The undignified sacking of Nalyvaichenko

The Parliament has approved the president’s proposal to sack Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, head of the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine), by 248 votes in favor. This precedent will have its own long-reaching consequences, and we will feel them for sure. So, what has happened after all? And what was the true reason?

There was no direct confrontation between Petro Poroshenko and Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, but the events happening around them had shown clear signals of an underlying conflict. It had all started when the Presidential Administration refused to issue permission to the head of the SBU for a visit to the US, where Nalyvaichenko was going to provide further evidence of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Moreover, he was summoned to the Prosecutor General. Later Nalyvaichenko explained: “Most of the investigator’s questions concerned what I had said earlier, in the press and on TV.” And it looks at least suspicious that the Prosecutor’s call happened immediately after Nalyvaichenko’s public statements regarding the fact that the owner of “BRSM-Nafta” tank farm near Kyiv – the one that had a large-scale fire – is Anatolii Danylenko, former deputy of the Prosecutor General.

Since then, the conflict has only been gaining momentum. The president’s office continued the “hard work” of ensuring enough votes for the firing of Nalyvaichenko. At the same time, different opinions have been voiced. “After Nalyvaichenko had been accused of being a man of Firtash and having presidential ambitions by such a ‘drain tank’ as MP Leshchenko and other loyalist political scientists, it was quite funny when Poroshenko offered him to become the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service,” wrote Borys Filatov, a non-partisan MP, on his Facebook page. Meanwhile, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko himself commented to the media that he “was never interested in a particular office” and that is important both for him and for the country “that the evidence of Russian aggression were provided for the international analysis.”

On Wednesday, some MPs and experts noted that there were not enough votes to dismiss the head of the SBU. But on Thursday morning, the decision was taken. Nalyvaichenko was not even summoned to state his position before the MPs – they, apparently, wanted neither to listen to his explanations, nor to ask him any questions. Without any discussions on the resolution, Volodymyr Hroisman, the Speaker, just put the proposition to the vote.

“It was at least necessary to hear Valentyn Nalyvaichenko himself,” said Oleh Liashko, leader of the Radical Party, after the vote. “We needed to ask him questions and hear the answers. We needed to actually hear the presentation of this resolution by the president’s representative, who had introduced the draft upon which we have voted. And only then we could make a decision. We believe that in the present circumstances, when Ukrainian state faces military aggression of Russia, the issue of the head of the SBU is a very important one, and it should be discussed in Verkhovna Rada. Instead we secretly, quietly, and hastily make the important personnel decision.”

“I think that in the whole country people have been discussing this issue for at least a week. And now we have seen the position of Parliament. So, nothing tragic happened here,” responded Hroisman.

Perhaps, nothing tragic had happened for our government, but such “games” during the war might be very dangerous for our security.

The ongoing lobbying and political bargaining had been apparent when the Parliament began its work after a significant delay. Speaker Hroisman came to the assembly hall an hour and a half late. “The delay was due to the issue of Nalyvaichenko’s dismissal, which comes in a package with the law on local elections and the one-round city mayor elections,” said to The Day one of the deputies of the Fatherland Party. And what were the results of this bargaining? Petro Poroshenko Bloc had cast 104 votes in favor of the dismissal, People’s Front – 69; Self Reliance – 23, non-partisan – 21, People’s Will parliamentary group – 17, Fatherland            – 13, Renaissance group – 1, Radical Party of Oleh Lyashko – 0, Opposition Bloc – 0. Some of the deputies from the UDAR party, which is a part of the Poroshenko’s faction, also voted in favor, though Vitalii Klitschko, the party leader, had said earlier that UDAR would not vote for this decision.

“The incumbent mayors, such as Klitschko and Sadovy are interested to have the mayor elections conducted in one round, because that way they have a broader range of certain techniques of manipulating the election results,” says Vitalii Kuprii, non-partisan MP, to The Day. “Therefore, Self Reliance party is giving their votes, and Klitschko personally urged his colleagues in UDAR party to have their fellow party member resign. Of course, not all of them agreed. There is information that Vitalii Klitschko was offered a quota on the post of the Head of Prosecutor’s office of Kyiv, and that would be very advantageous for him. As for the stance of the Radical party, they did not change their opinion on dismissal of Nalyvaichenko, so perhaps some of their demands were not satisfied. Speaking of Fatherland, they are now able to replace the Minister of the Environment (the incumbent also comes from their party). And the vote of the People’s Front is easily explained by the fact that PGO has some incriminating evidence on the People’s Front’s officials through Hordiienko’s statements, and also by the agreement to maintain the support of certain economic laws the Prime Minister’s party needs.”

So, it looks like a win-win situation – for everyone except the country, that is. It seems there is a “good” tradition of the president to dismiss people without explanation. “The Poroshenko’s proposal for the sacking of Nalyvaichenko had no arguments for his dismissal,” says to The Day one of the Self Reliance deputies, who voted against. However, the party voted for it. “The successful bargain is apparent, and Self Reliance starts to get involved in blaming the scapegoats – how sad! Somehow, a week ago Self Reliance deputies were not worried at all about the poor performance of the SBU, but now, right after the meeting with Poroshenko the issue has become critical for them. What do you think of your own voters?!” wrote Dmytro Momont, social networks user, in the comments to MP Yehor Soboliev’s post that explained the arguments of Self Reliance for the dismissal of Nalyvaichenko.

The vote of June, 18 has also demonstrated the state of parliamentary-presidential republic in Ukraine. The deputies were unable to demonstrate a firm position. “Money triumphs over evil, as well as over goodness, rationality, honor, conscience, common sense, and self-preservation instinct,” wrote Sviatoslav Shvietsov, blogger, on his Facebook page.

This day has demonstrated that MPs are not ashamed of the profanation of their work in the eyes of the voters. It is hard to disagree with Bacho Korchilava, who wrote in Facebook: “The person to behave in the most dignified way in all that story of Valentyn Nalyvaichenko’s dismissal was the former head of the SBU himself. In the end, he asked the MPs to support the president’s proposal for his resignation. Nalyvaichenko explained the two reasons for this      – the unity, which is necessary to the coalition, and the fact that if the president believes that he must resign, he will do this. I believe that every official must act in this manner. And I want to ask everyone who succumbed to hysterics all these days – would you be able to do the same?”

“Let’s be honest about this, Maidan failed as a revolution. We have not changed the political elite,” commented to The Day Viktoria Podhorna, political analyst. “And we are not even engaging in the reforms to change our political institutions. The elite came to power, simply using the Maidan, the same as it was in 2004. Under such conditions one should not expect significant changes in politics – it is dominated by personal loyalty. The example of Nalyvaichenko demonstrates this. Our political elite are not able to play by the new rules. They are of a post-Soviet nature, and thus not focused on the development of new institutions. They just don’t want anything to change. Now we are having the regime the same as the Yanukovych’s, albeit more liberalized. However, the country is ripe for changing not only the regimes, but to change in its core.”

During and after the scandal many politicians and experts in a conversation with The Day emphasized that now “Nalyvaichenko will clearly be able to start a political project with an eye to the presidential election.” Indeed, the chances are good. Another question – how to realize them when the political system is in such a state? Markiian Lubkivsky, who resigned from the office of the adviser to head of the SBU, following Nalyvaichenko, wrote a goodbye note: “Nalyvaichenko left. He was betrayed by everyone (!), in the tradition of Ukrainian politics, but he was not defeated...”