Ukraine is 16 years old. It is the age when young people get their passports, and the President is to hand passports to 16-year-olds born on 24 August.

The 2007 celebrations concur with the election campaign where political parties play adult, rather than teenage, games.  Elections are said to be a battle of ideas but this year it looks more like a battle for ideas (for want of their own new ideas campaign rivals steal them from one another).  

Those ideas are of two kinds: first, conducive to uniting the nation, and second, indicative of the country’s bright future. Future prospects as seen by the election race leaders look like this: (1) increased social payments and other types of care that the state takes of its citizens; (2) eradicated corruption that is currently “ruining the state”, checking the nation’s progress and impoverishing people; (3) fair and responsible politics and power for people rather than politicians.

In view of the above, one can conclude that over the last 16 years we have built (1) a country of poor citizens, (2) a corrupt and disorderly state, and (3) a public administration having nothing to do with serving the people.  It seems that the election campaign leaders have suddenly woken up, looked around, and the truth about the current situation has dawned on them. In fact, all of them were in power at a certain stage of the country’s development and did nothing to implement their lofty ideas of today… 

Saying “leaders” we mean those parties and blocs which, according to the recent opinion poll by the Razymkov Centre, could meet the 3% entry requirement and  make it to parliament: the Party of Regions (32.4%), Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc (18.0%), “Our Ukraine-People’s Self-defence” (14.0%), Communist Party(4.6%)¹.

Commenting on the leaders’ vision of our prospects, one could predict that if the country goes on like this for another couple of years it will celebrate its 20^th anniversary in the company of the third world countries.  Not only because the state prefers to give its citizens fish instead of a fishing-rod (see numerous publications on the issue) but because corruption is really destroying this state, nation, authorities and people.  It is the major threat the country faces today.

Yet let us start with more pleasant things – birthday gifts.

Gifts to the country and its citizens

In fact, there was only one gift timed specifically to the country’s birthday – Yuliya Tymoshenko’s article putting forward a new national idea. It precedes a broadly advertised but never publicized national development strategy associated with Mr. Akhmetov.  Ms Tymoshenko rejects the latter strategy in advance, insisting that national strategies should be home-made and rely on domestic brain power, rather than on imported expertise; otherwise the consequences will be phantasmagorical. 

Unfortunately, the outcome will be equally phantasmagorical if Ms Tymoshenko’s ideas are ever implemented in this country, particularly given her perception of her compatriots as suffering from “inferiority complex, incompleteness syndrome, disunity, loss of direction and limited national aspirations”. She is sure we deserve more and should not “be afraid of our national greatness”.

This is reminiscent of Leonid Kuchma’s book “After Maidan” where he laments over Ukrainians’ wingless dreams about houses with red roofs and assures the reader he did everything to inspire their great and noble ambitions. His effort resulted in the creation, in a very short time, of a large national capital, for which we should be grateful to Mr. Kuchma.

In the same vein, Yuliya Tymoshenko resists winglessness that permeates “contemporary human progress”. She abhors the “total pragmatism and absolute value of material benefits gained at any cost”, as well as the “race for personal consumerist success”.  She regrets that “the world money turned everything into merchandise: faith, conscience, honour, beliefs, principles, patriotism, information, etc”. Hence the laymen’s willingness to sell their souls for “high-class shopping in Milan at the sale season”.  Now we can understand the nature of the ridiculous declaration of income Yuliya Tymoshenko filed when she was Prime Minister. Money is the root of all evil, after all. It is high time to go after ideas.

Ms Tymoshenko comes forward with a worthy national idea of Ukraine’s global mission; if implemented, this idea “could affect world history as dramatically as did the philosophies of ancient Egypt and Greece, or the Italian Renaissance”.  This national idea is about “creating the best, optimal system of societal organization that will make every person feel they live in justice and harmony, are properly protected and have the opportunities they have dreamt of opened to them.”

“The system of organization” is a great idea in and of itself. Yet there are several reservations.

First, I have already heard of a great nation, which, in contrast to the pragmatic and commercialized West, has undertaken a mission of saving the global morals and is building a      great state that will provide due protection (I am not quite sure about harmony) to its citizens.

Second, Ms Tymoshenko would know about high-class shopping in Milan, I am not an expert on that. However, I know that tickets to La Scala are bought out for seasons ahead, yet when Pavarotti came to Kyiv real music lovers whom I often see in the philharmonic, organ and conservatoire halls could not afford the tickets. They do not have the money, world or otherwise…

Third, the “world aspirations and winged ambitions” part reminded me about an unknown Swede who said that the Poltava Battle was the best thing that happened in Sweden’s history. Carl XII did not realize his ambitions of becoming Alexander the Great, Sweden did not turn into a global empire. Yet based on an entirely wingless dream (or national idea, for that matter) of the “people’s home” Sweden built a common wellbeing society. It is among the top ten countries of the world with the highest Human Development Index; it is internationally known for its brands and positive impact on the world economy.

The countries that tried to impress the world have, more often than not, ended up in phantasmagoria, to say the least. So let us wait for better ideas – that could come up as gifts for the country’s birthday.  

Finally, it would be useful for Ms Tymoshenko to know that a lot of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen suffer neither inferiority complexes nor incompleteness syndromes. They do not need either protection or pity.  They are well-educated and self-sufficient people. They do not care about the “end of history”. They are concerned over their country’s problems.

Anticorruption effort

YTB: We suggest introducing income declarations mandatory for all state officials and public servants, and toughening considerable criminal responsibility for corrupt practices, including life imprisonment.  

CPU: Criminal responsibility for corruption will be toughened.

“OU-PS”: We will cleanse the authorities and bring order into government: law is for all to obey… We will establish a national anticorruption bureau that will check if the top state officials’ expenditures match their declared incomes… We will set up an independent Court Chamber that will re-certify all judges and investigate their sources of income.

Party of Regions: Due enforcement of laws will reduce the scope of “shadow” politics and economy and facilitate the elimination of corruption in the society. 

From election platforms of leading political parties and blocs

In 2006, Ukraine scored 2.8 points in the Transparency International Corruption Index rating, on the scale ranging from 0 (highly corrupt country) to 10 (non-corrupt country). It places Ukraine in the company of Dominican Republic, Georgia, Mali, Mongolia and Mozambique, a bit above Bolivia, Iran, Libya, Macedonia, Malawi and Uganda (with 2.7 points) and a bit lower than Argentina, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eritrea, Syria and Tanzania (with 2.9 points).

The least corrupt countries – Iceland, New Zealand and Finland – scored 9.6 points, which proves both the thesis “Corruption exists everywhere”, very popular in our political and business beau monde, and the obvious fact that corruption can be minimized. As Viktor Yushchenko was once quoted to say, “It is evident; one can understand it with the naked eye”.

It is also evident that by the end of its 16^th year of independent existence Ukraine will generate only 72% of its 1990 GDP, despite the rapid economic growth that the government is so proud of.  It will take at least 5 years to reach the 1990 GDP level. Besides, nobody can tell what the share of “shadow” economy is: over the last year officials cited 23%, 34 and 50%. And it is also an indirect indicator of corruption.

The problem, however, is not even the existence of corruption but the lack of the authorities’ commitment to fighting it. Of course, we have the required legislative framework, and the concept paper entitled “On the Way to Integrity” and its implementation plan through 2010. The plan provides for a series of sound and effective measures, such as, for instance, drafting a law “On State Financial Control of Declaring Incomes and Expenditures by Persons Authorised to perform State Functions, Their Family Members and Close Relatives”.

I wish we would see this law passed and enforced. I wish we could believe Viktor Yanukovych who promises to “target corruption”. Yet when I visualize him in a Brioni suit holding his 2005 declaration of incomes with the total amount of under UAH 37,000 (USD 7,400), the credibility of those promises fades away. Another Tymoshenko but the suit and the year are different…

So Ukrainian authorities do fight corruption but the latter will not get minimized. This phenomenon should have something to do with the national specifics of anticorruption effort. For one thing, Ukrainian officials contrive to fight corruption using means and methods that look very much like corruption schemes. For another, they persist in linking the notion and phenomenon of corruption with the entire society, thus shifting the focus of public attention and scrutiny from themselves (look at the Party of Regions’ programme task above – “eliminate corruption in the society”). Furthermore, they would not discriminate between their private and public selves reducing all attempts by the public or media to enquire: “Where did you get it from, Minister?” to interference into their private life. 

American naivete and Ukrainian foresight

Ukrainian corruption is such a notorious subject that the USA, concerned with supporting democracy, allocates funds and provides technical assistance in combating corruption. Funding is part of the Threshold Programme implemented by Millennium Challenge Corporation. The first grant of USD 45 million is geared towards fighting corruption in public administration and education. If the government fulfills all of its obligations under the programme, Ukraine will be eligible for a much larger funding of USD 500 million.

The United States has a lot of experience with anticorruption. They approach this task on the basis of transparency, openness, and government’s accountability to the civil society. The latter is actively involved in anticorruption programmes.

The Ukrainian government’s implementation plan mentioned above envisions attracting civil society organizations, too. Now it should be translated into practice: the government should demonstrate the NGOs’ participation to the sponsors and it could reach out for half a billion dollars. Yet if Americans seriously believe this item of the plan will be properly realized, they could be disappointed, because the civil society organizations have already been involved. An All-Ukrainian non-governmental organization “Anticorruption Forum” has been designated as an implementing partner under the “Anticorruption Measures” Programme funded from the state budget.

The NGO was established by the incumbent First Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Mykola Azarov back at the time when he headed the State Tax Administration of Ukraine.  The Anticorruption Forum worked dynamically, had a website and a newspaper, and hosted public events, but only during the periods when Mr Azarov had access to the budget or other state-owned funds. In 2005—2006, all traces of the Forum, including the website, were lost.  Yet the other day the website went live to inform its visitors that the Anticorruption Forum had won a tender announced by… the Ministry of Finance (sic!). It will receive UAH 3.5 million to implement the “Anticorruption Measures” Programme.

Two things are noteworthy in this story. First, the government kills two birds with one stone. Second, top governmental officials set up pseudo NGOs, which enables them not only to   control the budget money but also to receive “humanitarian aid” from various applicants for and users of public services. You might argue that the services are public and officials are paid salaries to provide them, but what is their salary compared with the benefits of having their own forum, foundation or other institution…

Using pocket NGOs to fight corruption, though, should be considered Ukrainian know-how. We also have something to teach American consultants…

Fighting corruption is a common cause

A lot depends on how one defines notions. We used to have a Prosecutor General who maintained there was no corruption in Ukraine because the term is not used in the national legislation.

In 1995, the Law “On Combating Corruption” was adopted to define corruption as “activity by persons authorized to carry out the functions of the state, which consists in illegal use/ abuse of their powers for receiving material benefits”.

You can imagine what would change if the law were enforced – nothing would change because laws are drafted and adopted by those very persons “authorized to carry out…” The law stipulates that corrupt individuals are “authorized persons”, including public servants, Prime Minister, elected representatives of all levels and many other officials.

A corrupt minister and a common thief/fraudster are different. By confusing notions we help the corrupt officials dodge responsibility. They always try to persuade us that they mirror the society at large, all of us. It means we all are not law-abiding enough. The survey conducted within the above programme testified that we give gifts to “authorized persons”, do them favours and offer other illegitimate benefits. In other words, we bribe them, both under pressure and without it, out of habit, thus breeding corruption.

Last year, 67% of Ukrainians encountered some sort of corrupt practice; 30%-50% of respondents claim officials asked for bribes. Solicited bribes were involved in 25% of citizens’ contacts with public servants; 11% of bribes were voluntary.

52% of surveyed Ukrainians believe corruption can always, or almost always, be justified as an effective means of addressing a problem². It is an easier, quicker and, eventually, cheaper solution.  Moreover, even after Maidan we are still unable to understand the common truth: if you want your rights to be respected, fight not for your rights but for the rule of law that guarantees respect of human rights.

In the first months of Viktor Yushchenko’s presidency thousands of people used to gather near his would-be public reception in Bankova Street (the plan to organize it has never come true). Yet how different they were from the people on Maidan!   

On Maidan, we were citizens who stood up for their common right to take part, to be heard and make a difference. Viktor Yushchenko was our fellow citizen who vowed to expedite this right.

In Bankova Street, we were a crowd of petitioners, each asking for his or her own right, clasping his or her file or envelope and looking jealously at competitors vying for access to the boss, rather than the fellow citizen. And Viktor Yushchenko was playing the boss deciding at his discretion whose right to promote and whose not to. He signed approvals on his lap, and the people around were happy: it is so democratic, so quick and simple.

It was in this quick and simple fashion that the fate of Ms V.Horobets (a formerly “authorized person” apprehended for corrupt practices) was sealed.  That was the end of Viktor Yushchenko’s promises to respect law, because where the guarantor of rights and freedoms violates the law, freedoms could remain but the law no longer rules.

Two truisms absent in the election promises

So combating corruption, as we said before, is closely associated with the authorities’ transparency, responsibility and accountability to the civil society, including its most important agent – the mass media.

The first key word is transparency. It covers a lot of things but, first and foremost, the transparency of officials’ cash flows since corruption is about behaviours aimed at reaping personal material benefits.  

There are at least three prerequisites of transparency: (1) availability of a registry (or a cadastre) of all properties in the country; (2) declaration of incomes and expenditures by the “authorized persons”; and (3) free public access to the property registers and officials’ income declarations.  

Of course, there should be other controlling authorities, alongside the tax administration. In the US, for example, officials are supervised by general inspectors appointed by the President. While the media were dubbed “watchdogs of democracy” long ago, President Reagan considered his inspectors to be “fiercer than watchdogs”.  The reason behind their “ferocity” was their broad mandate to examine the federal agencies’ operations, conduct independent audit and investigations.   

Coming back to Ukraine, which of the above is already in place and what is promised?

We still do not have the national property registry. None of the leading campaign rivals promises to set it up, not even the Communist Party whose immortal leader Vladimir Lenin underscored the importance of “accounting and control”. Some parties mention public control as a theoretical idea but fail to specify what should be controlled. Whose real estate is this? Who owns this land? Who does this oil well belong to? Many have asked those questions, including the former governor of Kyiv Oblast. No wonder he is former. 

Do you remember the outraging episode with [aircraft designer] Sikorsky’s apartment? His famous great-grandson came from the USA to celebrate his anniversary and look at his home. Yet the apartment proved to have new owners. Officials could not say who took the property or when, but they were sure it was done with the sole purpose of creating a museum there. 

Over 16 years, the authorities have not established a single state registry of anything that matters, from the land cadastre to the voter registry instrumental to holding fair and free elections. All these years various ministries and public agencies have been wrangling over the privilege to keep public registries. You might say it does not make any difference since the registries, with very few exceptions, should be open. Not in Ukraine.

Thus, the Head of State Land Resource Agency (which competes for keeping the land cadastre) stated: “Information entered in the land cadastre should be confidential”. In this case, will the cadastre serve to control the use or the users of land resources? With this approach, it does not seem the general public and mass media will get free access to registries and cadastres soon.  

What about the declaration of incomes and expenditures by officials? Two examples will suffice. First, Viktor Yushchenko promised to introduce the requirements for public officials and their relatives to declare their incomes and expenditures. Yet it took a lot of time and effort to receive the President’s own declaration in the first year of his tenure.

Second, the deadline for filing income declarations is April 1. It is the end of August now but the tax authorities have not yet seen declarations by Viktor Yanukovych, Mykola Azarov, Yuliya Tymoshenko and many other officials. I doubt they ever will.

On June 1, 2007, the Supreme Rada of Ukraine gathered for a special session to adopt amendments to the election law so as to ensure legitimacy of the snap elections. One of the amendments, approved by our corruption fighters in Parliament, cancels the requirement whereby all candidates had to submit to the Central Election Commission a declaration of their property status and incomes (in view of the extraordinary nature of the elections).

So why should we believe their promises to combat corruption?

Us and them

No one would argue that all people – we, citizens, and they, “authorized persons” – should observe the law and avoid corrupt practices. If we are all caught in the vicious circle of corruption, are our responsibility and ability to break it equal? We could endlessly discuss the issue.

On the other hand, we could finally pay heed to what they never deny but, on the contrary, play up and publicly demonstrate. They are the elite, notabilities, role-models for us, people on the street. It is not the other way round. We are like them, not vice versa.

We wish they did not view themselves as the elite but they do. They emphasize it on every occasion. We wish they regarded us as equal to them but they do not. They accept any titles of honour and insignia that make them not only different from us but superior to us.

What about us? What should we do?

The ideal way is for us and them to try and break the vicious circle together. The second best option is for them to start doing it – they have the power, so it would be easier for them to clean the Augean stables. The least effective option is for us to press for changes. It would be hard as we lack the main thing – common trust. Yet that will come with time. If they go on behaving as they do now, we will learn quickly to trust one another and distrust them.

5,000 residents of a village in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast could celebrate the Independence Day by going on strike: they have not had water (both drinking and technical) for five years now. All this time, the necessary budget funds have been duly allocated but nobody knows where they have gone. This is the story. Now they could set up a steering group, elect a coordinator, call a community meeting and summon local officials to come and account for the money. If the latter fail to turn up, the villagers could block the railway. A classical beginning, isn’t it?

¹ Percentage of the surveyed; the poll was conducted by the sociological service of the Razumkov Centre from 31 May to 17 June 2007 in all regions of Ukraine amongst 10,956 respondents over 18 years of age. Sample error is 1%.

² The poll was conducted by Kyiv International Sociology Institute from 21 February to 21 March 2007 in all regions of Ukraine amongst 10,580 respondents over 18 years of age. Sample error is under 1%.