The results of the government’s performance have been summed up since the first days of April. The reason for this “statistically-confirmed” activity is, on the one hand, one hundred days of the Viktor Yushchenko Cabinet, and, on the other hand, the end of the first quarter. With due account of the magnitude and number of problems this government faces, it is clear that the first few months in office is too short a period to be able to speak about any substantial results of the government’s performance. However, the analysis of what the government has been doing and how in these few months still allows pointing out certain tendencies, directions, and prospects.
One of the most important directions Mr. Yushchenko declared, when appointed premier, was to ensure constructive cooperation between the government and Parliament. The extended session of the Cabinet, dedicated to fuel and energy complex (FEC) problems and attended by the President and representatives of parliamentary factions, is a suitable occasion to assess both some points in the joint efforts of Verkhovna Rada and the government and the first results of the way the Yushchenko Cabinet has been trying to solve the problems this country faces. If we take the purely quantitative indicators of this cooperation, we can single out such successive grand scale projects as the adoption of the budget and the government’s program, as well as such a relatively significant failure as failure to get the memorandum on joint responsibility signed. In the battle for the program, Yushchenko managed to win and avoid (at least for the time being) changes in his Cabinet. However, some observers think that the extended Cabinet sitting is the time line after which this question will again be put on the agenda. This it might be possible to sum up the intermediate results of the Cabinet performance in the first quarter.
“It is still too early to pronounce a categorical verdict on the government, taking into account that it includes people who have risen for the first time to such high office,” notes Roman BEZSMERTNY , presidential representative in Verkhovna Rada and a People’s Deputy. “It will be very good if the present government achieves, at least in six months, a level high enough to become a truly united team. Only then will we be able to assess their actions and analyze their steps. It is somewhat difficult to speak at the moment about any systematic work by this government, for most government institutions have not yet been shaped organizationally. On the other hand, no previous government has ever been so open to cooperation with Parliament as the Yushchenko Cabinet, and no previous one has been able to establish such a businesslike and concrete relationship with lawmakers as this one has. This is basically the first time in history that we have tried to set up a parliamentary majority-government system.
“A Cabinet session attended by the President, who thus exercises his right to control the executive, is a routine thing. In my opinion, the President quite adequately assesses the state of affairs in the FEC. Another problem is how and by whom the difficulties this industry faces will be worked out: decisions are all too often forced through, diametrically opposed to the ostensible declarations of increased well-being, such as factual obstruction of the Atomic Energy Authority, making 9check original) revolutionary changes in the work of regional power- generation bodies, etc. Thus we should analyze the situation in the Russian energy sector that came about under the leadership of Anatoly Chubais so that some businessmen and officials could be taught a lesson for all that has occurred in the FEC lately. As to the current situation in the government, I don’t think it necessary to resort to any replacements. Each must be given a chance to fulfill his/her intentions. Only then should we assess the results.”
According to People’s Deputy Serhiy KURYKIN, the government’s performance in the first quarter has yielded results encouraging at first sight.
“But the announced output growth has not yet been reflected in people’s lives. What is undoubtedly positive is the fact that the government has suggested a program which, for all its declarative nature, shows an integrated approach to the existing problems and the conceptual unity the Cabinet is going to stick to. The next quarters of this year and the next year will allow us to draw general conclusions about the extent to which the Cabinet members’ theoretical visions of the existing situation and the ways of changing it correspond to objective reality. It is only when you have an opportunity to assess the real results of government performance in a year and compare them with the previous years’ indices that you will be able to see whether or not Parliament erred in approving the governmental program.
“I would not like to regard today’s session on FEC problems as an epoch-making event. I think the Cabinet is not insured against reshuffling and it is quite possible that some ministers and deputy premiers will be replaced well before the expiration of the one year grace period the government was granted after the program was approved. In fact, the FEC still has no definite concept of development, and Ms. Tymoshenko occasionally suggests diametrically opposed concepts of reforms for this sector. But, whatever the case, even now the government is taking steps aimed at ensuring Ukraine’s energy independence. As to specific instruments, it is, after all, up to the government to identify them. According to information I have, the FEC has at last acquired live money and even begun to pay off back wages, for example, in the Enerhoatom system. On the other hand, some power-engineering trade unions express dissatisfaction with this. This is testimony not so much to the quality of Ms. Tymoshenko’s work as to the importance of the energy sector as a field where certain vested interests collide.”
The idea that situation in the Ukrainian economy has not changed fundamentally as a result of governmental activities in the first quarter is shared by not only parliamentary majority members but also by those belonging to the minority. For example, Heorhy KRIUCHKOV (Communist Party) told The Day:
“No revolution has happened, neither after the program was approved, nor after the first quarter ended. After the economy has fallen to the zero mark, any stir can be defined as industrial growth. Preparatory work for the sowing campaign was extremely unsatisfactory in the first quarter: spring farm work has never been done in such conditions before. Or take the transport sector. The situation is just catastrophic: the President had to fire two railroad bosses. The situation in the FEC has worsened, and there have been no reforms in it. I think the main trouble is that the government has not changed in the first quarter its basic approach to the existing problems and the methods of solving them.”
