthly salary, while another one will instead opt
to only accept one equal to 100 salaries; there are also the ones who
would never accept it. But it will still become more expensive to
bribe well-paid lawmakers for those who would like to do it, and
discourage some of those affairs. Perhaps, not so many of them,
though.
But corruption is a
seed worm that spoils a lot to eat a little. The bribes themselves
and returns on them are just the tip of the iceberg of economic
losses they bring. So the society may be better off paying higher
wages to parliament members. It’s hard to see the indirect effect for the society from higher salaries. Oftentimes, the public can only see the higher cost. At the same time, the evil effect of high corruption is also hidden from the public eye.
The most important
effect of the high wages for lawmakers is, however, self-selection.
And it’s almost completely neglected. If the wages are set at a low
level, the job only becomes attractive for those who fail to make
better money at a normal market. They may be lazy, low-skilled and
incapable candidates, or the kind who cannot work in a team.
Do we really want
such a person to represent us? Do we really want them to take
decisions that affect our lives? The answer is pretty clear.
There are those who
argue that we don’t actually need parliament members who are driven
by higher welfare. We need those who are driven by self-fulfillment
and are devoted to politics. But what kind of politicians would we
get for $500 a month?
Some of them will be
crazy. Those are the people to whom money does not matter. Others who
can disregard the money factor are the ones we call “oligarchs,”
of varying scales.
So, who will be
deterred? The professionals, of course. And those who argue for low
salaries for lawmakers should not complain about poor quality of
legislation, populism, abuse of office to promote one’s business, or
the practice of seeking shelter in the Rada from criminal prosecution
though parliamentary immunity.
Also, they should
not complain about it being the parliament of the rich because if the
salaries are low, oligarchs will prevail. All we will have left to do
is prey that some conscientious businessman left their company and
went to the Rada because they really want to see change in the
country.
Such people do
exist, but they are far from numerous. At least they weren’t in
previous convocations. They also need allies, and if the salaries
were higher, it would mean that more honest middle-class people would
consider a political career and compete with oligarchs.
Of course, all this
does not mean that the higher the salaries are, the better – that
would be absurd. So, what’s enough?
Sociologists say
that people start to strive for self-actualization the moment they
feel safe and their basic needs are met. This happens when people
start to earn a middle-class income of a few thousand dollars per
month. From this point on most of people are less likely to be
motivated by money only. Of course, for some people this motivation
works regardless of income, but those would be more likely to go to
business.
A lawmaker should
earn on the par with upper-middle class with a monthly salary equal
to annual per capital gross domestic product. In Ukraine’s case it
would be a little less than $3,000. This means they would make about
12 times more than an average citizen – an income high enough not
to repel professionals devoted to politics for the right reasons, but
still not very high.
A correlation with
the nation’s GDP would also create an incentive to increase overall
welfare. At the same time, all of the privileges inherited by the
Ukrainian lawmakers from the Soviet past (such as special medical
services, cheap delicacies in the parliament cafeteria, and so on)
should be abolished. Most probably, as a result the overall cost for
the taxpayer will not be much higher than today.
Critics also argue
that soldiers and volunteers at the front lines earn much less than
that, and they risk their lives every day. In fact, many of them are
not paid at all, and they also have to buy their own equipment and
weapons. So, why don’t parliament members also sacrifice?
The answer is, alas,
both sad and cynical. When people volunteer to go to war, they are
real heroes. But the parliament is not a war. Nobody perceives work
in the Rada as a feat. At best, it’s mission.
Also, history has
taught us that those politicians who are eager to sacrifice
themselves, are also equally eager to sacrifice others for an idea –
and this is far more dangerous than corruption. So, as a taxpayer, I
would prefer to be represented by economically rational
professionals.
Vladimir Dubrovskiy is senior economist at CASE Ukraine, a think tank for social and economic studies.
