Last week may well become a milestone in Ukraine’s futile struggle against corruption. On June 11 the Verkhovna Rada passed a law that outlines basic measures to prevent and counteract this outrageous phenomenon. It defines such terms as a conflict of interests, corruption, corruption transgressions, present, good, and immediate relatives. For the first time it names all those who can be brought to justice on charges of corruption: the president of Ukraine, the chairman of the Verkhovna Rada and his deputies, the prime minister and members of the Cabinet of Ministers, the chief of the SBU, the prosecutor general, the ombudsman of the Verkhovna Rada, the governor of the National Bank, the chairman of the Accounting Chamber, the chairman of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, the chairman of the Council of Ministers of the ARC, members of the Ukrainian and Crimean parliaments, members of local councils, army officials, judges of the Constitutional Court, and professional judges. That same day Yurii Sukhov, the official in charge of anticorruption policy, visited the Cabinet. From now on this man can request and must receive from the ministries, central executive authorities, and heads of regional/oblast administrations any information he may require in order to discharge his functions. He promptly gladdened the Ukrainian citizens’ hearts by outlining bright prospects: “The package of laws worked out by the government and adopted by the Verkhovna Rada contains a number of new clauses that will make it possible to move further on the thorny road of struggle against corruption and get closer to solving the task of uprooting corruption of Ukraine, which was set by the government headed by Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.” Indeed, certain prerequisites have been provided. The anticorruption package envisages changes to a number of laws, including the Criminal Code. These changes are aimed at enhancing legal responsibility for transgressions on the part of officials and legal entities. From now on the latter i.e., enterprises, organizations, and institutions, assume responsibility for any crimes qualified as acts of corruption as may be perpetrated by the chief executive, founder, participant, or any other authorized member of the staff. Regrettably, it is further stated that this law has no effect on legal entities subject to public law that are completely funded from the central or local budget. A small loophole that can, nevertheless, reduce to nil all this struggle, turning it into the usual fuss over legal acts that are threatening but which are not enforced. The thing is that legal entities subject to public law are actually all branches of central and local government that make collective decisions. The new law exempts them from legal responsibility and this makes it possible for their bosses to hide behind their subordinates and secure protection for their corruptive friends. In a word, both ordinary business and political corruption has received a cozy nook in the corridors of power, where one can not only reliably ensconce himself to weather a storm, but also make very good money, just as before. I can’t help quoting NSDC Secretary Raisa Bohatyriova as saying recently that a mere two percent of the electorate has any confidence in the Ukrainian parliament and that it is an “insuperable source of political corruption.”
The newly ratified anticorruption laws, however, should not be regarded as useless, even though it is hard to expect them to show any striking results overnight.
Nor was it coincidental that a week before their ratification the CE Secretary General’s representative Ake Peterson urged the Ukrainian parliament to pass the anticorruption package bill that had been collecting dust on parliament’s shelves since December 2006. Peterson believes that this is extremely important for strengthening Ukraine’s anticorruption legal framework, bringing it into conformity with the European standards and setting up effective mechanisms to combat corruption. What was it that had impact on the Ukrainian lawmakers: the above admonition or the publication of findings by Transparency International and GRECO, which is monitoring Ukraine’s implementation of anti-corruption recommendations? In fact, their findings are somewhat different. TI places Ukraine last among the 69 countries under study, whereas GRECO (for some reason the Ukrainian government was reluctant to publish its findings for a long while) regards Ukraine’s efforts to secure legislative provision for the struggle against this outrageous phenomenon as a step forward.
GRECO believes that all its recommendations are being carried out, even though partially. This allows one to conclude that the struggle against corruption is being waged mostly on paper in Ukraine. To realize this, Ukrainians don’t have to read foreign findings. All you have to do is try to solve your problem with the aid of a government body. You will be made welcome, but if you don’t know how to go about it, they will tell you precisely what you can do with your problem. TI’s report “Global Corruption Barometer 2009” indicates that almost every tenth Ukrainian respondent admitted having given a bribe, while four said they had given corruptionists almost 10 percent of their annual income. That is why we are so poor.
