Much has happened in Ukraine since the night of February 22-23, 2014.
In the next of this series of three articles I will
write more about Maidan, what happened, and try to separate the truth from the
myths, but this article is about the post-Yanukovych period. I think that is
the best way to define the difference in Ukraine, whatever term people prefer
for the events that led up to this night, whether it is the “Revolution of
Dignity” or whether it is “EuroMaidan,” there was the Yanukovych era, and now,
thankfully, we are in a post-Yanukovych period.
The Yanukovych era was a life in Ukraine that was punctuated
by times of anger. We saw judges letting the rich and connected walk free,
regardless of their crimes, including murder. We saw state and regional
contracts awarded to unknown companies in pretend tenders, hundreds of millions
of dollars were divided among friends and officials would dishonestly and
illogically state afterwards that they didn’t know who owned the companies.
Post-Yanukovych, how are things different?
Of course, there is the war in the east and the theft of
Crimea. Those are things that I will write about in part three of this series
of articles. So, let’s stick a pin in those topics for the time being.
In a recent news article on Ukraine, the journalist
interviewed a couple of ladies on the street who claimed that nothing has
changed since the Yanukovych era. These ladies are very obviously wrong. It is
true that little has been done by the post-Yanukovych authorities that has yet
to make a demonstrable difference in the daily life experience of many
Ukrainians. And I cannot blame these ladies fully for being unaware of the
changes and reforms of the last 18 months because the authorities consistently fail
in their efforts to communicate their successes and explain what the changes
will mean and why they are being made.
The average Ukrainian knows that the judges are still
corrupt and haven’t been sacked, for example, so why would they assume that
anything is different. A Minister may well be tweeting about changes in their Ministry,
but the aforementioned two family matriarchs aren’t on Twitter, their views are
still formed by the still largely oligarch-controlled and agenda driven TV they
consume. That TV spends too much time talking about the war and the channel
owners are unlikely to have a personal interest in the reforming and rebirth of
Ukraine.
So, problems acknowledged, what has been done?
Elections have been held, twice. Ukraine has a
democratically elected and legitimate President and Parliament, and the
division of powers between these two institutions is clear meaning that never
again can all of the power of the nation be controlled by a single mafia like
organization as was the case during the Yanukovych era. This is significant.
During Maidan the most common chant was “Bandits Out” and they are out. They
fled to Moscow.
Ukraine has an ever evolving, maturing, political landscape.
Some of the people elected to Parliament are political novices and for sure the
Verkhovna Rada is still a brutal place at times, but the journalists and
activists and housewives turned Parliamentarians are standing up for what they
believe in, and they believe in Ukraine. This is significant too. It is a
source of great strength, when they question whether the state budget is
acceptable as submitted, maybe they question out of naivety and a lack of
understanding of economic necessities at state level, but they question in an
open and genuine way and not in pursuit of some dark agenda.
There is a new Constitution. It has not yet been adopted,
but it is the result of a consultative process that has taken on board the very
best advice from within and from outside of Ukraine. It is a Constitution that
creates the structure for much needed reform, again, instead of all of the
power being held under one ultimate clan, the new constitution sees a fairer
distribution of power and gives a greater ability for communities to manage
their affairs at a local level. Most significantly, the new Constitution has
not been drafted according to the dictate of any foreign power.
There are various new anti-corruption bodies. Are they
perfect? No, not yet. But their establishment means that there are now channels
for business people to bring claims against corrupt officials looking for a
bribe. That there is not one single anti-corruption entity again ensures that
there are checks and balances. State control is again being distributed to a
variety of players as a safeguard against abuse of powers.
There is a new police force patrolling the streets of Kyiv
in a very high profile way. That police force is reactive, polite, professional
and established according to principles tested by reformers in Georgia. They
are a very visible reminder of change in Kyiv, and the selection and training
of new officers who will soon be patrolling the streets of Odessa, Lviv,
Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk is under way.
The government has adopted an e-procurement policy. It will
make state procurement more efficient and less vulnerable to corrupt manipulation.
The post-Yanukovych authorities have identified 350 state
enterprises that will be privatized, none of them made any money for the state,
because they were not required to, they had been used to siphon money out of
the state. The sale of these entities will be handled in a transparent way and
will bring much needed money into the state’s coffers.
The tax system has
been simplified. The procedures for registering a business have been
simplified. The number of permits a business needs has been reduced.
The biggest change, post-Yanukovych, is that Ukraine is
getting more support and assistance from international partners. The International Monetary Fund and
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development are two excellent examples.
The IMF not only agreed an important
package of financial assistance for Ukraine, but they have stated their support
for Ukraine’s position in negotiations with private creditors as well. The president of the EBRD was in Ukraine last month and stated that his
organization invested $1.2 billion in Ukraine in 2014.
Travel on Kyiv’s
metro today and more often than not you’ll find yourself riding in a carriage
that has been refurbished recently, on the windows of the carriages you will
see a sign declaring that these renovations are part of an EBRD funded
program.
Anybody who has read the excellent book The Tipping Point will understand why this has been a priority. The
position of the IMF and EBRD is most certainly different post-Yanukovych, such
support for Ukraine from these organisations is unprecedented. The previous
authorities would have stolen as much as they could have got their hands on and
were therefore undeserving of either political or financial support.
“Nothing has changed” since the Yanukovych era? I beg to
differ. Much has changed. Much still needs to improve as well. What the post-Yanukovych
authorities inherited was such a colossal mess that fixing it was a colossal
task, the steps taken so far have been significant, and in the right direction,
and have provided the foundation for real change that the people of Ukraine
have repeatedly demanded both on Maidan and later at the ballot box.
