Why does it seem that Ukraine is in a constant state of perpetual potential?
For even half a year after the historic election of Volodymyr Zelensky and a majority government made up of members of his party, Ukraine’s political conversation is still dominated by talk of change, but remains a country and a government where nothing of fundamental magnitude is ever accomplished?
Almost all critiques of the country and the proposed changes that allegedly pronounce a way forward to a better life is based on a principle of hope and expectation, a hermeneutic that is informed by both a logical assumption and belief that democratic societies contain within them the possibility of change and societal progress.
Most Western observers and a majority of Ukraine’s citizens continue to perceive and interpret Ukraine based on what it can become and perceive of Ukraine is on a trajectory that should be judged on a scale of transformative change. But what if this philosophical and psychological outlook is misplaced? Could it be possible that Ukraine cannot and will not change and that what is now the best it can be? Where mediocrity dominates and where the countries potential for “excellence” is forever thwarted?
Existing in the political life of Ukraine is to be enveloped within a Dantian world of purgatory. A middle world dominated by stasis, where nothing really changes and where the environment perpetuates only the grey and mediocre. Where thoughts of hope and the expectant desire for justice in a better world, are fleeting and continually unrealized, only evoking continual despair. Ukraine remains a political purgatory, part comedy, a place where good people are in a minority, forced to remain on the periphery by self-interested mediocrities whose very existence is defined by its perpetuation.
Zelensky’s defeat of President Petro Poroshenko in 2019 was a cognizant and deliberate act by Ukraine’s electorate for generational change. It was a wholesale replacement of political “sinners” deeply inculcated by Soviet thinking and practice, by a generation of young, mostly naive and inexperienced politicians seemingly enamored with the desire to transform Ukrainian society, if not into paradise, but, in the least, a promising society. A form of a just society where the potential for justice would be a possibility, where economic ambitions could be realized under the guiding hand of the rule of law. Put another way, the electorate made an unequivocal statement of faith to enter and establish a new world and a new political identity based on democratic principles.
This has not yet happened and doubts, it must be stated, are beginning to sprout. Ukraine, under Zelenskyy still has not yet found nor established its democratic identity.
At this moment, Ukraine’s present political thinking and practice are very much like teenagers.
For like teenagers who attempt to form their mature characters on the road to establishing their ultimate identity, they talk a lot. Their stated intentions are always good, but they lack the skill to do what they think they want or have to do. They try to convince others, and of course themselves, to think that they know where they have to go and do, but lack the confidence to get it done.
This seeming failure of Ukraine’s politics, at the moment, is due to the failure of civil society to dramatically affect the country’s civil thinking, practice, and governance.
A continuing nagging frustration is that Western efforts, along with Ukrainian efforts, have not produced a political class and civil society leaders that have the knowledge, experience, and ability to apply democratic principles and practices into an effective form of governance.
Ukraine doesn’t need reformers, but rather a governing class who have the knowledge to transform society into a functioning democracy. Better yet, people must be put in place that can both destroy past institutional attitudes and practices, which still linger from Soviet times and attitudes, and create strategies and implementation plans for institutional transformation like parliament, government ministry’s, and the presidential administration, while effectively communicating to the public.
It has become evident that the Zelensky administration has not shown the ability to deliver effective changes in government policy at the macroeconomic level, let alone on the microeconomic level. It is not that the Zelensky administration has lost its way, but rather, it has not solidly established a governing path that engenders confidence whether at home or abroad.
Though the president must take ultimate responsibility, the fault squarely lies with Andriy Bohdan, the head of the presidential administration.
Before the election, electors knew full well that Zelensky did not have the experience to govern, and assumed, whether rightly or wrongly, that he would surround himself with people who knew. The administration has not even come close to recruiting the best and the brightest.
Rather than staffing major institutional and ministerial roles, or in the least, capable, Bohdan put in place young and unproven ministers, that though, on the surface had proven reform bona fides, did not have the resumes to justify their appointments. This was done with intent. Bohdan chose people whom he could control and who would not challenge his authority and that of the administration as a whole.
Prime Minister Oleksiy Honcharuk has shown neither the administrative nor communicative ability to lead a government. For example, after many months of discussion of land reform, both foreign investors nor domestic landowners can clearly surmise the direction of the legislation. And so, rather than developing investor confidence, a clearly stated objective of the Zelensky administration, investors hopes have been diminished as they confront what is a systematic problem in Ukraine, the inability of a federal government to provide sound and policy savvy legislative frameworks that provide solutions to fundamental challenges. Not only can’t the government provide a systematic solution for its most important sector of its economy, but it has also become evident that it cannot clearly define, let alone confidently communicate its intent.
It is the same in the renewables sector, supposedly a showcase for attracting foreign investment, where established foreign players wait in consternation, while members of the energy committee do the bidding of oligarchs and threatened retroactive tariff cuts. As a result, many renewables projects have been abandoned and a number have been put on hold. Investors are asking, does the government even understand or care about investor confidence and do they realize the harm brought on by a lack of legislative clarity.
In the new year, the president and his administration should focus on the fundamentals.
Focus on establishing the rule of law. Put oligarchs in jail. Focus on establishing an ethic of a rules-based society.
Complete the deconstruction of soviet inspired institutions and replace them with dignity based, transformative ministries that would serve the interests of the people instead of corrupt business self-interests and the perpetuation of inefficient bureaucracy.
Ensure that parliament establishes a reputation for producing legislation that would create a legal framework for a just society. A place that would become a vibrant place of parliamentary debate, free of conflict of interests with the country’s still corrupt business class.
Create an environment that would attract the country’s best and brightest and recruit proven performers to the cabinet. Mature and experienced policymakers and administrators with business experience who know how to develop, communicate and implement strategies that meet Western-oriented standards.
Doing just these things will establish the governments direction and define its path. It will establish its identity, illustrate its character and hopefully reenergize Ukraine’s quest to fulfill its potential.
