By Zoltán Dujisin
KIEV, Mar 10 2006 (IPS)

Ukraine is preparing for parliamentary elections Mar. 26 amid political chaos and divisions, but little has been delivered so far on one of the main promises of last years’ elections: to eradicate corruption.

The ballot will not only elect a new prime minister, it will complete the constitutional reform to a more parliamentary democracy.

Widespread poverty is the principal difficulty this country of 48 million faces. A worrying economic performance is taking prevalence in people’s minds. They partly blame it on gas price hikes by Russia, but corruption remains a visible, largely unaddressed factor advancing poverty.

Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index for 2005 placed Ukraine in a worrying 107th place, along with Vietnam and Zimbabwe, accounting for one of the worst positions in Europe, second only to Russia.

With the current government facing the distrust of many voters who had previously supported it, surveys confirm that a large part of their disillusionment is due to a lack of tangible progress in the fight against corruption.

A survey by the International Institute of Sociology in Kiev carried out late last year following the cabinet’s dismissal indicated that almost 70 percent of Ukrainians were disappointment by the governments’ performance.

Misunderstandings within the cabinet, administrative incompetence, the absence of a strategic vision for the country’s future, and failure to tackle corruption were all pointed out as the main reasons behind popular mistrust.

Corruption allegations have persisted in a country whose Western-leaning government had promised to attack the problem following last year’s presidential elections.

Accusations of bribery and illegitimate links to businesses within the cabinet led to its dissolution in September. But since then none of the suspects has been brought to justice, following a long tradition of unaccountability in the Ukrainian political realm.

“Corruption is institutionalised and legitimised in Ukrainian law: it is a talent of ours,” Vira Nanivska, director of the International Centre for Policy Studies told IPS.

Nanivska sees corruption in Ukraine as the result of misguided planning during transition from communism. “There was economic liberalisation without paying attention to institutional capacity and judicial reform,” she said. She blames World Bank policy for offering deficient assistance, and largely neo-liberal policy advice. “Their idea was that the ‘invisible hand of the market’ would automatically give place to the necessary regulations and institutions.”

After leaving the Soviet Union and achieving independence in 1991, Ukraine quickly proceeded to dismantle Soviet institutions, leading to an institutional void, and the absence of a new systemic framework.

In Nanivska’s view, corruption settled to fill the gap left by this void, and became vital for elites pursuing their interests. “The powerful ones realised the importance of buying media outlets and bribing members of parliament to ensure support for the policies and laws they need to see approved.”

But there is consensus that corruption existed before independence, even if in other forms.

Yuri Sayenko, sociologist and former member of an anti-corruption commission, argues the tradition dates back to Czarism, it survived throughout Soviet history in the form of nepotism, and eventually developed into its monetary form with transition to democracy.

“People currently feel they are in the hands of civil servants” who rely on corruption to compensate for their low salaries, he told IPS. “They offer a very simple solution to even the slightest problem: Either you pay a bribe, or nothing will be solved.”

The attitude has resulted in a deeply mistrustful, unstable population, feeling constantly vulnerable to economic crime, he said. “Low salaries, the lack of a middle class, and the absence of a civil society have certainly not helped.”

But some economists look at the bright side of corruption. “Corruption has become a vehicle for economic activity and makes certain investments possible,” argues Igor Burakovsky, an economic adviser close to President Viktor Yushchenko.

But while corruption is having a temporarily positive effect on business, he argues for “clear and transparent institutions and legislation” so as to ultimately “convince businessmen that the best way is the legal way.”

But fighting corruption will not be easy, he said. “It is a long process, and many mistakes will be made,” he told IPS. “Its eradication is impossible, but hopefully we can lower it to acceptable levels.”

The government has taken some strong measures, even if the results have not been the best, Nanivska said. “But we are on the right path.”

Sayenko says governments change, but the same political structures are still in place. The fight against corruption will have to necessarily involve a “wide variety of specialists, and the participation of a strong civil society. Only then we will be able to change mentalities.”

Excerpt: