Will the Institution of State Secretaries Be a Second Government or Simply an Instrument for Implementing Ministerial Policies?
Prime Minister Anatoly Kinakh has warned members of his cabinet that he will take “very harsh measures” against ministers and other high officials who attempt to lobby the interests of politico-financial groups. He said this on June 6, opening the new government’s first meetting, Interfax-Ukraine reports.
In addition, Mr. Kinakh ordered ministers to strengthen cooperation with Verkhovna Rada and synchronize their work with that of the Presidential Administration. He drew attention to the ongoing “very complicated process of forming the Cabinet of Ministers” whereby the government is solving “a twofold task,” forming a viable and professional executive body and establishing “constructive, professional, and statesmanlike cooperation with Verkhovna Rada.” Mr. Kinakh also noted that all the deals he had struck in the course of consultations with parliamentary fractions and groups on this issue would be one of the top priorities in cabinet activities. “This was not and will never be a place for political opportunism,” he added.
However, the newly-established institution of state secretaries is still to fit in with the government-parliament-president relationship pattern. Here are comments of some people’s deputies on the prospects of this process.
Heorhy KRIUCHKOV, Communist Party of Ukraine:
“The very idea of introducing the institution of state secretaries has the right to exist, but the way it’s being implemented raises serious concerns and objections. A situation is being in fact created where we have two leaders. This existed in the sixties, when a conflict was provoked between local Party and government bodies on the subject of which of them was more authoritative. If repeated today, this will bring everything to a standstill. When a state secretary wields considerable power, has adequate staff, finances, and base-level organizations, the minister has nothing to do. Of course, if wise people come together (this happens sometimes), they will deliver the goods. And if not?”
Oleksandr LAVRYNOVYCH, Popular Movement of Ukraine (Rukh-Udovenko):
“I don’t know who interprets the institution of state secretaries as a second government. You can only believe this by indulging in wishful thinking. From this perspective, the institution of deputy ministers could also be called a second government. The establishment of these offices by no means contradicts the Constitution; it only changes the functional nature of ministerial activities. Moreover, this nature is changing in favor of states with old democratic traditions. It is important to differentiate civil service and political offices. There are de facto political offices in Ukraine: the president, people’s deputies, and Cabinet of Ministers members. Yet, many officials never took this seriously. Today, this knot has been untied, and ministers have again acquired the status of statesmen.”
“For these persons determine the behavioral line of the industries and sectors that implement national development programs. On the other hand, their functions have not been clearly identified by law. But I think parliament will fill this gap. It seems to me this decree has triggered speculation because many have read only commentaries, not the decree itself. The decree clearly sets out that the minister is in charge of finances, while the state secretary only represents financing. Yet the document contains, of course, some controversial points. For example, with respect to cadre issues and the ministers dealing with defense and law enforcement. But this should also be taken into account in the legislative process.”
Valery CHEREP, Social Democratic Party of Ukraine (united):
“The institution of state secretaries exists in various shapes and with different levels of authority in almost all European states. Today, we badly need an institution that would ensure the stable functioning of the state apparatus. But in distributing the functions one must prevent any dual power, for this would surely lead to confrontation. This will be taken into account when we begin drawing up the decision on state secretaries. The mechanism of the relationship between political figures and executives will be properly adjusted, which will involve the reorganization of governance. The decree says that this provision should be worked out within two months, so there is ample time to draft the rules of the game. As to the relationship between the minister and the state secretary, both of them should seriously care about the state. There is nothing to quarrel about. Our foreign and domestic policies were laid down in the presidential message to Verkhovna Rada. These policies were supported by the voters in the presidential elections. So the minister should work along these lines, while the state secretary and his staff should be a mechanism for solving these problems and finding methods of achieving the ultimate goal. Thus both the minister and the state secretary have the same task to fulfill, and the relationship between them depends on what kind of people they are, on their professionalism and statesmanship. Wise people will always reach a compromise, while ambitious people should be put in their places. I think both the president and the premier will put in a word here.”
(See also “Institution of State Secretaries Overshadows Cassette Scandal” on p. CLOSEUP)
