A Perspective on the Current Situation in Ukraine
By Roger Myerson (University of
Chicago, 2007 Nobel Prize Winner)
In
the Ukrainian crisis today, the important question is whether Ukraine will have
an opportunity to develop as a sovereign
democratic nation. Questions about extensions of international alliances may be
a dangerous distraction from this vital point.
Since
the end of the Soviet era, the development of democracy in Ukraine has been frustrated
by a unique and perverse form of constitutional centralization. Ukraine's
constitution gives the president the power to appoint and dismiss all local
governors. Such presidential power over local officials is extremely unusual
among parliamentary democracies. This centralized control of local government
has exacerbated regional tensions and hindered the development of trusted
democratic leadership in Ukraine.
Democracy
is about voters having a choice among alternative candidates who are trusted to
exercise power responsibly. When such trusted leadership is lacking, democracy
is inevitably disappointing and fragile. Although a presidential election can
give prestige to its winner, it does nothing to develop the broader supply of
trusted alternative candidates on which the success of democracy will
ultimately depend.
This
essential supply of trusted leadership can develop best in responsible
institutions of local government where successful local leaders can prove their
qualifications to become strong competitive candidates for higher office. In
many countries, trusted candidates for national leadership are regularly found
among governors and mayors who have proven their abilities by delivering better
public services in the government of a province or a large city.
But
an incumbent president is the national politician who would have the most to
lose from the development of more trusted competitive candidates for high
office. So when the president picks the governors, we should expect them to be
regularly chosen from among the president's loyal supporters who are unlikely
to develop any independent reputations of trust with the voters. Thus,
presidential control of local government in Ukraine has tended to block the development
of leaders trusted by the people. Furthermore, supporters of the incumbent president
have had a vested interest in maintaining the existing centralization of power.
In
2004, following the example of Ukraine, supporters of the President of Russia
enacted a law granting him similar power to appoint Russian governors, who had
been popularly elected in the previous decade. The result of this
centralization has been to weaken democratic competition in Russia.
Now,
however, the challenge of separatism has focused constitutional debate in
Ukraine on the need to introduce some federal decentralization. People
understand that excessive centralization weakened Ukraine's ability to resist
separatist challenges in regions which did not support the incumbent national
leadership. Decentralizing some share of power to locally elected officials can
guarantee that every region has popularly trusted local leaders who have a real
stake in the nation's political system.
Thus,
if Ukraine can maintain its sovereign independence within recognized borders,
the prospects are good for reforms that could lay the foundations for a
stronger democratic system. Locally elected councils already exist in every
region of Ukraine, and a straightforward constitutional reform could give these
councils the power to select their own governors and to set priorities in their
local public budgets. There is no need to give any region special treatment or exemptions
from the laws of Ukraine, but all regional councils should have some clear
authority to serve their local constituents under national law.
As
a first step, the President of Ukraine has proposed constitutional reforms that
would transfer executive power to officials elected by the local councils. But
the proposed reforms would also include provisions for presidential appointees
to veto local decisions at any time. People in the regions fear that such
presidential power could be abused to control the local decisions without
bearing any responsibility. These vital questions of decentralization reform should
be the focus of international discussions on Ukraine.
Ukraine
and Russia will always be closely linked by ties of language, culture, and
trade. So the success of decentralized democracy in Ukraine could eventually
encourage democratic reforms in Russia as well, to the benefit of people in
both countries. After all, the existence of democracy in neighboring countries
that are linked by a common language has helped to strengthen democracy among
English-speaking and German-speaking peoples. It could do so also among nations
where Russian is spoken.
p.s.
In the spring of 2014, I
worked with Tymofiy
Mylovanov to raise questions of constitutional reform in Ukraine, in an initiative
supported by many social scientists in Europe, America, Russia, and Ukraine;
see the Ukraine
Decentralization Initiative.
No comments:
Post a Comment