The year 2007
was a difficult one for me. Everything changed at
once when I was summoned to a high office and informed that I no
longer have my job (as head of organized crime department) in police.
Yes, it happened to me.
At the age of 42, 20
of which were fully dedicated to the service, I suddenly found myself
on the street.
Waking up at 6 a.m.
as usual, I stood by the window and watched Kyiv waking up. People
were heading to work and I had nowhere to go. The feeling that I have
no more right to be a part of my profession made me feel depressed.
Mass
or individual approach?
Now, when the law on
lustration has been voted by the parliament and is heavily debated by
the society, I could not help but remember my own experience. It`s
quite easy to operate with such terms as “nation”, “state”,
but it`s more difficult to think and act, taking into account the
value of every person. Isn’t this what Europe has been fighting for
throughout its history, the very Europe we strive for?
Watching the
pre-election excitement, I have some concerns about the balance and
objectivity of the decisions of some deputies, who voted for the Law
on lustration.
I would like to note
that I am an absolute supporter of the idea of cleaning the state
apparatus from bad blood and corrupt officials and former KGB.
The question is, how
the state should act in order to make sure that lustration does not
turn into repressions. Or worse still, into imitation of real
actions. Moreover, in 2005 our country has a negative experience of
very bad staffing decisions.
Then, thousands
people were fired from the Ministry of Internal Affairs at the same
time, causing an upsurge in crime. My own experience has taught me
to think twice before cutting when it’s about human fates.
I think that the
main principle behind the lustration strategy should be that of
personal responsibility and presumption of innocence. We should find
personal touch to every person, as per European practice.
100
people dismissed without proof of guilt
Here are some
examples. As prosecutor general of Ukraine I have to dismiss about
100 people under this law. However, those who were connected with
political repressions are not among this people.
We got rid of such
prosecutors on a first-priority basis, totally changed the executive
staff and cut more than 1,500 employees in different regions. But
according to the lustration law, even those workers who helped Maidan
during the hardest times, should be fired. Some of them shared
information, some refused to follow illegal orders and took decisions
to vindicate protesters. These people will now have to leave the
service after the law comes into effect.
Some officials are
taking part in the anti-terrorist operation as a part of a volunteer
battalion, they risk their lives every day, but they have to be
lustrated too. Moreover, even those taking a child care leave have to
be lustrated because the law has no restrictions.
Is
it fair?
Imagine a person who
studied to be a prosecutor, worked in prosecution for a long time,
and who is then banned from working in this sphere.
This can end up with
a lot of new suits in Ukrainian courts and the European Court for
Human Rights. From the judicial point of view courts will have every
reason to revoke such decisions.
There is a question,
how does the dismissal of a million workers from government agencies
without proof of guilt fit the main requirement of the Ukrainian
society, justice and equality before law?
In my opinion, there
is a dangerous trend forming of a degrading attitude to state
officials. We should not forget that bureaucrats are the basis of
every state, and supports its major functions.
TrashBucketChallenge
and the law on lustration
When government
agencies fail to function effectively, the laws of strength and
weapons kick in. We’re seeing it in the so-called “trash
lustration.”
I agree that from
the emotional point of view, one sometimes feels the great desire to
use such means of physical influence rather than modern law. The
silent reaction of law enforcement breeds more desire to continue.
But the line between trash lustration and mob rule is very thin.
People watch others
being trashed with joy, but only until the problem comes to them.
Because when your car is stolen or your house gets burgled and the
police don’t care, one’s views change rapidly.
Our country should
go down the road of the rule of law. If we are ruled by our
emotions, not law, we will be no better than the previous government.
Lustration
as a test
Llustration is a
test for our statehood and ability to act, both from the lawmaking,
and law-enforcing point of view. The new Ukraine cannot happen if we
fail to restore law enforcement. Lawlessness, under any brand, and
even under the very best of slogans, only breed anarchy.
Ukraine
needs a law on lustration, which matches the principles of individual
responsibility and presumption of innocence. This is why the debate
about the rules to use for lustration should actually continue at the
public and activist level.
Vitaliy Yarema is the general prosecutor of Ukraine.
