For 25 years already, Ukraine has been running along a closed circle of unextinguished vices, acquiring whole bunches of new diseases in the process. A system-wide crisis, deadlock, and zugzwang – all these definitions condemn the present order once again. Instead of the formation of a powerful backbone with patriotic vectors, we spent this quarter century losing along the convoluted path of contemporary history even the remnants of what could have become the nation’s trunk. The hype of creating a “clean government” covered the lustration of professionals. The calls to fight corruption covered emergence of a new type of corrupt officials, some of whom are now making money out of bloodshed. Illegal mines have grown from the sad “business card” of the Donbas into a plague that has spread across the country (I mean the “amber fever” in Volyn, which put the region on the brink of environmental disaster). The latter is the proof that the country needs a blood transfusion to purify blood, which has been infected by a virus of corruption, cronyism, and political impotence. We have not just failed to turn the page on the 1990s (as an oligarch proposed to do once), but rather supplemented it with a whole volume of crimes committed by those “fresh” rotten branches of the clan-oligarchic system tree. Some of those who called themselves pro-European green shoots have turned out to be suitable projects launched to distract public attention from the need to dismantle the abovementioned rotten trunk. Should we fail to dismantle it in time, would not it crush, sooner or later, the Ukrainian statehood itself?
Do our society and government still have “living islets” of those who can form a high-quality alternative to the current mess? And what beacons should the public look to if we are to detect populist and corrupt chaff?
“THE SOCIETY MUST LEARN TO THOROUGHLY AND RESPONSIBLY APPROACH ANALYZING THE SITUATION”
Viktor SHYSHKIN, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (2006-15):
“I think that our leaders and powerful people have not a shred of patriotism left. They have neither concept nor vision of how to rebuild this country in economic, organizational, legal, and other fields. The interests of these people are very different, as are their priorities. Therefore, the crucial issue of choosing the plan for the nation has faded in importance. Everyone is focused on local topics, which often replace each other in the media space without any steps towards their systemic implementation. There is no political doctrine, no political will. After all, the political will may appear only in the person who has a framework of values and visions. If our politicians have any will at all, it has to do with their own businesses. No more. Everything that is related to their purse and office makes them grasp it firmly. Everything that touches on issues of public interest is used by them only as speculative rhetoric at election time, or when they need to justify their own failures.
“Unfortunately, some young people who have recently come to power and actually merged into clan-oligarchic projects for personal benefit did so because they simply had no patriotic worldview. One can position themselves with anyone, but it throws in doubts one’s core values. We do not have to focus on how people position themselves, but should rather look at the context. This affects not only youth, but also the rest of the spectrum of ages. For example, did anyone recall during Petro Poroshenko’s presidential campaign that he was a co-founder of the Party of Regions, against which the people revolted? Did anyone recall that he entered parliament having already become a businessman? Did anyone recall that he joined committees to get preferential treatment for himself rather than engage in nation-building? Did anyone recall that he served on multiple occasions as minister in the governments, which we now call criminal?
“Unfortunately, young people do not have relevant experience, and the public lacks information to do the relevant analysis. One can utter interesting phrases and make good speeches, but once they cross the threshold of parliament, we see them ghost-voting and doing quite a few other things which they seemed to combat before, even if by words only. A person has to gain experience, not leap at once into crucial fields that require understanding of their inner workings.
“The system should be based on the principle of selecting and attracting the best. We should also take into account that we are dominated by the clan-oligarchic system, which can corrupt the new generation under the guise of seemingly alternative projects. However, the clan systems exist in other countries as well. So, the society must ultimately take responsibility for a thorough screening of candidates. As long as the society has not learned to think and demand, instead of accepting the things as they are and occasionally erupting in disobedience, we will still tread the circles of hopelessness. Our officials do not hesitate to show off their cars, buy luxury apartments, and build mansions. As they do so, they hide these assets under the names of their relatives and reveal only meager incomes. Why is the society condoning it? Why no one is analyzing these individuals in terms of cronyism?
“Americans have a thing which is called ‘a reasonable suspicion of corruption.’ It is enough to, for example, fire a judge. So why do not we introduce this approach to firing judges and other officials alike?”
“ONE NEEDS AN AMBITION TO JOIN THE CHANGES INSTEAD OF STAYING A PASSIVE OBSERVER”
Hanna HOPKO, MP:
“When Ukraine gained its independence 25 years ago, it had 70 years of repression behind it. I would like to note that our people are still digesting the consequences of the post-genocide state. Famines, executions, persecution, exile – this mighty wave hit Ukrainians. The nation’s best and brightest, the true intellectuals and moral authorities were either eliminated or relegated to the margins. This could not but affect the national reflections. The Soviet system itself was built on the principles of vertical hierarchy and strict subordination, where people were given certain guarantees of physical existence, but the total responsibility for the country’s course laid with a very few individuals. People had actually learned to avoid making independent, responsible decisions, while the system of power was clearly built on the principles of ‘us’ versus ‘them.’
“We had patriotic movements in the early 1990s, which lacked the strength and consistency to get the real power or support an appropriate alternative. After all, we did have honest and ethical professionals who participated in the development of this country. Unfortunately, the clan-oligarchic system which took shape against the post-communist background from the mid-1990s was able to eject such people from the nation’s leadership. The corrupt privatization which took place then resulted in true owners of the national wealth becoming dirt poor, while a handful of people incredibly enriched themselves. The latter eventually tightened their grasp on power through creating clan and corrupt ties. This system actually did not allow for the emergence of a high-quality alternative.
“They monopolized entire industries, including media outlets which brainwashed people to make them agree with imperatives needed by these clans. Since the late 1990s, the power was totally usurped, and people were left to fend for themselves. Only now we see the emergence of some germs of change, with some people calling for changing the rules and the system as a whole, rather than just a few faces in power. We need strong institutions, agencies that will prevent and combat corruption, and truly ideological parties as tools of change in this country.
“Unfortunately, the Revolution of Dignity has been used to the advantage of those who missed the chance to change the country during the Orange Revolution. That is why we see that the country is going in circles instead of making a quantum leap forward. This is not possible without rescuing it from the clutches of the oligarchs and the failed public governance system.
“The Euromaidan never established a party of activists, of people with experience who could have united to create a new political force. It would have to operate on a completely new model. Thus, many good and promising people had to join other political projects. My experience with the Self Reliance party is a case in point. A politician needs an ambition to join the changes instead of staying a passive observer or someone other’s obedient underling. Journalists or experts who seek to enter the parliament should think along these lines as well.
“Certainly, many of the old political figures took advantage of the people’s trust in the generation of those who sought to implement changes. Their names were used to cover some people on the party lists who voters just did not accept. These lists were formed not on ideological grounds, but according to financial and commercial deals. The parliament is a good school of life that puts people through a lot of exams. Here one either preserves one’s principles and philosophy, or gets absorbed by its vices and repeats others’ mistakes. Vanity, money, power and many other temptations await everyone inside these walls, so one should be ready for them. Without shaping one’s own position before the election, one will be easily dissolved in this swamp. The more people survive this way, the more likely we will be to assemble the force needed to make the abovementioned quantum leap.”
“OUR PRESENT SYSTEM MAKES YOUNG AND TALENTED PEOPLE TO PLAY BY ITS RULES”
Ihor KABANENKO, Admiral, former First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine:
“The public governance system and regulations ruling it has, unfortunately, not changed in Ukraine. Legislation is ostensibly changing, bureaucracy has doubled its efforts to generate paperwork of all sizes, but it is only its formal, front side, that has changed. Moreover, the stagnant system uses different slogans to actively eject all those willing and able to change it in a positive direction. The reasons for this deja vu are trivial: the government powers in Ukraine continue to be used to serve the clan interests and enable personal enrichment, rather than to serve the Ukrainian people. We often hear about the double standards exhibited by the Ukrainian authorities. These standards have two career ladders: one is short and quick-working for the system’s own people, while the other is long and very slow, and it is for all others. One can be a talented person and make a breakthrough by offering a world-class product for Ukraine and its security, but if one does not belong to any clan, they will start on the long ladder and after all the ordeals, will likely be invited to work... outside Ukraine. To ask a rhetorical question, is this system working for Ukraine or against it? Generally, the existing format of Ukrainian public governance is a hybrid one: they say and show right things, make right statements, but it is quite different in the hidden dimension; while the government tries to convince us it is doing some reforms, the life of the average citizen is only getting worse. Can constructive civic activity force this system into evolutionary changes? It is hard to say, because the response to such activity by the various branches of government has been, to put it mildly, not quite adequate. However, without abandoning the clan-oligarchic state system for a socially-oriented one with a corresponding decrease in power distance and formation of the most transparent competitive innovation economy, and the rejection of double standards on the part of state bureaucracy, we will find it hard to survive. I mean not only all of us as individuals, but Ukraine as a whole.
“This country has lots of talented people who combine high professional skills with the love for Ukraine and desire to change it for the better. The present system constantly forces them to play by its rules, but they do not compromise on principles, and therefore remain outside the system. In fact, they are the future builders of Ukraine, living and working not for the sake of fanfare and awards. For example, a few talented engineers have come together to offer technology assistance to our troops and created fantastic high-tech products over a few months and with minimal resources, while other countries spend years and huge sums to achieve the same results. Although the Ministry of Defense has been telling them ‘yes, we need it,’ it has been delaying adoption and purchases of these defense systems for years. Still, these developers have found ways to convey their devices to our soldiers or carry out upgrades of existing systems, and their eyes glow with pride when they hear the boys from the front saying ‘it is great, thank you.’ I would like to mention also the team of the Power of Law NGO, which voluntarily and effectively helps displaced persons from Crimea and the Donbas as well as families of dead and maimed soldiers. I remember the invaluable assistance in the field of tactical medicine which has been provided to our military by boys and girls from the Protection of Patriots NGO. This country has a lot of such people, who differ in age, some having been wisened by years and experience, while others are young, pragmatic, and energetic. They have long made a conscious choice, and for them ‘Ukraine is a European state’ are not just empty words to be uttered by respectable politicians. They see this idea as offering meaning to their lives. It is precisely these people who are the nation’s most valuable assets, because they have in difficult times assumed the socially significant duties and restrictions and have the will, desire, and professional skills to build a strong and prosperous state. We hear that Ukraine has a crisis of elites. Maybe this is the crisis of elite selection? Maybe our civil society should finally learn to select and to choose?”
