There is something right about the state of Denmark.

A few days ago I was talking to tourists from Denmark. They told me that due to the situation around Greenland and the Russian-Ukrainian war, military service was introduced. They explained to me that there is a number of conscripts that need to be filled, and the rest are filled randomly, by drawing lots.

- Ugh, so much room for corruption - whatever comes to mind, I end up on the road.

- What do you mean? - the lady was surprised.

- Well, that random thing certainly wouldn't be random here - I said.

- I understand, but it's not a matter of personal decision, but young men and women go and draw balls like in a lottery, and if they draw a lower number, they go into the army.

I didn't let myself be swayed, I immediately said:

- That wouldn't help with us, we would immediately use lighter and heavier balls or add or reduce the number of balls depending on whether you have a connection or not.

The Danish woman just laughed, but remained without an answer.

There were a few similar situations during the conversation, but I refrained from making further similar comments.

And really, look at the corruption perception index - Denmark is the best-ranked country in the world, while Montenegro has been stagnating with the same coefficient for a number of years, which keeps it around 65th place in the world. So why is that?

Let's start in order - corruption has existed since time immemorial. Plutarch, in his work Comparative Lives, states that even ancient democratic Athens was not immune to these practices. The great orator Demosthenes was one of the first to be convicted of what we would today call corruption, after he helped Harpalus escape from an Athenian prison after being bribed. On that occasion, about 350 talents disappeared, which was roughly a quarter of Athens' annual income. Today, we would say - corruption on a high level!

However, I would venture to say that corruption is much older than ancient Athens and that it begins in the Garden of Eden. We all know the biblical story - Eve, at the urging of the serpent, picked the forbidden apple and shared it with Adam. The prosecution would say that we have an instigator, an executor and an accomplice. And indeed, no matter how different and distant the concepts of sin and corruption are on various grounds, both have something in common - they denote depravity and corruption, in the first case of the human soul, in the second, practices that conflict with the law.

So what now, are the people of Montenegro more sinful than those in Denmark? I am inclined to say that they are not. And are they more corrupt? Obviously they are, because the corruption index will not measure the state as an abstract entity, but the practices of people and communities that take place in that area.

Not to make a big deal out of it, everything that is usually found in the literature on this topic could be recognized in Montenegro - poverty, weak institutions, clientelism, cronyism and nepotism, low risk of punishment, etc. However, what is possibly specific to Montenegro is that among the people, only receiving, and not giving, is considered corruption. So, offering money to a doctor for a service that should be free, getting a connection for your child at school, quickly completing a procedure in the cadastre through an acquaintance - all of this is natural or, as Americans would say, business as usual. It follows that it is up to the virtuous individual, who is usually the exception, to prevent corruption, while offering it, and even living it, is completely normal. Hence the expression "endemic corruption". Those of us who practice some form of corruption will say: "They (usually referring to public authorities) steal more from me than I from them". Others will neither seek justification nor explanation for their perverted behavior, they will even be surprised or offended if you point it out to them. Ultimately, it is less important whether you practice corruption, our minds function in a corrupt manner because the first thing we notice are the gaps in practices and norms. Hence the over-normativity of the legal system that our lawyers often point out. This state of affairs is nothing more than a symptom of the corrupt practices of those to whom these norms apply, both in the public and private sectors.

In Christian teaching, sin was atoned for by the sacrifice of one individual, the Son of God, and is atoned for every day through the repentance of sinful people on Earth. But corruption cannot be reduced in the long term, nor can it be atoned for by the sacrifice of one or a few individuals who stand in the way of such practices. Corruption will stop when we can oppose our brother, sister, godfather, and even ourselves in an intention that is not legal and moral. Therefore, corruption will never be eradicated, but the situation can undoubtedly be improved.

Despite the above, I do not think that the issue of fighting corruption is exclusively, or even predominantly, a moral and/or legal issue. Nor is the key to improving the situation in a valid strategy for preventing corruption and its implementation, although this is not unimportant. The fight against corruption is a dominant economic issue and that is where the key to combating this phenomenon lies, and not in any prevention and sanctions, as is dominantly believed. Therefore, the situation will change by practicing what is the opposite of corruption, which is neither morality nor sinlessness, but regulated competition. Corruption stifles competition, and every euro given for corrupt purposes is one euro less in its rightful place, most often in the state treasury that should serve us all. Lack of competition is a guarantee of poor quality with which it is impossible to compete on a global scale. Every professor, judge, architect, civil servant or prominent entrepreneur who came to that position through corrupt practices has taken the place of someone more capable and valuable than him. Let's not talk about the fact that those who came to a certain place in a corrupt way will very likely behave corruptly, and because of such an outcome, not only the consumers of their services suffer, but also the entire state and society.

The more we are integrated into the regional, European and global economy, with the shift from the periphery to the center that will, by all accounts, happen if our region remains stable, the fewer corrupt practices will occur because we will not be able to compete with those who do not do it or do it to a lesser extent. This dynamic will not be unambiguous and without contradictions, but it will eventually happen, and the situation in the field of anti-corruption will improve much more than by running for the reins from Brussels.

The author is a political scientist