Commentary
Olga Shumylo-Tapiola
{
"authors": [
"Olga Shumylo-Tapiola"
],
"type": "commentary",
"blog": "Strategic Europe",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [],
"topics": [
"EU"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
A President’s Greed
It is important that the EU understands that Yanukovych’s real motivation is advancing his own position and that of his family, not reform.
Published on Apr 13, 2012
When talking about Ukraine, much depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on. The picture is either black or white, with few people trying to look at the motivations behind the government’s actions. As a result, conclusions on where Ukraine is heading are often flawed.
At a recent Carnegie event we discussed the state of the Ukraine’s economy under President Yanukovych. The official line presented by Iryna Akimova, deputy head of the presidential administration, was very positive. She admitted that the economy faces challenges, but argued that it is picking up after the crisis, that many reforms—notably in the tax and pension systems—have been initiated, and that the business climate is improving.
Independent expert Nazar Kholod, who has just published a critical paper on the subject, paints a very different picture. His main message is that while reforms have indeed been started, they have been neither fully implemented, nor properly communicated to the public. He argues that their impact on peoples’ quality of life remains debatable and that the Ukrainian public will bear the brunt of expensive reforms while those in power will continue enjoying life. He concludes that the main challenges for reform are the government’s lack of transparency and accountability.
I would like to propose an alternative reading of Ukraine’s failure to reform. The main problem lies in the factors motivating the current president’s actions.
Yes, President Yanukovych came to power through free and fair elections. Yes, he looked like a person who could deliver. Yes, during his two years in office he has gained significantly more power. This in fact makes him the only person responsible for delivering reform. However, the president’s idea of a prosperous Ukraine centers around his own prosperity and that of his family.
To ensure his family’s prosperity the president needs Ukraine to remain in a grey zone between the East and the West. Closer ties with the EU would mean more transparency and accountability. This would be bad for his family’s interests. Rapprochement with Russia would mean less control over the country’s economy, which would also be bad for his family’s interests.
Ukraine’s economic assets are being divided by the country’s oligarchs. However, with Yanukovych’s family taking an ever larger slice of the pie, even that is likely to change. The president wants money from the West—the IMF and the EU—in order to maintain the status quo. He wants the population to pay for the systemic improvements that are needed to obtain that money. It is as simple as that.
It is therefore no surprise that the reforms Yanukovych has launched look patchy and attempts to communicate them to the public are failing.
One good example is the reform of the Customs Code. The draft code was adopted by the parliament. If the president signs it, the code will enter into force within a month. While Ukrainian and Western businesses agree on the need to adopt a new, modern code, they suggest that the new code contains amendments that will increase the chances of bias and harassment by customs authorities. Businesses will also have to make adjustments while going forward, which is difficult.
So what next? Ukraine is entering an electoral period, with parliamentary elections scheduled for October 28 of this year. The president’s grand plan, and that of his allies, is to win enough votes to form a constitutional majority. This would allow them to amend the constitution again and, among other things, to move presidential elections to the parliament.
This would perhaps be a good idea, if the president’s powers were dramatically curtailed. However, it is believed that Yanukovych wants both to remain in power for a long time, and to retain his vast powers.
For Ukraine’s economy this means there will be no structural reforms, at very least until after the elections. The likelihood of reforms that would benefit the entire country being implemented even after October 2012 is small. Yanukovych will continue borrowing on private markets and enjoying Russian financial support, while the EU’s concerns about Ukraine’s fiscal stability and business climate are likely to remain unsolved.
It is important that the EU understands that Yanukovych’s real motivation is advancing his own position and that of his family, not reform. The rules he plays by will be based on fulfilling that goal. A functioning Ukraine policy can only be based on the appreciation of this fact.
About the Author
Olga Shumylo-Tapiola
Former Nonresident Associate, Carnegie Europe
Shumylo-Tapiola is a nonresident associate at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, where her research focuses on Eastern Europe and Eurasia.
- Ukraine Between East and West
- Ukraine: Democracy Has a ChanceCommentary
Olga Shumylo-Tapiola
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Strategic Europe
- The Trump-Shaped Hole in the European Security StrategyCommentary
There is an elephant in the room when it comes to the EU’s upcoming security strategy: Donald Trump. Unless European leaders acknowledge the depth of the transatlantic crisis, true autonomy will remain out of reach.
Stefan Lehne
- Europe Needs a Strategy for Its Turn to New Defense TechCommentary
Defense tech innovations will be at the heart of Europe’s new security strategy. But so far, Brussels has been making moves without a broader plan, undermining readiness and credibility.
Raluca Csernatoni
- Taking the Pulse: Is European Diplomacy on Iran Outdated?Commentary
When the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding was announced, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy declared their readiness to help demine the Strait of Hormuz and lift nuclear sanctions on Tehran. But does Europe need new tools to recover a diplomatic role?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- France and Germany Need Their Own Situation RoomCommentary
The Franco-German relationship is on the rocks again. But unlike previous moments of tension, the epochal changes on the world stage require that both step up investment in their bilateral ties.
Rym Momtaz
- European Security Strategy: In Search of a New AmbitionCommentary
The EU is putting together a new security strategy to meet today’s myriad challenges. But for any proposal to be effective, the union needs to grapple with its identity and ambitions.
Pierre Vimont
