100 days from two perspectives
This week has seen Mykola Azarov’s report to the nation about his first 100 days as the head of the Cabinet of Ministers in the show “Examining the Authorities.” So, was it a pass? It looked like the demanding prime minister gave himself a less than excellent grade, although he ascertained the nation that he was winning back trust. “I tend to concentrate on the minuses rather than the pluses. We must have been insufficiently explicit if 50 percent (of Ukrainian citizens. – Author) – and it is too much – distrust us,” said Azarov. “People ought to have confidence in the government, this government has to be their own. They must know and believe that after some time we will make life in this country better,” he added.
Unfortunately, the prime minister forgot that “people” owe nothing to him or to the government. They will only trust the government when they are sure that it acts solely in their interests, for the good of the country and state. But it looks as if Ukrainians have not made up their mind so far. And the government’s inability to express itself adequately is not the problem – it is rather the matter of its inability to work adequately. No matter how loquacious and smooth-tongued Azarov’s predecessor was, the people were eventually able to see through her. This is a lesson for Azarov and the coalition to learn, and well.
Yet it would be unfair to paint Azarov’s first 100 days only in black. There have been certain positive moments, too. By hook or by crook, but the budget was passed. Budget execution has exceeded the plan by 8.8 percent in January through May. At this, the real budget deficit was about 5.3 percent lower of the planned comprising 1.4 percent of GDP in the reporting period.
In the first quarter of 2010 the foreign trade deficit in goods decreased by 5.8 percent year-over-year. The National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) increased its international reserves by two billion dollars since the beginning of the year. NBU also lowered discount rate to 9.5 percent after economic situation analysis. Finally, one cannot but mention that CPI deflation was recorded in May, i.e., price reduction; notably the deflation was higher than that registered in April.
How many more various economic projects are forming in the ministers’ heads? That is what the prime minister chose to speak about.
The European Business Association recently held a poll which aimed to find out if there had been any positive changes to the Ukrainian economy over the first 100 days of the new government’s office. The experts who were questioned noted very slight progress in individual spheres, while the fundamental legislative and economic indices have either remained flat or deteriorated.
The EBA data shows that the situation with fighting corruption, which is one of the most sensitive issues for any business as well as for rank and file citizens, has likewise been steadily deteriorating.
The Day after the government’s TV report, an expert consortium published its own resolution on the first 100 days, the result of monitoring the transparency of the authorities’ actions in the energy sphere. The consortium comprised the Alliance “New Energy of Ukraine,” the Kyiv International Energy Club Q-Club, and the NOMOS Center, with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation.
The conclusions are rather pessimistic. The experts failed to see a clear strategy of energy-efficient reforms in the actions of the government. They also note the absence of transparency in the gas sector. “The populist prices for Ukrainian gas render are practically unprofitable for the national companies, which does not create prerequisites for their development, as well as for the implementation and development of energy conservation technologies and alternative energies,” says the resolution.
The authors also emphasize that the government has not passed “any effective order or strategic decision which would allow to radically change the negative tendencies of the inefficient, expensive economy.”
“The government’s actions in the sphere of nuclear energy development are oriented exclusively on Russia,” underlines the resolution. Answering The Day’s questions, Mykhailo Honchar, director for energy programs, the NOMOS Center, disapproved of the plans for creating a joint Ukraine-Russia venture for the production of nuclear fuel.
“It is just another form of dependence,” he said. “Even if such a plant is built, with Russian participation, the main element of the nuclear cycle, i.e., the concentration of uranium, will be completed on the territory of Russia. This does not help us get rid of the dependence on Russia in any way.
“I can’t but mention that for some reason, the government will not speak about other offers – say, that from Westinhouse Electric Company. It is based on totally different principles and does not create any dependence for Ukraine on another country, based on the production of heat-generating assemblies. Thus, accepting the American concept, we will be able to order our enriched uranium where it is convenient for us, in Russia or Kazakhstan in particular.”
