Ukraine’s authorities slipping into criticizing unfavorable polls — interview

Some 78% of Ukrainian citizens believe that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is directly responsible for corruption within the government and military administrations, according to a July 2023 survey conducted by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation in partnership with the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS).

The chair of Zelenskyy’s ruling Servant of the People party, David Arakhamia, described the survey as “manipulative,” while Deputy PM Mykhailo Fedorov called it “very strange” and resembling a “targeted attack.”

Petro Burkovskyi, Executive Director of the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, in an interview with NV Radio on Sept. 12 responded to the accusations and told what was wrong with the government’s rhetoric in this case.

NV: Can you explain why this particular form of the question was chosen? Do you think that Ukraine’s president is responsible for corruption?

Burkovskyi: Let’s start with a short introduction. The last time we heard such accusations that sociologists are manipulating something towards the Fund, our partners, was during the presidency of [former Ukrainian President] Viktor Yanukovych. That’s what Yanukovych’s followers said.

It seems to me the authorities are walking on thin ice when they start considering the results [that way]. They see their rather unattractive reflection in the mirror and begin to say that their problem is not with their appearance, not with their politics, but with sociologists.

Because the survey was conducted according to industry standards. The sample was formed by professional sociologists. If Fedorov, a sociologist by education, has any professional sociological questions, he can contact our professional colleagues and discuss it with them.

Regarding the questions, why they are formulated in this way, there were already various manipulations that we said as if the president was guilty of domestic corruption. Not guilty and not domestic. The question was as follows: respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement “is the president directly responsible for corruption in the government and military administrations?”

How did we arrive at formulating the question this way?

Read also: Deputy Head of President’s Office Shurma on systemic corruption — interview

First, we rely on the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law. In the current conditions, it’s the president as the commander-in-chief who heads the entire executive branch. Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers is directly subordinate to him. Military administrations are also directly subordinate to him. Such is the Constitution and the state power structure during martial law. Accordingly, for all good and effective decisions, as well as for unsuccessful, ineffective, corrupt ones, the president as a person who makes personnel decisions (appointments and dismissals) is, of course, responsible for his subordinates.

And if we are in a state of war, it was assumed that in the army the general is responsible for the last soldier in his army, for what he does. Likewise, the president is responsible, at least for the people he appoints under his authority.

Second. Of course, we must remember that, even though our president is a separate branch of government and doesn’t belong to the executive branch, it happened historically in Ukraine that all presidents had a decisive influence on the structure and decisions of the executive branch. This was the case before Zelenskyy, and under the current Constitution, and it may be like that later. But it’s like that now, and it was like that before the war.

Moreover, after Zelenskyy was elected in 2019, an incredible amount of power was concentrated in his hands since his party single-handedly formed a parliamentary majority. And the government was formed by his party, under his direct instructions. This was the case even after the start of [Russia’s] full-scale invasion.

Therefore, both by authority and tradition, the president is directly responsible for those whom he has appointed.

Read also: US reconstruction expert on rebuilding Ukraine, and how to avoid corruption – interview

And we asked people: do they believe that he’s also responsible for those violations committed by his immediate subordinates? And 78% said yes.

And the last thing, which is very interesting: how our government reacts. I would like to say that these data on 78% were first released on Aug. 5, by the way, in an article on NV, on your website, which was about the citizens’ attitude to defense.

I wrote in this article that these signals about the defense sector should be taken into account as 78% of people hold the president directly responsible for corruption. Therefore, all scoundrels or corrupt officials who make inefficient, outright criminal corruption decisions undermine both the state’s efficiency and defense capability, as well as public trust in the president. The first signal sounded on Aug. 5, and we held an event on Sept. 11 since we had some more questions, we delved a little deeper into this topic, how people evaluate corruption.

NV: This can be quite a specific answer to both Arakhamia and Fedorov who say this is all manipulation. If the same question were asked and different answer options were given, the result would definitely be different just because it would be a different question.

Burkovskyi: About other options. Let’s discuss. Whom would Fedorov suggest to put at the head of the government and military administrations, apart from the president?

NV: I don’t know. I think, in his opinion, either the Government [Cabinet of Ministers] could be there, or the Defense Ministry, or the General Staff. It seems to me that such a sharp and synchronized response from the country’s main faces is due to the fact that they’re shocked that the result is exactly like this. And did the result you saw surprise you? Let me remind you that 78% of respondents believe that the president of Ukraine is responsible for corruption within the government or military administrations.

Burkovskyi: The result didn’t surprise me because people clearly understand who is currently in power. The reaction of the people you listed is, of course, strange.

I emphasize once again: firstly, it resembles (I’m not saying that it really is) what happened during Yanukovych’s presidency. Second, the reaction to the public opinion poll is surprising because what are we conducting it for at all, public opinion polls? This is a feedback loop between the government and society. We conducted these surveys both on education, on health care, and on the defense sector.

There is public perception. Public perception shapes collective behavior, mass behavior of people. If people have serious concerns that the government is failing or weak in its fight against corruption, it will influence people’s behavior even today, and their decisions. Therefore, when the authorities have such feedback, they should make a decision.

Read also: Ukraine’s defense minister replaced amid wartime corruption crackdown

Today we saw the right decision, namely the controversial bill on online asset declarations for officials vetoed by the president. But if the authorities were more often interested in their citizens’ opinion, this bill would probably not have been passed in the first place.

But the reaction itself says these people were scared that they’re putting the president at risk with their policy, that they’re humiliating both the Ukrainian people and the president with their attitude, forcing the president to do their job for them. They themselves claim that he’s “too busy.” And this is true, he’s absorbed in work with international partners, negotiations. It’s hard, daily work. Why do they not qualitatively carry out the hard daily work of law-making, but look for what someone is “manipulating” somewhere, conducting polls the wrong way?

I think they were actually shocked not by the result itself, but by the fact that it was made public, and they need to somehow report to the citizens. But, I think, they will be even more afraid of what they will have to report to the president. Because if they did their job, including [Speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Ruslan] Stefanchuk, Arakhamia, who are in the Verkhovna Rada, the trust in the Verkhovna Rada would not be negative but positive. Not the same as the president’s rating, but it would be positive.

The Razumkov Center regularly releases the rating of trust in public institutions: the Verkhovna Rada slightly moved up on the list in 2022, but now it’s negative again.

NV: How are the data correlated? As of July 2023, among the institutions, 81% [of Ukrainians] trust in President Zelenskyy. These are the Razumkov Center’s survey data. It’s higher only in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, i.e., 93%. And 78% of respondents believe the president is directly responsible for corruption. That is, they trust but understand that he’s responsible for corruption, right? What correlation do you see here?

Burkovskyi: Responsibility is not complicity, not an accusation that the president is guilty. But he’s responsible. If he sees people working effectively, he should support and promote it. But if they’re corrupt officials or are suspected of corruption, he should dismiss them. No one else in the state has these powers.

Therefore, of course, people trust him and expect him to act. That’s what this survey says. This is not an accusation or a sentence. This is a demand: “Eliminate corrupt, dishonest, unscrupulous people from your entourage.” And this request will remain constant as long as the war is going on, because corruption for people is a phenomenon that undermines our struggle and postpones our victory.

Therefore, this issue cannot be ignored. And we cannot say that only [National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine] NABU and [Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office] SAPO are responsible for [fighting] corruption in our country. And let’s remember who blocked the appointment of a SAPO prosecutor who had been selected by the commission? Who blocked him? Let’s not forget that these were the Verkhovna Rada and the President’s Office. Not the president himself, but the President’s Office. They blocked it, as well as trying to interfere in the competition for the election of the NABU head. I’m sure these people should be held responsible.

Read also: Ukrainian anti-corruption leaders meet American National Security Advisor

Why? Because when there are such signals from the leadership that someone will be prosecuted for corruption and someone not, the subordinates get the impression that it’s possible to do business as usual, and they just need to have reliable protection. And the higher, the better. This corrodes people’s solidarity, undermines our defense capability. Instead of writing posts that sociologists have measured something incorrectly, these people in positions with authority should make decisions and not put the president at risk.

NV: I found the Razumkov Center’s data. As of July 2023, some 56% of respondents don’t trust the Verkhovna Rada. This is really a very large percentage and a very serious indicator. And don’t the results of the survey conducted by your foundation together with KIIS show that Ukrainians remain a paternalistic society? There is one person, we see his addresses every day, is this person the one who should answer for everything?

Burkovskyi: Paternalistic is when we completely transfer responsibility to the president, when we say, as in Russia, that “we won’t do anything, but we’ll wait for [Russian dictator Vladimir] Putin to do it.” I haven’t seen this.

Our society is seriously and rapidly changing after 2014, after the Revolution of Dignity. The main thing is that it doesn’t take the form, as it were, of “trash lustration.” Do you remember how those who had ties with Russia were persecuted? It turns out that the trash lustration appeared since the law enforcement agencies didn’t fulfill their function, i.e., they didn’t fight Russian influence agents.

We have two ways: either we fight the corrupt officials in a legal way, and here the president plays a role, especially during martial law, because the powers are concentrated in his hands.

Read also: SBU exposes draft dodging corruption scheme

What can people do against corrupt officials? Write, report to law enforcement agencies. And people do it. Look at how many corrupt officials are exposed in draft offices, on other cases. It’s obvious that people signal about such suspicions, there is such a part. People can report this at their level. But both the law enforcement system, the president and the Verkhovna Rada must do all the work. The Verkhovna Rada must pass laws, while the president must make decisions, so that no one has any doubts that corruption cannot continue, despite the war. Because otherwise, people will engage in lynching. In any case, this is the wrong way.

NV: Zelenskyy said he wants to equate top corruption with treason. The media, citing their sources, reported that Zelenskyy’s office later postponed this idea. There are many caveats, particularly about how human rights are respected, even when they concern top corrupt officials. But this possible decision to equate corruption with treason was very populist, because that’s what society probably wants...

Burkovskyi: No, society doesn’t want that. It wants the inevitability of punishment. And we lack this. In our country, the accused were allowed to travel abroad during martial law. In our country, Andriy Portnov, a well-known scheme organizer in jurisprudence, let’s call it that, a person who was involved in many dubious legal actions, was allowed by law enforcement agencies to leave the country during martial law. And I can give you many such examples.

There are examples when people avoid responsibility. It shouldn’t be like that. Citizens want the inevitability of punishment not only for corruption, but for other serious crimes.

The issue of [prison] terms is actually a secondary issue. What is a prison term? We isolate this person from causing damage. It will be enough, for example, that these people will never be able to hold any government positions. Never or for a very long time. This will be a safeguard for [others] who will start thinking whether he should engage in corruption.

Read also: Corruption still major issue at recruitment centers, says MP

Because the severity of the punishment... Look, corrupt officials are executed or shot dead in China. And corruption is still quite high there as it’s controlled at the highest level. It’s just that one clan of [Chinese leader] Xi Jinping seized power, and he simply destroys the rest of the clans under the pretext of corruption, while continuing to engage in corruption.

That is, not the severity of the punishment, but the inevitability – that’s what the citizens want.

We’re bringing the voice of Ukraine to the world. Support us with a one-time donation, or become a Patron!

Read the original article on The New Voice of Ukraine