Reforms and order, Ukrainian style

What should be the essence of reforms in a country declaring its European choice? Certainly, organizing economic activity in compliance with standards accepted in successful European countries — the countries not facing default and economic collapse.

The reforms initiated by Prime Minister Mykola Azarov contain the right postulate: everyone must pay, but the rich must pay more. However, even the cursory analysis of this postulate suggests that many people will dislike the reforms.

To begin with, the rich will become dissatisfied. Many of them accommodated themselves to the current situation quite comfortably; they pay (both legally and illegally) so that they keep enough for themselves. Now they will have to pay a bit more. Say, for their apartment occupying the entire floor or a country house resembling a medieval castle in size and shape. There is a strong desire not to do it. Social scientists say there is a psychological rule: the richer a person is, the more covetous. Fortunately, there are exceptions to this rule, but an average rich Ukrainian is extremely greedy: usually when it does not deal with his or her own persona and people from their circle of interests (wife, children, lover, head of their supporting party, or tax inspection). Spending money on close ones is prestigious, one can be proud of it. Giving a bus to a school and trumpeting it everywhere can be prestigious as well. But paying such taxes to the state regularly, so that schools could buy these buses on their own — nobody takes pride in that.

Therefore, the first and most powerful unsatisfied group is the rich and very rich. These people can hire appropriate experts, organize necessary publications in newspapers, and even pay for crowded rallies and demonstrations.

However, many people among the so-called middle class and small business will be dissatisfied as well because the situation here is chaotic altogether. For some reason mass media covers only “illicit” cabdrivers, though hundreds of thousands unregistered representatives of other much demanded professions actively work in the country as well: builders, plumbers, electricians, handlers, translators, private tutors, etc. If you happen to need one of these specialists and you hire them, you take a rather risky path.

First, there is no guarantee this worker really knows his work well and you will not end up looking for a replacement. Second, almost all of these “masters” request a deposit but totally reject signing a written agreement. After paying the deposit things can go awry and you should expect the worst. These representatives of small business are not registered anywhere, and you have no information about them except for their name, so it is hard to bring them to justice.

Moreover, the salary of different individual workers is totally unregulated. Many plumbers and other home masters make more in one week than a professor holding a doctor’s degree does in a month.

A university instructor giving a lesson to two rich children makes as much in an hour and a half as he does in three or four working days from his regular salary. This cannot happen in a developed European country.

However, these very plumbers and other specialists lack rights when it comes to dealing with more or less powerful people. Getting no money from the owner of a new three-story mansion or a luxurious apartment after working for a day, month, or all summer for him is not a rare thing. In such cases it is the employer who is not interested in signing a written agreement with mutual guarantees.

And what scales our marketplace vendors use! Often they cheat you only because these representatives of this small business actually aren’t controlled either. They use the argument: “If you don’t like it — don’t buy!” But they are subject to extortion as well: by market owners, some supporting criminals, and simply insistent panhandlers who are roaming around the workplace for the whole day.

At present the following scheme works in Ukraine. State officials have very modest official salaries, so they “clip” businessmen of all levels allowing them to more than compensate their losses at the expense of smaller businesses and consumers. In turn, regular working consumers living from day to day lose any interest in quality work that is not profitable anyway. Thus, honest work became marginalized. In this regard, the situation became even worse than during Brezhnev’s social realism.

The sooner this sphere is simply put in order, the better for the entire country. At present, our society enjoys freedom — only this is the freedom of the jungle, not of a democratic society. This freedom is beneficial for the strongest, most impudent, and shameless people. Many people got used to this freedom and dislike anything that can limit it, but it is necessary to break down the resistance of these people, regardless of how big their profits are, what party they belong to, and what language they speak.

However, there is one more category of unregistered small entrepreneurs who will categorically resist putting the economy in order. These are the people who support their families and really won’t be able to continue working under the new conditions, and hence will become jobless. It is important to give some time to these representatives of small business (depending on conditions of each specific occupational field) to enter the organized economic system, elaborating a gradual way of legalizing and civilizing their activity, so as not to create hundreds of thousands (or maybe even millions) of jobless and aggressive people. One should also think of retraining people who lost the possibility to make a living due to the reforms. In the most developed European countries, according to the media, plumbers, secretaries and even home cleaners get special training.

The opposition can play an important role in carrying out the reforms by means of correcting the projects of the government, which in their efforts to gain the time wasted quickly want to acquire the image of reformers. However, the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko, the most influential force in the opposition, seems to impede the reforms or simply mess with them. At least they create this impression. Some demands of the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko just cannot be logically explained from the viewpoint of Ukraine’s European choice. Tymoshenko’s supporters block the work of the Verkhovna Rada and one of their major demands is not to raise the retirement age. This and some other demands make it clear that the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko took Greece, which is on the verge of economic collapse, as an example of European development and not Germany or other developed countries, where the retirement age is gradually raised and social benefits and privileges are distributed much more cautiously than before.

In Europe living standards are being improved and the life-expectancy is growing. Due to quick technological progress in developed countries, work conditions are improving. This leads to increasing the duration of the average European’s active working life. We should follow not only consumer standards of developed European countries but also their working standards. If we treat our workers as before, we will never reach average European living standards, let alone those of Germany, Great Britain, or Switzerland. If the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko retains the same strategy and tactics, Tymoshenko will very soon lose the remnants of the authority of a European-like leader she had among European politicians. One should not go to Europe with a Soviet attitude to work and order: Europeans will not let us in.

The opposition should participate in building the economy and the state too. It must control the government, provide an objective criticism with specific facts and figures so that mistakes or perhaps even incompetence of some government representatives become evident. The opposition should share their suggestions not only with Lytvyn but also with the media, so that Ukrainians know what the opposition offers, and what the coalition does.

The ruling coalition has done enough to be objectively criticized. One can just mention the gas “compromises” of Prime Minister Azarov. Generally, our premier likes the word “compromise” very much, and it is good. However, compromises can be different. For example, Chamberlain once compromised too, but the effects were disastrous. Besides, one should sometimes find a compromise not only in relations with Russia, but also with the domestic opposition.

One can already observe a tendency in reaching “compromises” with Russia. At first Azarov invents some insurmountable gas problem, then provokes a terrible panic, whimpers, beats his breast and states we are lost if Russia doesn’t meet us halfway. Certainly, Russia hears this and starts raising the price of the “compromise.” Finally, the “compromise” with Russia appalls even those in Ukraine who admire Azarov’s political talent. This time our prime minister again started talking about a new upcoming gas compromise with Russia and many people feel anxious — what else will our premier give up, with the president’s blessing? Science has a notion of trajectory calculation. Based on the “compromises” reached by Azarov and approved by Yanukovych so far, one can calculate already now the endpoint of the flight trajectory of this government: Azarov will come from Moscow again, and descending the plane, as Lord Chamberlain, he will say: “I brought you peace!” Then he will add solemnly: “Russia finally compromised — it will sell us gas for their internal prices, and we will become a Russian autonomous republic!”

Political, economic and other relations with Russia are a broad field for the opposition, where both Tymoshenko and her bloc could take a more active and distinct position. However, Tymoshenko cheats and dodges, looking for more advantageous topics for her election campaign. She finds it easier to wear a semi-service jacket following Stalin, Mao, Castro and other “chieftains” and proclaim attractive statements, than give a detailed and distinct presentation of her positions regarding important problems and undertake systematic work in her party and in the opposition.

A considerable part of the opposition sees its main function in holding election rallies and preventing the government from doing anything, even if useful for the country. A part of the opposition acts according to the well-known principle: the worse for Ukraine, the better for the opposition.

There are many unpopular decisions ahead for whoever will rule Ukraine. For example, we will have to deprive our citizens of many archaic privileges not accepted in a civilized market economy. For instance, we have millions of people with benefits who do not pay for commuting in public transportation and suburban trains. One can see both pensioners who really need this and young people wearing expensive coats and shoes among them. Even Russia abandoned this method of supporting poor layers of the population. It is clear that the opposition immediately uses these rather reasonable measures to change the social privileges system for their goals in the election campaign. A considerable part of the Ukrainian opposition is very selfish and unpatriotic so it does not want the current government to succeed, since it will decrease the opposition’s chance to come to power. Certainly, the government will do nothing in this and other spheres for a long time. Why would the authorities risk their power?

The feeble and corrupt state cannot collect enough revenue by means of taxes, so a big part of pensioners are poor, as are those employed in public education, academia, the military, and other qualified professions. This decreases the internal purchasing power of the Ukrainian market and impedes production. As a result even less taxes are paid. Everyone tries to steal somewhere or fleece the compatriots.

Therefore, regretfully, one has to admit that economic reforms have a big variety of opponents, and reforming our country will not be easy. It would be very good if both the government and the opposition were wise and brave enough so that these two elements of a democratic society do their job successfully.