The new code is dated Feb. 11, but the resolution approving them only appeared on March 1.
The introductory note states that “in order to restore public trust in the work of state bodies and their officials, the government has decided to introduce standards of ethical behavior for civil servants.”
It asserts that this takes into account “the progressive and successful experience” of the European Union, and says that it is based on a model for guaranteeing maximum transparency of the work of state bodies adopted in Poland.
It is impossible to understand how muffling criticism from civil servants and the heads of state enterprises is supposed to enhance transparency. This is no mere advice on good behavior since the document ends by stating that for breaching the rules, a person will face disciplinary measures “in accordance with the law.”
Item 2 states that civil servants must be guided by principles of, among other things, loyalty. This envisages “refraining from any demonstrations of public criticism of the work of state bodies and its officials.”
Perhaps this is a norm accepted in other countries, but it comes at a time when Ukrainians are increasingly impatient at the lack of reform and failure to combat corruption. The information which could be muffled is often of real public importance.
“Disloyal” behavior would, for example, almost certainly be deemed to include the public statements made by then Deputy Prosecutor General Vitaliy Kasko about the effective sabotage of reform by Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who undermined an EU-supported system for bringing in new people.
These ethical rules have been adopted by a prime minister and Cabinet of Ministers who have come under heavy criticism. Concerns were raised last year by anti-corruption watchdogs over the alleged rigging by Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and others over the makeup of the selection commission for members of the National Anti-Corruption Agency.
This government has now brought in “ethical rules” which leave no alternative but for people of integrity like Kasko and Aivaras Abromavicius, the former economy minister, to resign or shut up. In their cases, their departures made headlines. The muffling of civil servants or heads of state enterprises will likely go unnoticed.
There are other ethical rules that should preclude silence where the country’s interests are at stake. Try to prove this, however. Instead, items such as 5.4 which prohibit activities even outside one’s work “that could harm the interests of the state service or adversely affect the reputation of a civil servant” could be used to prevent freedom of speech.
It is true that information exposing corruption, sabotage of reform, etc., is damaging to Ukraine’s reputation. The corruption and sabotage, however, need to be addressed and stopped. Instead, the government has endorsed rules to prevent those employed to serve the public from criticizing. This, they claim, is aimed at winning back public confidence.
Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.
