IDENTIFYING PROBLEM AREAS
The composition of the new government remains a major issue with the public. Judging by the many reactions, some appointments have drawn hardly any objections from politicians and experts, while others have raised many eyebrows. Questions have also arisen as to the principles that were used to form the new cabinet. It remains unclear why the president conceded his lawful right to appoint the heads of the uniformed services. Notably, the first statements by these chiefs seem to be more pie in the sky than realistic plans for reform. Is there a risk that instead of implementing systemic reforms of the uniformed services their chiefs will go no further than showmanship designed to win voters’ support ahead of the 2006 parliamentary elections?
Some members of the new cabinet competed for several absolutely unrelated ministerial posts. But what about the principle of professionalism espoused by the members of Yushchenko’s team, in particular by Petro Poroshenko? Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko answered this question in her keynote speech in parliament: “First comes morality, then professionalism.” However, what moral or team rationale can explain the following concoction: the agrarian sector has been placed in the care of the Socialists, while the economy and finances are the responsibility of “market fundamentalists”? In what direction will the representatives of these ideologically incompatible and divergent political forces take the nation’s economy? Where is the state machinery headed? What are the experts’ views of these issues?
COMMENTARY
Oleksandr LYTVYNENKO, first deputy director, Institute for Strategic Research:
“An analysis of President Viktor Yushchenko’s appointments to central and local government bodies leads to several conclusions.
“First, the appointments were mostly based on the political and coalition principle. The thirteenth Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has become the first truly coalition government, in which every member clearly represents a certain political force: the various groups and parties within the Our Ukraine Bloc and Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, the Socialist Party, the People’s Agrarian Party, and the Unity Party.
“Second, there has been a significant re-staffing of the upper echelons of state leadership. This government has the youngest members seen in decades. All ministers were born after the Second World War. Thirteen ministers are aged between 40 and 50, six between 30 and 40, and three between 50 and 60, and one minister, Yury Pavlenko, has yet to celebrate his thirtieth birthday. The heads of local state administrations are somewhat older. A new political generation, which was formed after independence, is taking over the reigns of power.
“At the same time, all the new government members occupy a rather high social status. Thus, instead of the emergence of a fundamentally new elite, we are witnessing a very significant rotation in the environment of the old and familiar Ukrainian elites. Proof of this is the fact that nine out of twenty-two current ministers held posts during the tenure of President Leonid Kuchma, for which they were appointed by the head of state. Before their ministerial appointments, 21 government members were members of parliament; one managed an analytical center, and another one a public utility company.
“Third, for the first time since independence the prime minister’s post is held by a woman, who was born in a city with a population of over one million. At the same time, like their predecessors, most new ministers and heads of local state administrations hail from villages or small towns.
“Fourth, engineers (6 out of 23) and economists (5 out of 23) predominate among the ministers. At the same time, many government members have a second degree in humanities.
“Thus, on February 4, 2005, Ukraine made a major step toward political reform, i.e., the introduction of a European model of a cabinet that is mostly made up of politicians, not functionaries. This has created an urgent need to implement administrative reform as soon as possible, in particular to separate the administrative machinery and career functionaries from political appointments. If this requirement is ignored, this may lead to the further politicization of officials, and Ukraine would face the unfortunate scenario of personnel reshuffling. While at the political level the probable frequent replacements may not be viewed as a major threat, constant personnel rotation in the administrative chain can have grave consequences for the social development of Ukraine and welfare of its citizens. Such a scenario is especially dangerous for the central bodies of executive power that form the military organization of the state and ensure its national security.”
Vasyl STOYAKIN, director, Political Marketing Center:
“In the new government only Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is fully professional. Perhaps this government was formed not so much for the sake of effective work as to satisfy the claims of the various groups that supported Viktor Yushchenko for president. It even looks somewhat odd. For example, I cannot imagine how you can combine socialists like Baranivsky and Nikolayenko with neo-liberals like Pynzenyk and Teriokhin. Individually these people are no doubt professionals in their own spheres. But if you put them together in a single harness, they will simply start butting heads and won’t make any progress at all. Thus, all hopes are on Tymoshenko. Everything will depend on whether she can manage somehow to normalize this situation or replace certain individuals in order to make the government capable of at least a minimum of work.
“At the same time I cannot help noting that some appointments are very successful, for example, Anatoly Kinakh’s appointment as first deputy premier. Unlike Tymoshenko, who is now a political leader, Kinakh never lost touch with the real economy and has a good idea of the needs of Ukrainian industry. At the same time, as a politician he is not strong enough to turn his work into a constant battle against the prime minister. To all appearances, the appointment of Stanislav Nikolayenko as Minister of Science and Education is also a good decision, as he is a capable expert in the field of education. But I would like the humanities section of the government to be staffed by professionals who have good relations with the Ukrainian intelligentsia.
“The ministers of the uniformed services seem glaringly unprofessional. As I see it, there must have been some kind of directive from the top to make sure that they are not experts in this sphere.
“In my view, this government will simply not be able to work as a single team. In terms of its composition and professionalism it is definitely weaker than the previous government. We have yet to see how effective it will be. The thing is, the government itself can be witless, but the results of its work don’t necessarily have to be at all bad. Sometimes a government may be involved with its matters without interfering with the country’s economy. As a result, the economy develops nicely. In this connection we should hark back to the governments of Kinakh and Pustovoitenko. In the case of the current government, however, this is unlikely, since the new cabinet has been charged with the task of breaking the current oligarchic model of the economy. The trouble is that we don’t have any other economy. If we break the oligarchic model, this will mean the collapse of the economy in general. But from the standpoint of the present government’s effectiveness, if it succeeds in this task, it will have done a good job. So, if this government’s efforts result in an economic decline, it will not necessarily mean the failure of the government. If it manages to break the oligarchic economy and build a different one in its place without precipitating an economic decline, but only causing a slowdown in economic growth, this will be a wonderful result.
“As for the statements by the new government members, I was quite amazed to hear Viktor Yushchenko say abroad that under President Kuchma there was nothing being done to eradicate corruption, that no efforts were undertaken to combat this problem. At the same time we are hearing statements that our officials will not be taking bribes from now on. But if we still have it after all the promises to do away with corruption (unfortunately, I’m certain that we cannot eradicate it), this will probably result in incidences of corruption being hushed up. Almost everywhere high posts have been occupied by people from the opposition. They have yet to grasp the particulars of their new posts and understand their psychological situation: they are no longer opposition politicians who can make statements of various degrees of responsibility, but government officials who have to be cautious with their words. We are hearing strange statements to the effect that the reprivatization of Kryvorizhstal will boost investor confidence in Ukraine. But this cannot happen, because nothing of the kind can happen in principle. Any revision of privatization contracts, no matter how illegal, cannot boost investor confidence, because we are talking about changing the rules of the game. When Oleh Rybachuk says, ‘If Europe does not accept us, we will start an Orange Revolution in Brussels,’ it is clear that this is a statement from an opposition politician who has yet to learn the fundamentals of diplomatic tact.”
Andriy YERMOLAYEV, director, Sophia Social Research Center:
“A key feature of the new government is the fact that most of its members are public politicians. This means that, whether they like it or not, the public is focused on them, and we will hear and see them. It is a young government, so it will use new, more dynamic and modern methods. Moreover, almost all the newly appointed ministers have a good fundamental education.
“Yet there are also problem areas in the new government. I wouldn’t praise its team style, if only because the ministers represent different political parties. The fact that the government is beginning its work under a program that lacks instruments is fertile ground for conflicts when the time comes for the government to choose some priority measures over others. Another problem that the new government might face is a conflict between the ministry chiefs and the management of enterprises that operate under the guidance of these ministries. The new ministers of the uniformed services will have a hard time gaining authority with their subordinates in their respective ministries, which are known for their strong corporate spirit. “As for the statements by the new ministers, I get the impression that most of them are still riding the wave of the Orange Revolution, and their words and decisions are most probably linked to their old promises. That is, they are speaking the language of PR technologies and populist decisions. I do not consider this a bad thing, but neither do I consider it productive.”
