Bohdan Sokolovskyi
Now, in the summer and autumn of 2015, we are excited about the new Ukrainian Police, gradually coming to replace the discredited Militia. And that, no doubt, is a success. Ukraine's success, Georgian Eka Zguladze's success, every Ukrainian's success. Frankly speaking, this is the new government's first rebirth (reform) in the past year and a half. We'd like more reforms. On the other hand, someone's work is easy to evaluate, but it is difficult to do.
Among other things, the establishment of the Police, apart from obvious positives, once has yet again demonstrated disrespect to the current legislation of Ukraine, when Police had been working in the capital of Ukraine outside the law.
But, in any case, there is something to be proud of, now we can dream about future without corruption, and most importantly — to demonstrate both, at home and abroad, that something is being done.
In fact, in Ukraine, at least for 2 months, will co-exist two law enforcement agencies with the same final task: the Militia and Police. That is, there will be two parallel structures.
It is strange that the current history of the Ukrainian Police's roots do not reach its recent past — the end of the 1980's — early 1990-s, when the independent Ukraine was escaping from the prison of the Soviet peoples. Namely — a similar project (called “Municipal Guard”) along with others had been worked on in Ukraine. And even there was an attempt to bring it to life. And not just anywhere, but in the city of Lviv. This project was actively supported by the then Mayor of Lviv Bohdan Kotyk, now deceased. By the way, even the uniform of the “Municipals” resembles the today's one. Please note: this project started in 1990-1991, and then for some reason has failed.
In this regard, there comes to mind the first discussion in early 1990 with V. Chornovil about creation in the future independent Ukraine (at that time the Soviet Union still existed), among other things, of new law enforcement agencies (Police, KGB, Prosecutor's Office) and the Armed Forces. At that time, he was planning to participate in the elections to the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR and to the Lviv Regional Council. The interlocutor was sure that something new could be introduced only after creation of the new Ukrainian Prosecutor's Office. It was planned that the pilot project of introduction of the “Municipal Guard” in Lviv instead of Militia would become the prototype of a new law enforcement agency in the whole Ukraine.
V. Chornovil and I remembered the problem of “Municipals” in autumn of 1993 in Bonn, where he arrived at the invitation of Konrad Adenauer's Foundation. Vyacheslav Maksymovych was already a completely open Ukrainian politician, the leader of the Ukrainian People, President of Narodnyi Rukh (People's Movement) of Ukraine (NRU), People's Deputy of Ukraine. In his biography, there had already been the post of the Head of Lviv Regional State Administration and so on. At that moment, he sadly stated that the idea of creating in Ukraine of new law enforcement agencies and the Armed Forces instead of the existing ones had failed. It happened for two reasons: firstly, other law enforcement agencies had remained virtually unchanged, in particular the Prosecutor's Office; secondly, the then leadership of our country could not perceive it.
Here, on the basis of the above-mentioned, the question arises: will the current Police not suffer the same fate?
The above-given example is not in any way to detract from the merits and talents of foreigners in Ukraine, in particular, of representatives of friendly Georgia. At the same time, it demonstrates the foresight and ability of the Ukrainian patriots. Although it has to be reminded that far not all patriots, as well as foreigners are able to build a state. In this regard, it is worth remembering, and taking into consideration Ukrainian patriots' other projects, especially the powerful in 1989-1991 socio-political organization “People's Movement of Ukraine” in terms of formation of an independent Ukraine.
In fact, the People's Movement's platform was based on the following principles:
1. Human being is the highest value;
2. The administrative-territorial division should optimally serve the interests of the Ukrainian state;
3. State power must optimally serve the interests of citizens;
4. The number of jobs in the region must match the number of people of working age;
5. The economy of the state of Ukraine should be ready to ensure the viability of the state under any circumstances. The economy of a territory (region, district) should be coordinated within the framework of the state one. Because the structure of the economy of the Ukrainian SSR was a part of (a fragment of) the structure of the Soviet economy. It should be noted that the current structure of the economy of Ukraine is practically no different from that of the Ukrainian SSR.
Unfortunately, almost none of the above-mentioned has been implemented after the declaration of Ukraine's independence, which was mainly due to the Ukrainian patriots and national forces including the NRU. Except for human rights having been vested in the Constitution of Ukraine of 1996. Vested... but often not implemented. In addition, we have been taught not to respect our national things, to believe sweet promises, without analyzing the work done.
The main thing that has not been done for the creation of one of the main conditions for realization of the aforementioned principles — the transfer of powers and responsibilities from the first persons to the authorized for the direction (another condition, which is now little spoken about, — to overcome the mental difference between the brought in descendants, in particular, after the famine of 1932-1933, and those whose roots are connected with Ukrainian lands). Since the days of empires, especially of the Soviet one, in Ukraine, especially in the public service, there is a not peculiar to Europeans rule — all the decisions — strategic, tactical, technical — are made by the first persons. They often do not take into consideration the point of view of a leading expert in the certain sphere. In democratic countries strategic, tactical and technical solutions are clearly divided, and the first persons (for example, ministers, heads of services, etc.) deal exclusively with strategic issues. Tactical and technical decisions are the sphere of activity of lower rank officials. And in some spheres, a decision making is based on the proposal of the authorized expert (and never vice verse! — which we often see here).
This approach (shifting the responsibility from the “top” to the “bottom”) would provide the increased responsibility of the grass-roots level and therefore — the state's sequencing. On the other hand, this form of exercise of power would help to de-communize it. It is no secret that, for example, in the Soviet Union it was actually the Communist Party who was in the driving seat, not the formal heads of departments. Besides, in our current conditions, shifting the responsibility “down” would contribute to the struggle against corruption and neutralize “the Kremlin's fifth” column.
Those persons who began their career in the Soviet system, or were formed under appropriate conditions of respect for the Soviet power, can't agree to this. Often it turns out that even sincere patriots subconsciously give an advantage to the Soviet experience, because it's so much easier to manage that way — when all decisions are taken by the first person. This creates the illusion of accountability. And it does not matter how many employees there are in that department: several thousands, several hundreds or just several dozens. The main thing is to serve tea or coffee to the “boss” and to willingly assure him that he is unique and indispensable.
It is obvious that such an agency is ineffective, useless for the state and the people, and therefore can be reduced immensely, with each komsomol-communist call forming new anti-Ukrainian columns. In this case, it is worth remembering that in democratic countries, unlike the Ukrainian SSR, the number of public servants available is justified. These approaches guided the formal and informal leaders of the People's Movement of Ukraine in 1992, when they were said to have no experience of state building, and therefore the NRU was not coming into power. Then, unfortunately, people believed those who claimed to know how to build a state. As a result — we have an oligarchic state with poor people.
The same was done in 2005. Some leaders of the Ukrainian patriotic forces, when the newly elected head of state, forming the government offered individual patriots to lead some basic ministries and departments, they did not agree because of alleged lack of experience, but in reality their motivation was quite different, different from the declared — “we do not go into the executive branch, because we will go into the Parliament.” That is to say, “let someone change the state, I won't”.
As a result, “we have what we have.” Unfortunately.
It turns out that we largely need to start all over again. Perhaps now, to a certain extent, it is easier than in the late 80's — early 90's of the last century, as we have our own state.
