By definition, disasters usually strike unexpectedly. But sometimes they are not only predicted but repeatedly warned about, and not by psychics, but by people who have well-grounded suspicions.

Take the case of a bridge crack that appeared last in Kaunas, the second-biggest city in Lithuania, as a result of heavier traffic than planned when the bridge was designed. Although experts repeatedly warned of the bridge’s poor construction, nothing was done. And what about the section of a shopping mall that collapsed last spring in the capital, Vilnius? Despite city officials being well aware of the deteriorating building from complaints of people working there, no one followed up and took action.

Those are just two examples of incidents that could have been avoided if the warnings had been heeded. So why were warnings that came from people who knew these situations well not taken seriously and why, on the other hand, were these people not more persistent about making themselves heard?

There can be no unambiguous answer to this question, but some figures speak for themselves, at least in Lithuania. The Civic Empowerment Index 2008 survey, conducted by the nonprofit Civil Society Institute, revealed that over 60 percent of those surveyed believe that people who initiate or take part in civic activity, including politics, strikes, circulating petitions, charitable actions, and supporting NGOs, can lose their jobs. People fear being publicly attacked and slandered — even receiving death threats — for getting involved in public life.

In addition, willingness to participate in anti-corruption activities, although growing in recent years, reaches only around 20 percent, as the Lithuanian Map of Corruption 2008 survey, conducted by Transparency International’s Lithuanian Chapter (TI Lithuania, my organization), shows. However, the number of those who actually do get involved differs dramatically (reaching only 2 to 3 percent). Surprisingly, given that minuscule figure, over 80 percent of respondents think that those who report wrongdoings are brave and civic-minded people.

That very high number somewhat clashes with the belief lingering from the Soviet times that those who report anything should still be associated with snitches, “plants,” or collaborators. It is fear, though, that seems the most powerful force in stopping people from reporting violations they notice or come across in their work.

More broadly, a KPMG study, carried out in 2007, revealed that 84 percent of employees in Central and Eastern Europe do not engage in whistleblowing because they are afraid of sanctions.

Little protection

At the beginning of the 19th century English police officers started blowing their whistles when they saw a crime being committed, in order to alert other law enforcement officers and the general public of possible danger. That practice laid the grounds for the origin of the term “whistleblower,” which now means a person who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.

Across the English Channel and more than 2,000 km away a different meaning of whistling has developed. An old Lithuanian superstition says one should not whistle inside a house to avoid inviting the devil or, as others say, losing money. Thus, whistling meant trouble or financial loss — not exactly the encouragement foreseen in the English case.

As if to pay tribute to old superstitions, Lithuanian law establishes no special protection for those who “blow the whistle.” While whistleblowers can sometimes be covered under laws that protect witnesses, police informers, and journalists’ sources, most can seek protection only under regular law (mainly the Labor Code or Law on Public Service), which does not grant any specific protection against retaliation.

However, by ratifying the UN Convention against Corruption, Lithuania has made commitments to ensure appropriate whistleblower protection. Still, there is neither a dedicated national law nor any other specific legal provisions on the matter. Continental Europe is rapidly catching up with the pioneers in this field like the U.S. and U.K. Even the EU newcomers now actively raise this question but only Romania has a separate law. With the pressure from international organizations certain guarantees will sooner or later have to be introduced in Lithuania, too.

Hotlines no solution

The current practices of whistleblowing in Lithuania are rather confusing. The majority of public institutions claim they have reporting systems in place, although some dispute that they are even needed.

“Unethical or illegal behavior is impossible in our institution. Thus there is nothing to be reported about,” one official told TI Lithuania when we recently carried out research on internal reporting practices.

Others often responded that those systems are not really used — probably because employees fear being fired.

Additionally, public hotlines, although much used (especially those operated by the Special Investigation Service, the State Tax Inspectorate, the State Labor Inspectorate, and the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority), have many shortcomings. People have trouble distinguishing among the types and purposes of such lines; follow-up is rarely structured; and so on. Nevertheless, the statistics for these lines are rather positive. According to one survey we conducted, more than one-third of the reports to institutions later prove well-founded.

When it comes to the private sector, reporting has also proved its worth. According to research conducted in 2007 by Ernst & Young, 25 percent of all cases of fraud in the company are detected by tip-offs (the survey took place in 13 European countries, including the Visegrad Four and Russia).

So the legislator has much to ponder in devising such laws, especially now, when the global economic crisis has taken its toll in Lithuania. As one senior official from the State Tax Inspectorate noted, the number of reports has not changed much, but their nature has. “People are more cautious now about the future of their company,” he said. “Thus, they fear losing their job not because they’d get sacked, but because the company could be closed down.”

There is not doubt, though, that whistleblowers in Lithuania need protection and that a bill about to be introduced in parliament, which TI Lithuania helped to write, could be a significant step forward. Those who risk their own well-being for a better society trying to prevent disasters, embezzlement, fraud, and the like deserve protection and encouragement. As a character from the film “The Insider,” which portrayed a whistleblower pitted against the tobacco industry, said, these men and women are just “ordinary people under extraordinary pressure.”

Neringa Mickevičiūtė is a project coordinator at the Vilnius office of Transparency International, an anti-corruption organization. Read more about Transparency International here.

Disclaimer:

Views expressed in the opinion section are never those of the Baltic Reports company or the website’s editorial team as a whole, but merely those of the individual writer.