“Humanitarian policy is also part of the defense of Ukraine”

Den’s guest Viacheslav Kyrylenko has been holding the office of vice premier for almost two years since December 2, 2014. Over this time, he has come under a lot of criticism, especially when he was concurrently the minister of culture. There is also talk about an uneasy relationship between Mr. Kyrylenko and other members of both the previous and the current government. Yet the vice premier seems to be confident and to be trying to support the initiatives that he thinks are important. Many of them are about culture, although he is no longer formally responsible for this field.

Speaking to the vice prime minister, we focused on the most burning humanitarian issues, such as book publication, research, and introduction of a competitive contract system in culture institutions. We also spoke about the consequences to Ukraine of three – in the years of independence – waves of mass public protests and why they failed to ruin the oligarchic clan system.

“PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE RENAISSANCE OF CINEMA IN UKRAINE”

Mr. Kyrylenko, how can we make this country attractive to its citizens? You have been a vice premier for almost two years. What do you think are your main achievements? And what problems are still up in the air and remain unresolved?

“I will speak about what I consider important. Firstly, we got the law ‘On Governmental Support of Cinema in Ukraine’ passed. We did it very recently, but the process had started when the previous Cabinet was in power. Our cooperation with TV and film people resulted in the initiative ‘KinoKraina’ (‘Cine-Country’) – we initiated a number of public debates and, in spite of resistance, got this bill voted into law. It provides for some revolutionary economic measures to support the film industry, such as refunding a part of qualified expenses, a special regime of taxation, the mechanism of cultural test, and funding TV serial production. I think it is a positive result.”

But the president has not yet signed it. What does this mean? What further steps should be taken to let Ukrainian cinema continue to develop?

“I am sure the president will sign this law. The point is that, for this law to be applied, it is necessary to introduce changes to the tax and budget codes. But I think we will struggle and get the law finally adopted before the end of this year.

“Incidentally, we can also fund co-production. Krzysztof Zanussi has applied to the latest pitch held by the State Cinema Agency with a project to be co-produced with Ukraine. The well-known Georgian director Zaza Urushadze, whose latest film Tangerines was even nominated for an Oscar, has also presented an international project for us to select. This means people from other countries have confidence in the ongoing renaissance of cinema in Ukraine. And it would be just a crime to slow down this process.

“I will say more about important steps. I am very glad that the campaign to increase the share of Ukrainian-language songs on the radio was crowned with success [the president signed Law No.1421-VIII to this effect in July this year. – Ed.]. This law comes into force on November 1. I decided to get society fully involved in this initiative. Naturally, I was in close contact with the public, but it was very difficult to get this law passed by parliament. The radio lobby, which just wanted no changes, turned out to be strong enough.

“The third process I am in charge of now is introduction of a system of permission for books from Russia, the aggressor. The government has supported this bill, and the relevant parliamentary committee has resolved to support it in the first reading. The idea is to stem the tide of Putin’s propaganda that easily penetrates through our borders. The last straw is a book by the Russian propagandist Dugin, who has called for killing the Ukrainian military, at the Book Arsenal festival. Incidentally, the book was brought in officially. I think parliament will vote this bill into law.

“I must say that this initiative is about Russian books, not the Russian-language books published in Ukraine. Permission will be given within 10 days if it is a useful Russian book. But the publishers and authors who specialize in anti-Ukrainian loutishness will be, naturally, forbidden to bring in their books.”

“THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNFAIR COMPETITION ON THE PART OF RUSSIAN PUBLISHERS”

As for book publishing, earlier this year the Cabinet adopted a concept of governmental policies about the development of national book publishing and the popularization of reading for a period until 2020. For some reason, the implementation of it was entrusted to the State Television and Radio Committee rather than to the emerging Institute of the Book. What do you think in general about the development of the book publishing market in Ukraine, particularly as far as Ukrainian-language literature is concerned? And why does the literature brought in from Russia account for a considerable part of the market?

“Our book publishing is strong enough. The problem is that there has always been unfair competition on the part of Russian publishers, which often puts ours in an obviously losing situation. The market has shown no rise in book circulations in the past few years due to a dwindling consumer demand for everything. But as far as titles, range, and content are concerned, the market remains at a high level and in some cases is even advancing, which all the latest book forums have confirmed.

“We continue granting tax exemptions to book publishers, although this sparks disputes every year. But I am sure these preferences will be kept intact in the 2017 budget.

“Russian books have always been coming to us legally, illegally, and in a ‘gray’ manner. The official import of all Russian books has plummeted since the beginning of the war, which confirms the reaction of rejection on the part of the Ukrainian reader. According to the Ukrainian Association of Book Publishers and Sellers, this import was worth not more than 3.7 million dollars past year and not more than 2 million dollars in the first eight months of this year.

“On the other hand, according to various market-monitoring entities, the ‘gray’ and partially ‘black’ import creates a market structure that makes it possible to sell a large number of Russian books at book marketplaces.

“As for the ‘gray’ import, one person is allowed now to bring in 50 kilograms of books – officially, without any status of an entrepreneur. If 10 people, each of which carries 50 kilograms books, get on a bus, they all carry half a ton, which in commercial activity pure and simple. All the Russian, including anti-Ukrainian, books appear at Kharkiv’s Barabashov market, Kyiv’s Petrivka, and other Ukrainian marketplaces. We have adjusted this ‘gray’ import in the abovementioned bill: if one is not an entrepreneur, he or she can only bring 10 books from Russia. We are talking about books from the aggressor country only. It is a temporary measure until Ukraine restores its territorial integrity.

“I’ve also discussed at length the problem of ‘black’ imports with the Customs Office and the Security Service. They say this kind of smuggling does not practically exist.”

And what do you think is the purpose of the Institute of the Book, taking into account that its functions still remain distributed among various institutions?

“The Ministry of Culture has appointed the director of this institute and supervises the establishment of this facility. The goal is to concentrate all book publishing programs within the limits of the Institute of the Book. The Ministry of Culture has a program of purchasing books for public libraries, while the State Television and Radio Committee deal with the Ukrainian Book program. Incidentally, we have increased state budget funding of both programs in 2016.

“The Institute of the Book should focus on the implementation of both programs and set the right priorities, for the sake of which a relevant law was passed. It is about translations, opportunities to export our books and import the required foreign ones, and, what is more, translation from Ukrainian into European languages and vice versa, and funding these programs. I hope the Institute of the Book will work actively and do the needful from the next year onwards.”

Another important field of the Institute of the Book’s activity is public-private partnership. Den has implemented a lot of projects that are useful from the viewpoint of culture and knowledge enhancement. But, so far, all our appeals to governmental institutions for support have produced no practical results. How can this be changed?

“We have a law on public-private partnership which, incidentally, can occur in the sphere of culture, too. But, firstly, this law is difficult to implement. The Cabinet is to approve each public-private partnership program after is has gone through the seven circles of hell in all the other ministries. For this reason, no decisions about public-private partnership have been made at all – at least in culture. Maybe, there have been some isolated instances in other sectors. So this mechanism must be liberalized.

“Secondly, we should set up institutions that allow interaction of the state’s public funds and private money without the mechanisms stipulated by the Law ‘On Public-Private Partnership.’ I once proposed an idea to the Ukrainian Institute to popularize this country abroad, which envisioned this mechanism of interaction. There may also be other proposals. Then it will be possible for private and public funds to interact in order to carry out specific projects – naturally, under the control of the public, supervisory boards, etc. I think it is a matter of the near future.”

 “THE CLAN SYSTEM HAS NOT VANISHED BUT IS TOTTERING VERY MUCH”

Mr. Kyrylenko, there was recently the 26th anniversary of the so-called Revolution on Granite, in which you took an active part. What do you think about the impact of those events on changes in public awareness? Is it perhaps a case when, by force of their sincere passion, romantics brought cynics to power?

“I am an active participant of all the three Ukrainian revolutions. The Revolution on Granite is deep in my heart forever. My friends and I were its organizers, and many of those guys are today active journalists, political writers, or politicians. For us, it is a great event that changed this country and, in my view, was a precursor of independence.

“All the three revolutions were necessary, for Ukraine is a European nation by origin. Kyivan Rus’ was part of Europe. Its princes influenced other countries’ politicians, governments, and royal families, although we are not always aware of this. But institutionally, from the moment we lost statehood, we failed all the time to get back to Europe. In 1991, when we voted for independence, we seemed to embark on the path of institutional comeback. But almost immediately after this, we saw a rollback from European values. It took us as many as 13 years to retake this path – until the Orange Revolution broke out. A rollback again a year or two later – the pro-European forces quarreled and were unable to retain power to which the pro-Moscow forces came again. It took almost 10 years to put Ukraine on a European course again – this time after very tragic events.”

Do you think there has emerged some kind of democratization now? We can see Kuchma, a person against whom Ukrainians took to the streets during the Orange Revolution, negotiating in Minsk. In other words, the clan system is not vanishing. What should society do in an inter-revolutionary period?

“The clan system has not yet vanished but is tottering very much. It is now in fact the moment of truth: either we will topple this system or it will add more cement into its foundation and restore its might, which will lead again to dramatic events later. Ukrainians are a Cossack-type nation and will never put up with slavery.

“I look at this from a more practical angle. The fact that Kuchma represents Ukraine in Minsk and some other representatives of what may be called the old political era are taking part in the current political process has no impact on the overall, pro-European, tendency. We are carrying out the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, deregulating the economy, and taking anticorruption measures. Many people criticize certain steps, but we always follow European recipes. We are doing the needful in the humanitarian policy. We have carried out lustration and are carrying out de-Communization. We are at the beginning of large-scale decolonization, and the initiatives about cinema, music, and Russian books are a good indicator of this. Naturally, there are things to fight against. The main thing is to keep society from falling into disappointment.”

“I NEVER ACT AS AN OFFICIAL. I WORK AS A POLITICIAN”

When parliament was elected in 2014, five parties formed a coalition, and humanitarian issues were the last item in the coalition agreement. Do you think it is symptomatic? Only two of the five parties have been left in the present-day coalition. Maybe, some moments should be of a higher priority?

“I think everything depends on the activity of concrete individuals and the ability to know one’s business and convince others of its importance. Almost all of my initiatives received support from the previous Cabinet and parliament. As for de-Communization, we moved three laws on behalf of the Cabinet and one on behalf of MPs. Parliament voted for all the four. Could we imagine this a year ago? Now the law on a system of permissions for Russian books has gone through all the governmental channels and has been supported by the government – in other words, it is a consolidated position of the Cabinet of Ministers.

“When the previous Cabinet was in office, the problems of culture and the humanitarian sphere were in the media spotlight almost every day. The articles were full of passion. I think I was doing my job. I was criticized very much, but you can, of course, sit snug like a little gray mouse in any government. Nobody touches you because you do and propose nothing. If you have a vision of certain processes, you must put it into practice. And a parliamentary-presidential republic has the nature of a coalition government which is a political instrument. You must follow your course.

“I was involved in drawing up the chapter on the socio-humanitarian policy in the previous coalition agreement, and it has remained practically unchanged in the current agreement. I never act as an official. I work as a politician. I hold views and I advocate them. The point is that you should also be a practical person and be able to turn all the words into governmental decisions, standard-setting instruments, and bills, as well as to persuade others to vote for them. I think I generally manage to do so, although I’d like to do more. But we should be realists: there are many other urgent issues. It is, first of all, defense and security, as long as the war is going on.

“Yet the humanitarian policy is also part of the defense of Ukraine. It is because we, sorry, never cared a fig about this in Crimea, the Donbas, and many other places that we are now in a situation which we have to overcome with bloodshed. The president, the prime minister, and the parliamentary speaker are working in the same direction now. They wield real power, and if they really want something, they do it. And this should be appreciated.”

“EVERYBODY – NOT ONLY MINISTERS AND MPs – MUST BE ELECTED”

The law on the competitive contract system of appointing directors of culture institutions stirred up a lot of criticism. In the view of many artists, it contravenes the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention of the International Labor Organization. For example, the delegates of a recent congress of the National League of Ukraine’s Theatrical Figures suggested that this document be repealed and essentially revised. They have already sent a letter of proposal to the heads of parliament and state. Would you comment on this?

“I moved the bill when I was minister of culture in the previous government. This was preceded by a heated discussion with the theater reform task force. A lot of people spoke at the time about the necessity of introducing a competitive system in the sphere of culture. For in many institutions, especially in the regions, directors hold their offices for 30-40 years. There are no chances to interfere into this and put forward new ideas. So the problem had long been in the air. Not only directors, but also artists were subject to competition.

“The contract system already existed, to some extent, in the capital but not in the regions. However, parliament altered my bill, which resulted in a contradiction – two positions, of the artistic director and the general manager, were reduced to one. This created a situation, when, for example, the contract of one of them has expired and a competition is to be announced to fill one vacancy, but there are two contenders. More often than not, they are well-know people. A juridical question arises: is it necessary to wait for the other person’s contract to expire? This also stirred up unhealthy discussions in some institutions.

“I proposed a transitional period for the artistic personnel, which the law envisions. I suggested that this period last for three years, but parliament resolved that it should last for one year and all artists should sign a contract – without a competition – before February 2017. Trade unions were afraid that, once the bill was signed into law, a half of this personnel, people who had lost the competition, would end up on the street. We thus set up a social safety device in the shape of a transitional period.

“It is the theatrical public itself, primarily their most progressive, reform-minded part that demanded the adoption of a law like this. I am convinced that the competitive contact system should be introduced for all directors of culture institutions in this country. Everybody – not only ministers and MPs – must be elected.”

But does this not harbor a danger that the competition system will be used as an instrument to get rid of undesirable people or, on the contrary, to impose somebody’s candidature? The Mystetsky Arsenal situation is often cited in this connection.

“Like Ukraina Palace, Mystetsky Arsenal is formally not an institution of culture. It is a facility of the Governmental Logistic Support Directorate. So they were free to appoint the director without any competition. But they still held a competition. Moreover, the contest commission was formed in compliance with the law – nine people, of whom three are from the workforce unit (they are in fact appointed by the current director), three from the governing body, and three from the public.

“I am convinced that the media should get unlimited access to the process of competition and, if necessary, live web coverage should be organized on an institution’s website.”

“ACADEMICS SHOULD PROPAGATE THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS”

This year Ukraine has seen mass-scale protests of academics against the National Academy of Sciences situation – they demanded that funding be increased. But these protests produced no tangible results. The world recently riveted its attention to Nobel Prize winners, while Ukrainian academics mostly have to think about how to survive. What is your vision of the Academy’s future?

“The prime minister recently had an unprecedented meeting with academics – for the first time in many years. This meaningful meeting lasted for almost three hours. The main point of the discussion was, on the one hand, how to ensure funding and, on the other, how to reform and make more effective scientific research in Ukraine.

“Late past year the Verkhovna Rada passed a progressive Law ‘On Scientific Research and Technology,’ but it has been implemented by not more than 5 percent as of today. The key point of this law is that scientific research can be funded by new structures. Now in the making is the National Council for the Development of Science and Technology with the prime minister at the head. It will be distributing grant-related expenses through the National Research Fund. These sources will finance the research of only those academics who have won a competition and proven the fundamental and applied necessity of their projects. In other words, it is an alternative to financing only through the general state budget fund of the National Academy of Science or sectoral academies, as it is being done now. So we are going down the road of reforms, but this movement is slow.

“We will see to it that the Academy of Sciences’ structures will be funded from the state budget next year, but the question is that they must produce more noticeable results. Besides, academics often do not advertise their achievements properly. For example, the Academy of Medical Sciences has demonstrated a unique achievement at a Cabinet meeting. It is about healing wounds – people were saved in seemingly hopeless situations: with a bullet in the heart, with heavy craniocerebral injuries, etc. Such things must be supported. The defense complex is also in need of scientific products, and we are already successfully moving in this direction. I cannot disclose many things, but there are results.

“Academics should propagate their achievements. If there are any, they deserve to be funded. And ineffective expenditures should be canceled.”

“I AM NOT GOING TO PRETEND THAT THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS”

What law do you think Ukraine’s cultural and humanitarian sphere is still short of?

“The law on patronage! There are in fact no preferences for philanthropists in Ukraine today. The existing legislative instruments are not used – they bring the patron problems with the tax inspection rather than glory. We have now a draft law on patronage, which is first of all applicable to sport. I would support it, but I am sure that a comprehensive project is needed. Culture, sport, and other spheres must get an opportunity to receive support from sponsors.

“Of course, no ‘extremism’ is needed here. For there also are some radical proposals – let us exempt from taxes the whole profit that is transferred to the recipient of a patron’s aid. And anyone, including a natural person – a concrete sportsman or cultural figure – can be the recipient in this case. This option would be advisable if there were a high level of trust between businesspeople, fiscals, and society. We don’t have this. This would immediately arouse a suspicion that you just want to minimize taxes. To be reworded, this draft law must go through several circles of a sharp and heated public debate. I hope this subject will be high on the agenda in the near future.”

Are you optimistic about this country’s future?

“If I were not optimistic, why on earth would I work in the government? I was elected to parliament in 2014 and could have worked there quietly for five years. Instead, I placed myself on this ‘red-hot frying pan.’ It was particularly difficult in the chair of the minister of culture, for I was not going to put up with many things and often behaved rather toughly. The current stage is also difficult because this government has challenges of its own. But I am not going to pretend that there are no problems. I will continue tackling – and resolving – difficult problems.”