An Article “If we say a word, we will get nothing: how grant from Europe and the USA are distributed in Ukraine” by Anton Chyzhov has been published on Apostrophe.com.ua. It reveals the intricate world of the non-governmental organizations financing in Ukraine. Is the civic activities sector de facto privatized by a bunch of money-loving scoundrels, or are there other reasons to justify their blatant inefficiency incomparable to their wages usually at least 10 times higher than country’s average?
First of all, we need to outline what non-governmental
sector in Ukraine is. In Soviet era, every part of life was controlled by the
state. Major NGOs, e.g. school students’ pioneer organization, or the paramilitary
sport DOSAAF (Volunteer Society for Cooperation with the Army, Aviation, and
Fleet) were close to the party and fully under party bosses control. After
Ukraine proclaimed its independence in 1991, the Western world failed to
educate people about the need of self-organization. Maybe, it was felt as something
self evident; but the Ukrainians were not ready to accept it, fully relying on
the Government and its decisions. Competing President, Parliament and
Government put spokes in each other wheels until they found unity in mutually
beneficial corruption. Ordinary people were terrified at some point, let's assume
during 2002-2005 Yanukovych-led Government rule when the cover-up became total:
Parliament adopted laws lobbied by Government-controlling oligarchs, the
police, Prosecutor General's Office, and the justice were always taking their
side to protect vested interests. 2004 Orange Revolution seemed to have
introduced improvements; yet as Yanukovych was appointed Prime Minister again
for 2006-2007 it was clear that changes were purely superficial. Then dozens of
foreign-sponsored projects aimed at civic society development were active in
Ukraine for at least several years, e.g. League of Interns (http://interns.org.ua/) was launched in 1995 in cooperation with USAID.
Thousands of citizens were trained to promote their country and to build
democratic society. Numerous initiatives proved to be hoax and had bad ending,
e.g. 2004 Pora.
2013-2014 Euromaidan was for a large part
started and supported by numerous democratic NGOs. Most of them were known to
have been receiving foreign grants for at least a few years; yet their
activities were mostly educational and never meant any resistance to the Government,
to say nothing of possible armed resistance. Which is important to understand
is that members of these NGOs were at the core of the Euromaidan’s first 10
days; after that it became a common cause for millions. Someone had to speak on
behalf of the Euromaidan participants; politicians lacked people’s trust; civic
society activists proved to be figures neutral enough to represent democratic
and anti-corruption aspirations.
When Yanukovych fled, the ordinary people felt
that the very concept of Euromaidan was privatized by the politicians. Of
course, every their speech paid contribution to their contribution, and
especially to the Heavenly Hundred. But the men behind were soon forgotten. What
hurt more is that those men were treated as faceless mass incapable of
thinking. Civic activists took the role of the nation’s brain. But were they
entitled to do that? As civic society had no previous tradition in Ukraine, the
members of NGOs were mostly young and inexperienced, yet very ambitious. They get used to use private cars – so necessary for efficient work, but so unobtainable in a country where average yearly income is about $2,000, expensive phones – for communication purposes of course, nice houses – one cannot live in the street, right? In 2014 the Reanimation Package of Reforms (RPR) was formed – 57
NGOs united to promote reforms in Ukraine. They remained formally independent; but
the image was created and the grant funders were eager to support it. Some
estimate that in 2015 80% of support to RPR came through account of the MediaLaw Institute. Is this any good for other NGOs, especially those outside RPR
framework? One would doubt.
Representatives of 57 RPR members argue that
the management tends to receive most of the money while other members have to
pay from their own pocket for travelling all over Ukraine to visit round tables
or other events. “We are silent – if we speak we will get nothing at all” –
note NGO activists cited in Anton Chyzov’s article on Apostrophe.
Did Reanimation Package of Reforms proved to be
effective? For sure yes – in monopolizing the field of civic activism. Any new
law, even if it was developed by the Government, that advances reforms is
registered on their account today to substantiate its sham weight and to create
the necessary prerequisites for future grants. But the Governmental bodies like
it: so their bills are nominally approved by the society.
Should anything change? Without any doubt, $5
million specified for transport and logistics of the participants of projects
aimed at increasing self-confidence of Ukrainians is way too much. Or is it that
necessary to develop bicycle sport in Lypovetsky raion of Vinnytsia region for
EUR 210,000? The country falls victim of an armed aggression, at least 10% of
its territory is occupied… Other directions and experienced executors are to substitute
the impostors who spent the whole life wasting foreign grants - $9 billion since
1991 and is as much responsible for Ukraine's misfortunes as its Governments and populist Parliament.
Based on story by Anton Chyzhov, Apostrophe,
published May 26, 2016 (http://apostrophe.com.ua/ua/article/economy/2016-05-26/esli-otkroem-rot---nichego-ne-poluchim-kak-v-ukraine-raspredelyayutsya-grantyi-iz-ssha-i-evropyi/5220)
November 2017 update:
as the RPR appeared to be a kind of an intermediary between the Government of Ukraine and its foreign partners, the Cabinet of Minister is becoming increasingly deaf to its projects alongside the President that seems to have chosen the course of distancing himself from foreign aid. The RPR appeared to be working against corruption; and the Government needs extra money for the future presidential campaign. Populism is ca classic recipe for winning; populism canot coexist with reforms.
