Authorities resist Zelensky efforts to expand influence

Ukraine’s Constitutional Court ruled on Dec. 17 as
unconstitutional the provision of an amendment submitted by the president that
grants him the ability to appoint and dismiss the heads of the National
Anti-Corruption Bureau and State Bureau of Investigations (DBR), as reported by
the pravda.com.ua news site. The provision violates the principle of
distribution of power, violating the checks and balances between the president
and prime minister, the court said in its ruling.

EU authorities have published in recent weeks its
criticisms of reforms proposed by the Zelensky administration to Ukraine’s Security
Service (SBU), as well as its judiciary. In its annual “Association
Implementation Report on Ukraine” published on Dec. 12, the EU High
Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy assessed legislation to
reform the SBU, submitted by head Ivan Bakanov, as contradicting the
recommendations of Ukraine’s Western partners. It stressed that the SBU’s
functions should be limited to “counter-surveillance, counterterrorism and the
protection of state secrets.”

Specifically, the bill excludes the EU recommendation
of a parliamentary monitoring body of the SBU. The bill also fails to provide
an improved framework for fighting organized crime, which “requires a review
and improvement,” the report said. “The body responsible for coordinating
activity in this sphere is not yet clearly defined. Several law enforcement
bodies believe these functions to be their own, not having a legislative basis
nor respective structures. The level of cooperation and coordination (between
these bodies) is unsatisfactory.”

Meanwhile, the European Commission For Democracy
Through Law, more commonly known as the Venice Commission, stated in an
assessment published on Dec. 6 that the amendments reforming the judiciary –
approved by Ukraine’s parliament and signed into law by Ukrainian President
Zelensky on Nov. 4 – threaten its stability and independence. Authorities
expressed their “deep concern” with amendments introducing numerous “radical
changes” to the Supreme Court and judicial self-governing bodies.

The amendments introduce new rules to the structure
and role of the Higher Justice Council, the membership and status of the Higher
Qualifications Commission of Judges, strict disciplinary measures against these
judges, and cuts in half the number of judges on the Supreme Court. Initiating
the latest reforms after elections, which will lead to serious changes in the
Supreme Court membership, “sends the message to judges, as well as the general
public, that whether judges of the highest court remain in office or not
depends on the parliamentary majority. This is an obvious threat to their
independence,” the report said.

Zenon Zawada:
Inexperienced and insecure of itself, the Zelensky administration has been
rushing to prescribe itself as much authority as it can, without having the
expertise – and likely desire – to determine whether its legislative efforts
conform with Ukrainian law and commitments to Western institutions. The Venice
Commission said as much in its December assessment, noting the judiciary
amendments were approved “in a very fast procedure, without sufficient
consideration of the thoughts of all interested sides.” The Zelensky team is
erring on the side of prescribing itself too much authority, leaving the work
to various institutions to react accordingly and apply the necessary checks if
it norms, standards and laws are violated.

In recent weeks, the pro-Western opposition to
Zelensky has begun to warn the public of rising authoritarianism under the new
president. Various political observers see a brazen attempt to concentrate
authority within the presidency. We have recognized these tendencies
towards stricter controls at the political and even business level, with small
and medium entrepreneurs complaining that reforms
have made conditions more restrictive for them. These negative tendencies,
mixed with some positive developments, speak to a
lack of a unified, coherent strategy within the Zelensky administration for
Ukraine’s development.

Instead, we see different authorities applying
different policies without coordination, while at the same time vying for
control of state bodies. These authorities are united on certain fronts
(Zelensky and Andriy Bohdan opposing Privatbank denationalization sought by
Ihor Kolomoisky), while opposed to each other on others (Bakanov and Bohdan
reportedly exchanging blows over influence on the SBU). It’s a rather chaotic
situation, producing choppy reforms and policies, that makes us doubt
Zelensky’s effectiveness as president, particularly with intensified Russian aggression
just around the corner.