Why Do We Need Ukraine?

Ukraine has reached a crossroads on the road to reform, noted the DGAP’s new Ukraine expert Wilfried Jilge in his talk. Admittedly, there were initially some good results after the Maidan protests and the fair and free presidential elections of May 2014. But in recent months, President Petro Poroshenko has failed to show the political will to implement decisive reforms that would fight corruption and strengthen the judicial system. This is not least because of his apparent inability to appreciably diminish the political power of the oligarchs, whose power network remains strong, nor to strengthen the rule of law in a meaningful way.

Jilge also drew attention to some positive developments taking place in Ukraine, most notably its vibrant civil society, which had already been developing prior to the Maidan protests. Civic groups have accompanied the reform process every step of the way, supplying informed proposals for reform. Above all, representatives from civic groups, working closely with Western partners (such as the EU and the International Monetary Fund), were able to call attention to the defects and blockages caused by reactionary forces and obtain the first, if tentative, positive results. As an example, Jilge named reforms made to the state’s public procurement operations as well as the establishment of such institutions to fight corruption as the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Corruption is the chief evil plaguing Ukraine’s state institutions. Fighting it, however, can only be effective if the government and the president undertake effective and publicly visible measures to ensure the judiciary’s independence. In particular this involves thoroughly overhauling the personnel in the public prosecutor’s office. Reforming the court system should be a priority. The absence of rulings by independent judges encourages the impunity with which old-boy networks and oligarchs do business. It also deeply damages the trust of the many citizens who felt a connection to the Maidan’s “Revolution of Dignity,” to the rule of law, and to democracy.

The civic platform Reanimation Package of Reforms (RPR), which serves as an umbrella organization for a range of non-governmental organizations and experts, has put forward important proposals that should be implemented quickly and can help European partners find orientation. RPR has put forward mechanisms that, in the course of reorganizing the courts, should make possible the independent review of judges and the provision of new personnel for the courts – all on a more transparent and competitive basis. It will also make it possible to involve civil society more broadly.

According to Jilge, the EU should take up concepts proposed by the Kiev-based International Renaissance Foundation for the creation of interim hybrid courts to address major instances of human rights abuse as well as particularly serious corruption cases. Such courts would include experienced and recognized judges, prosecutors, and attorneys from the EU and other Western partner countries. And they would send a clear signal to the Ukrainian public – as well as to the judiciary as a whole – that impunity will not be tolerated. Justice is a critical area, and it is essential for the EU to stand side-by-side with the reform-minded Ukrainian actors from politics and civil society; it needs a strong and active mandate that goes beyond merely providing advisory and technical support.

Stefan Meister, head of the program on Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia at the DGAP’s Robert Bosch Center, added to the discussion by noting that the EU’s sustained support for social transformation in Ukraine could also leave an impression on Russia, in the terms of helping it develop into a democratic and reliable partner. It is in the interest of EU member states to play a role in shaping the norms and standards of post-Soviet states. Failure to do so leaves openings for other states in the neighborhood, which will not necessarily lead to greater stability, security, or prosperity.

Gereon Schuch, head of the DGAP’s Robert Bosch Center, moderated the discussion.