Groysman, as the president’s man, would do little to advance the cause of structural reforms — or give Ukraine what it needs most: a professional and technocratic government that roots out corruption, installs rule of law, privatizes, deregulates, de-oligarchizes and, in general, puts the public interest above the corrupted vested interests.
Most immediately, the stalled reform drive — for which the public blames Poroshenko, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and the current parliament — needs to get back on track quickly for Ukraine to get another $3.7 billion in Western credits from the United States, European Union and International Monetary Fund.
Any government that Groysman leads would likely perpetuate the corrupt business-as-usual status quo of horse-trading for positions, favor and subsidies. It would also mean a resurgence of vested and often oligarch interests fiercely sabotaging reform.
His appointment, coupled with the election of EuroMaidan Revolution hero Andriy Parubiy as speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, would further sink the already low popularity of the president and the government almost instantly.
Yet that is exactly what some cynical politicians want because Groysman as prime minister would then strengthen presidential powers in such a way that Poroshenko would never be able to escape blame for stalled reforms.
And if the president grows more deeply unpopular, then ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko — who leads an opposition minority faction in parliament — and many others might get their wish: early presidential and parliamentary elections.
If it’s true that Jaresko does not have 226 votes in parliament to be elected as prime minister, does it mean that the oligarchs, populists, vested interests and other malevolent factors have won?
I think so, but only in the short run.
But such is the unfortunate state of political life today in Ukraine.
If Jaresko — justifiably praised for her effectiveness and honesty as finance minister since December 2014 — cannot win enough votes to lead a technocratic government, then she probably cannot get majorities to pass the much-stalled reformist legislation either.
It would, of course, be another tragedy for Ukraine.
But such an outcome will also ignite reform-minded Ukrainians, the majority of the nation, and Western partners into action.
Jaresko effectively put out a public call for emergency action with her Facebook declaration on March 22 that she will not be shoved aside and that Ukraine, now more than ever, needs the kind of patriotic and professional government that she can lead. We should know by the end of the month whether the Ukrainian public, her allies in parliament and civil society can exert enough pressure for her to replace Yatsenyuk.
The fact that Poroshenko is willing to install his loyalist as prime minister and keep the utterly obstructionist and probably corrupt Viktor Shokin as prosecutor general would be a supremely arrogant move for a president whose approval ratings are flirting dangerously close to single digits. It’s not looking good now, as Western leaders have been unable to persuade Poroshenko to change course.
Poroshenko is going to Washington, D.C., at the end of this month for the Nuclear Security Summit. Two years into his presidency, he could have been hailed in America’s capital as a cutting-edge reformer who would regale presidents, politicians and the public with stories about “Ukraine’s reform miracle.” But since not enough reforms — and certainly no miracles — have taken place, Poroshenko will not be meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama or greeted as a returning democratic hero. He is increasingly seen as a corrupt old hack (albeit English-speaking) determined to keep Ukraine’s oligarchy in place, someone who has missed his moment to make great history.
If Poroshenko keeps obstructing reforms and failing to deliver on the promise of the EuroMaidan Revolution that allowed him to take power two years ago, he will enter the political graveyard of the past four presidents who also kept in place a Soviet-style kleptocracy.
But as many things in life, the current adversity might come out better in the end for Ukraine, but only eventually, and after much avoidable pain and hardship for its citizens.
Poroshenko’s continuing failure will almost ensure the further departures of effective, professional technocrats with integrity — people like Jaresko, Agricultural Minister Oleksiy Pavlenko, Infrastructure Minister Andriy Pivovarsky and dozens if not hundreds more still in government. They will run for the exits, the same way that Economy Minister Aivaras Abromavicius, Deputy Prosecutor General Vitaliy Kasko and others did when confronted with corrupt obstructionists allied with Poroshenko.
The president’s ongoing political train wreck will also energize the young and restless generation of political leaders, in and out of parliament. These are representatives of civil society and lawmakers such as Serhiy Leshchenko, Hanna Hopko, Svitlana Zalishchuk, Nataliya Katser-Buchkovska, Alex Ryabchyn, Victoria Voytsitska, Oksana Syroid, Olga Bielkova, Lena Sotnyk and many others.
Groysman has led a parliament that has largely or too often obstructed the reform agenda.
So if Groysman’s appointment as prime minister hastens the demise of Ukraine’s old political guard and the early election of clean lawmakers willing to back a technocratic government led by Jaresko or someone of her caliber, let’s get on with it.
Kyiv Post chief editor Brian Bonner can be reached at [email protected].
