|
 
Petro Tolochko: One hundred days in office of the Anti-Crisis Coalition Government
10.11.2006, 16:12
By large, the Anti-crisis Government should have been put in office not one hundred days ago, but rather one year and a half ago. In my opinion, right after the presidential elections (I will refrain from touching on their features) the President should have told his main opponent: "You collected 44% of the vote, and I got 52%. The people trust both me and you. Let's combine our efforts for Ukraine's benefit." Unfortunately it did not happen so, perhaps largely because of exorbitant ambitions of the so-called "candid friends". Viktor Yanukovych was ready for such cooperation, and he made related appeals to the President.
It is a pity that one year and a half have been wasted on the futile political confrontation, failures of the so-called "best of Governments", and coalition contortions in the orange camp. As it turned out, "the maidan", the street protests can help elect the President and appoint the Prime Minister.
However, it cannot ensure efficient performance of the national economy and solutions to social issues, because professional managers are required for that, rather than fiery orators. Oratory is one thing, while "pulling a plow", so to say, is something altogether different. The brief stint of the orange in power provided striking evidence of that, and fortunately it was of short duration. Only during their stay in government the orange wasted all Ukraine's achievements gained under Viktor Yanukovych's Cabinet.
"The maidan", however lofty aspirations of its rank-and-file protesters were, did not produce positive results. It dealt a blow not to the old corrupt "nomenklatura" (some of whose members led the protests), but rather to the then Government of Viktor Yanukovych, which was the most successful and professional Government since independence. And consequently it harmed all Ukrainian citizens, including those who took part in the protests.
Hopefully we have become wiser since then. It was testified by the outcome of the parliamentary elections, which allowed to form an Anti-crisis coalition in the Verkhovna Rada and the Government.
After all, that should have happened long ago, right after presidential elections. Professionals led by Viktor Yanukovych returned to lead the executive branch of government.
Certainly it was President's credit to a large extent. Evidently it was not easy for him to submit to the Verkhovna Rada Viktor Yanukovych's candidacy for Prime Minister. We all remember the clamor of the so-called "candid friends" over this candidacy for Prime Minister. Nevertheless, President Yushchenko did what was in the interests of the entire Ukraine, not only one political group.
The Government of the Anti-Crisis Coalition has inherited a very hard legacy: Misbalanced management of the economy. Industrial downturn. Wage and pension arrears. Totally ruined relations with Russia. Officials of the orange government, instead of attending to Ukraine's economic problems, began selling off and reselling Ukraine's biggest enterprises. The proceeds were used for consumption rather than industrial investment. They lived by needs of only one day, as a popular saying goes.
And what about the new Government? First, it stated the fact that the flawed domestic and foreign economic policy brought to Ukrainians unjustifiably sharp fuel price rises, which in turn raised the cost of life for our citizens. And then the new Government began energetic work to overcome negative trends in the economy, which has already produced tangible results. Maybe for the first time since independence Ukraine enters winter with 25 billion cubic meters of the Russian gas stored in the underground reservoirs.
In particular, dear readers, I would like to point out one characteristic trait of Viktor Yanukovych's Government, both back in 2004 and now. They do not complain about hard legacy, but rather quietly, step by step, solve difficult problems in various areas of Ukraine's life. It managed to close a gaping "hole" of 6 billion hryvnias in the 2006 Budget, which affected payment of pensions, wages and local budgets' spending on energy supplies, as the orange power's much flaunted reprivatization program had only severely undermined trust in Ukraine and considerably cut investments in Ukraine.
Any Government initially faces a strong temptation to look good in the eyes of the people, at least the maximum number of people. The easiest way is to increase wages, pensions and social benefits. Admittedly the power repeatedly resorted to that earlier by adopting the Budgets of consumption, not development. As a result, there was no means for recapitalizing manufacturing assets, for financing science, education, healthcare, and for creating new jobs. At the same time, the common people's lives did not improve, because inflation rapidly eroded the results of power's economically ungrounded "benefaction".
Now we hear from the leading oppositionists that the Government submitted to the Verkhovna Rada for approval an anti-social draft Budget. However, it is not quite true, or rather it is not true. In reality, the draft Budget for 2007 is every bit as social as the previous one. In addition, maybe it is the first Budget of many previous ones that envisages the policy of economic development and a model of investment and innovation. It removes disproportions between creation of the national product and its consumption.
The spending side of the 2007 Budget is almost 200 billion hryvnias. That is much more than what we had in 2006, when the Budget was prepared by the orange government. For the first time in many years, the Ukrainian Pension Fund will be deficit-free. It envisages the funds for reform of the sector of housing and public utilities. It envisages 25 billion hryvnias for investment and innovation development, which is twice more than in 2006. It envisages much larger share for the local budgets in the consolidated national Budget. Funds for education are up 16% on 2006.
One may wonder why the opposition fails to understand that the draft Budget for 2007 is much better than the previous Budget. Undoubtedly they understand that. Their criticism is largely motivated by their opposition status. One can only agree with their assertion that the Budget is anyway small in size. However, the opposition refuses to acknowledge that it is the fault not only of the present power, but also of the previous government of those who are now opponents of the incumbent Government. There is not enough money because of the limited capacity of our economy. Over the past 15 years since independence, we have all failed to consolidate the economy, and rather wasted what we had before independence.
For the development trends to prevail in the economy and investment policy, the present Government has reenacted its earlier 2004 policy: 2007 Budget envisages 25 billion hryvnias for developing a model of investment and innovation in the country, which will allow next year to attract some 100 billion hryvnias of the domestic capital into the national economy. And it is well known that foreign investments begin to flow into the country in serious volumes only following considerable domestic investments, because a State can hardly expect foreigners' trust, if domestic investors cannot entrust their money to their own State.
The investment vector of the 2007 State Budget was noted by the International Monetary Fund's Senior Resident Representative in Ukraine Mr.Jeffrey Franks. In his words, it will entail economic growth in Ukraine in the medium and long term, and improve social standards. That is a signal for the international investors: Come to this country, as it is reaching a level of investment and innovation development.
Certainly the Government's first 100 days in office is too short a period for cleaning the mess of the past years and to achieve a breakthrough in the economic growth. Years are needed for that, which unfortunately was not made available for none of the Ukrainians governments since independence.
In connection with the above said, I am worried over Our Ukraine's another fit of political hysteria, evidently aimed at destabilizing the Government. "Our Ukraine's" members of the Government, who have never been totally answerable to the Prime Minister, have resorted to unseemly blackmail, threatening to disrupt the government coalition, although nobody is pushing them out of the Government, and all of them admit that it is possible to constructively work with Viktor Yanukovych.
Strangely enough the President has also recently upheld the politically unbalanced decision of "Our Ukraine". The present situation may be characterized by a slightly restyled expression by Petr Stolypin: Viktor Yanukovych and political forces, supporting him, need stable Ukraine, while the opposition needs great upheavals. However, our previous experience has many times convincingly demonstrated that turmoil does not do any good to the common people, only throwing Ukraine years back in its economic development.
And there are actually no reasons for any turbulence. Speculations around the National Unity Pact are at least indecent. First, Viktor Yanukovych has not yet breached it in any way. Besides, this situational document cannot be put above the Constitution, the supremacy of which the opposition and the President are unwilling to respect for some reason, instead sort of proposing to live not by the Constitution, but rather by some "universals", as decrees of the Hetmans were called in the past, as if it would stop recriminations about backing out of a deal.
We also have all reasons to be satisfied with the Government's international actions. The balanced policy of Viktor Yanukovych's Government towards all neighboring countries meets positive response. However, it does not mean adopting obsequious manners of a poor relative, so to speak, which has been professed by the orange. It means dignified equal partnership. For the first time since independence I, for one, had a feeling of profound pride in the leader of our nation, when he visited Brussels. Apparently Viktor Yanukovych's calm and confident demeanor also met understanding on the part of the senior Euroatlantic officials. After all, they heard from him what they did not feel at ease to openly tell us: "Do not hurry up, dear Ukrainians. All in good time."
The Government will keep moving along its chosen path in a confident and calm manner, what most Ukrainians wish, I hope.
Petro Tolochko,
Academic of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences,
Parliamentarian in the Ukrainian Parliaments of the III and IV Convocations
The "Arguments and Facts" newspaper | |
|
| 
| 
| 
