If you are unaware, Ukrainians have started protesting since Zelensky signed a law, issued by the Ukrainian parliament (Rada), which removes the independence of two anti-corruption bodies, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).
The justification was that these bodies were corrupted by Russian influence, and they needed to be brought under scrutiny, under the Security Bureau of Ukraine (SBU). This was after some recent raids on their offices and accusations of corruption.
MPs from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, Tymoshenko’s Batkyvsyno (fatherland) party, and the Platform for Life and Peace (the remnants of the pro-Russian “opposition-for-life” party, before many lost their power after being proven to collaborate with Russia) voted for this law. Notably, many of these very MPs were under investigation by NABU, under suspicion of corruption.
The protests erupted because independent bodies were a prerequisite for the visa-free regime, and are an essential part of EU ascension. This could totally derail that. In addition, many are sceptical of centralising political power. Defenders of the law argue that in wartime, it is correct to remove independence to undermine foreign influence. Others emphasise the corruption of certain NABU members, though the details seem vague.
Parliamentarians put forward a rival law to secure the bodies’ independence, and Zelensky has agreed to sign the law, a good step in the right direction. Nonetheless, there are some significant concerns remaining, and interesting observations, that I want to address.
1. Removing Independence is not Justifiable as a Response
If NABU or SAPO had members engaging in corruption, then the response would be to arrest the individuals, replace them, maybe even with EU specialists, and audit the organisations. To entirely remove their independence really looks questionable, especially when NABU was investigating people very close to Zelensky, like Chernyshov. It looks like overt corruption. It is bad optics abroad, and clearly unpopular in Ukraine.
This would be a grave derailment of EU membership, a goal which crystallised since 2014 and key motivation of many Ukrainians who were at Maidan, who are fighting and dying, and which prompted Russia’s interference and eventual invasion.
2. We Must Be Wary of Accusations of “Pro-Russians”
Many have jumped at the chance to say that the people motivating the protests, the opposition, are pro-Russian. This is demonstrably laughable when, as I mentioned, the party whcih is pro-Russian voted for the law. Demanding healthy democracy is good. Yes, while as people have said, a divided Ukraine would be weaker, an undemocratic Ukraine would also be weaker. Using this accusation to justify centralisation and increase authoritarianism is dangerous, and sets a worrying precedent that can undermine good processes.
3. We Should Ask Questions about Priorities of Parliament and the President
The law was passed incredibly fast, despite other laws languishing in the Rada or being delayed when it came to Zelensky’s signature. This debacle has shown that it is possible to get legislation signed quickly. Ukrainians will, and should, demand more about this.
4. Non-Ukrainians and Foreign Observers Do not Understand Ukraine like They Think
Seeing more non-Ukrainians defend Zelensky than Zelensky says a lot. I guess, for many, they latched onto him as a figurehead. Certainly, he was and is, and many Ukrainians, even those protesting, will say he’s been a good wartime leader. However, it’s more than Zelensky, and when Ukrainians are telling you something, maybe listen.
Too few people understand the intricacies of Ukrainian politics, nor do they know about Zelensky’s political instinct. Prior to the full-scale invasion, his popularity was low, in part due to his centralisation of political power. Now, arrests of Medvedchuk and other collaborators, accusing Poroshenko of treason, may have been legitimately founded, but he has always had keen instincts in solidifying his power base. This isn’t unprecedented. I don’t think he is a wannabe dictator, no, he just genuinely values loyalty above all, because he thinks he is the man to save Ukraine. He may be right, but there are concerns. I was concerned in 2019 about personality-first politics. I have not raised them during the full-scale invasion, but perhaps now is the time.
You have to look back and understand the different bodies of Ukrainian politics. It’s not as black and white; it’s not all Russia vs Ukraine. It’s complex, and not something you can understand in a day.
5. Democracy Thrives in Ukraine
People have come together across the country, across ideologies, ages, and classes, to protest. I was at a protest in Rivne, a small administrative capital in western Ukraine, and a protest of about 200 people received a lot of support from passing by vehicles. There were protests in Uzhhorod, as well, and across the country.
People feel free to express anger. This is a healthy sign, and a warning as well, not just to Zelensky and the parliament, but to anyone in Ukraine. People will resist; they want democracy, they want to be closer to Europe.
Leave a Reply