President Petro Poroshenko has accepted the resignation of Mikheil Saakashvili. The latter is now neither the head of the Odesa Oblast State Administration nor the president’s advisor. But will Saakashvili be a full-fledged Ukrainian politician? That he slammed the door, accusing the head of state of hindering reforms, means that Saakashvili, firstly, really wants to remain a star in the political sky and, secondly, is trying to explain why he failed after all to carry out the reforms. He wants to explain this rather primitively – by blaming the president and not only him. As a matter of fact, society has long been fed up with phrases like “reforms are needed,” “necessity of changes,” and “corruption control” which smack of Soviet perestroika-time mantras, such as “deepen,” “improve,” and “restructure.”
What did Saakashvili count on, when he agreed to assume an office that is still called “governorship” by an old erroneous tradition? It will be recalled that the first thing he did on this exclusively bureaucratic post was to make a tour of Ukraine with anticorruption lectures and “digs” at the president’s adversaries. Those were exclusively political, or even media-oriented, steps. Saakashvili himself explained that he had hugged Leonid Kuchma at the oligarch Pinchuk’s forum YES as a sign of gratitude to Ukraine’s former president for military assistance, although in 2004 Saakashvili spoke from the stage of the Orange Maidan that protested against Kuchma, criticizing the latter. After all, his intentions to emotionally spell out totally unoriginal ideas now look like helpless attempts to claim that he really wants to be a self-sufficient figure.
Against the backdrop of other foreign invitees, Mikheil Saakashvili’s personality deserves special scrutiny and proper conclusions. Like it or not, he is a twice president who agreed not only to assume the office of a region’s head, but also to become, for some time, a Cerberus in the squabbles of the local “elites” – the Cerberus who is now snarling at those who invited him.
Who “embedded” the “Georgian and Polish lobbies” into Ukrainian politics? Why has the practice of inviting foreigners failed to produce a positive effect? Where is the dividing line between giving foreigners a real stimulus to take effective actions and populism?
“SAAKASHVILI ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE HAD”
Mykyta POTURAIEV, expert:
“I can see nothing bad in inviting foreigners. This could be a useful practice for Ukraine if the government did not use these foreigners from the very beginning as a publicity stunt only. The system was a priori not going to be reformed. In the last two post-Maidan years, this system has only been opting for some changes after inexorable pressure from Ukraine’s Western partners, i.e., when the latter say: either make concrete changes or you will get no loans. And the current government cannot keep this country afloat without loans, for it is unable to overcome its inclination for plundering. Now that e-declaration results have been made public, it is clear that the current government plunders not less than the previous one. Society itself never learned to directly pressure the authorities – it could only inform the West of certain problems.
“As for Saakashvili himself, he allowed himself to be had for quite a long time. From the very outset, Saakashvili opted for a compromise with our system of government and specifically President Petro Poroshenko. As a result, this compromise cost him a lot. When it comes to reforms, if, of course, one is sincerely going to carry them out, a compromise is the least effective way to effect qualitative changes. It was possible to understand in the first two months of being the Odesa Oblast Administration head that nobody was going to carry out reforms and his role would boil down to imitation. In principle, he could have guessed it even before assuming this important public office. But, nevertheless, he accepted this appointment and seemed to be trying to do something. But, as a matter of fact, Saakashvili used his image to support the president and this government. Moreover, he did so for rather a long time. And if he had been supporting it with his image only, it would be half the trouble. Unfortunately, he supported it with his public actions. Suffice it to recall his very scandalous visit to Chernihiv during parliamentary by-elections, when he, the Odesa oblast chief, openly came out for the pro-presidential candidate Serhii Berezenko. Saakashvili’s open support for him was an awful shame, and everybody saw that he worked in the interests of concrete people in the government. Later, he came out against the president’s opponents, including Yatseniuk.”
“THE FIRST THING I REMEMBER SAAKASHVILI DOING WAS CLASHING WITH THE HEAD OF STATE’S OPPONENTS”
Hennadii DRUZENKO, public activist, chief of the First Pirogov Volunteer Hospital:
“We’d better ask Serhii Lozhkin about the principles by which foreigners were invited to key offices. It is Lozhkin who hired them, although the general public was told about recruiting agencies and competitions. There were no competitions. There were simulacra and personal calculation. And, judging by the results of the foreign invitees’ work, professionalism was surely the last principle of selection. As for the Georgian team, Ukrainians felt hostage to the myth about Georgian reforms, which is true to fact by half at best. I’ve been to Georgia more than once and can say that their marketing scientists were a cut above the builders of a new Georgia.
“We can see that neither such a celebrity as Saakashvili nor the thitherto unknown Abromavicius and Jaresko managed to make a breakthrough. For example, Jaresko was once a successful banker, but, as minister of finance, she only introduced rescheduling which caused us to go into debt for several generations ahead. All this proves that we should look for specialists in our own country rather than elsewhere. Of course, it is normal to have foreign advisors. But governmental offices must only be given to people who will at least bear responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. They must not be ‘visitors.’
“For example, the first thing I remember Saakashvili doing was clashing with the head of state’s opponents. For this purpose, he used his prestige as former president of Georgia, while Poroshenko used Saakashvili himself. It is also worthwhile to recall his tours of Ukraine, when he spoke at forums as a politician, not as a governmental official. It is a convincing example of the fact that this person was not doing the work he was supposed and agreed to do. As a matter of fact, Saakashvili should have been dismissed long ago from the office of chairman of the Odesa Oblast Administration as one who has failed in the line of duty, which a due note in his employment record.
“There was a pronounced tendency from the very beginning that the president’s team will do publicity stunts much more willingly than carry out real reforms. Accordingly, Poroshenko was interested in Saakashvili as a media person. Saakashvili did a good job from this angle, for his personality was really in the spotlight of media attention, he was quoted, and his views aroused interest. But an oblast administration head is not a celebrity or a talk show host but an official, a civil servant. He is not a political figure. Accordingly, his work should be judged by concrete economic achievements, not by the number of his appearances on TV. As there are no achievements, and to excuse himself, he began to claim that he was just hindered from carrying out the reforms he had conceived. He could only have achieved something if he had been working day and night on concrete problems instead of touring Ukraine and hyping himself. Saakashvili told us nothing new when he began to bring accusations against others once he resigned from his office. Had he really not known before who Kononenko or our president is? Poroshenko was ‘in the saddle’ under all the previous presidents.
“So to tell us what we know very well and slam the door only means a way to escape from being held accountable and to derive some political benefits by making resounding statements. If he knew from the very beginning what kind of people he was going to mingle with, why did he agree? Was it really not clear to him that he would be a puppet in the hands of certain forces or, to be more exact, at ‘his majesty’s court’? In other words, Saakashvili has outplayed himself. Georgia is forgetting him, and he has done nothing in Odesa. This raises a question: is Mikheil really a great reformer or just a great showman? In my personal opinion, Saakashvili’s political star has fallen.”
“SAAKASHVILI HAS ONLY SHAKEN EVERYTHING LOOSE BUT STRENGTHENED NOTHING. POPULISM IS AN AWFUL THING”
Iryna MEDUSHEVSKA, blogger:
“First of all, I was surprised at the way Deutsche Welle correspondents conducted a man-on-the-street interview about public attitude to Saakashvili’s resignation. They should have conducted it in Odesa, not in Kyiv. The result was that the grassroots adore Saakashvili!
“I keep on asking: ‘Why?’ Why was he appointed to such a difficult city (I call it ‘posttraumatic’ after the May 2 events), a city which is so important to Ukraine, a city that needs to be knitted together rather than to see attempts to set some people against the other…? How could this risky venture be possibly undertaken?
“Mikheil Saakashvili has shown a superb master class to Ukrainian politicians: ‘Lie loudly, clearly, and firmly, and your rating will rise.” However, we see that this can last for a year or so. Then the rating begins to drop, which Saakashvili has demonstrated. Many people write me from various cities and countries that, as it turns out, Saakashvili has carried out all reforms in Ukraine, including those of police and public health. And I can’t explain to them that he has not done all this. For me, populism is an awful thing. When you promise to care about people but are not going to do this… I think that to disunite people, when you don’t understand the city’s mentality, is more terrible than an outright aggression. Environmentalist Ivan Rusev is fighting in Tatarbunary against poachers who are destroying the natural preserve. But Saakashvili comes and revels with these poachers – always in front of video cameras. To call Trukhavov enemy of Odesa? But you have Kivalov at hand, the one who wrote ‘the constitution of the Odesa People’s Republic.’ Migrants are a special issue. They couldn’t find the Odesa oblast head to sign documents on cash benefits because he was in Kyiv at the time. He travels across the country with anticorruption slogans during office hours. He set up the foundation For the Benefit of Odesa, making the odious persons Kaufman, Granovsky, and Kivan its donors. They live at this expense and promote Sasha Borovyk’s mayoral campaign for this money. If it is not corruption, then what is it? What did Saakashvili do at the customs office? He said we would not clear ‘China and Turkey.’ But ‘China and Turkey’ is Odesa’s main commodity turnover. And a half of the customs earnings are to be spent on roads! To sit in a tent on the Odesa-Reni highway in front of video cameras and ask the central government to give money? But you must earn it on your own!
“Why was he appointed chairman of the Odesa Oblast Administration? Why not in Poltava, Dnipro, etc.? Odesa is a strategic city. Our neighbor Moldova is holding elections on November 13, and, incidentally, the presidential candidate Igor Dodon welcomed the ‘orgy of separatism’ in Odesa in 2015. It is very serious. Saakashvili has only shaken everything loose but strengthened nothing. I am worried about safety.
“If this is a subtle plan called ‘How to lose Odesa,’ then I must say it is being successfully implemented. There is already a call in the Web: ‘Odesa for Odesaites. Let’s Kick Georgians Out!’ People were glad previously that Palytsia had gone, but now they are barbecuing to celebrate Saakashvili’s resignation. There still was a hope... As they put it, ‘don’t be charmed, and you won’t be disappointed.’ But I should finish with a positive note. Odesa is Ukraine. That’s all.”
