Real Problem with Governance in Ukraine

 

Many like to say and think that problem in governance in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states lies in centralization. That by extension means that giving more power to local authorities would solve the problems country facing. In certain aspects power in Ukraine in indeed more centralized that that in western countries. 

However, that is incorrect to think that this is the root of problems in Ukraine. The biggest problem is not centralization but rather concentration of power in certain positions. Including those of some local authorities.

In Ukraine governors and mayors have power over everything that happens in their province or city. Such concentration of power essentially creates local dictators with absolute local power. 

There is a danger in such concentration of power in one local office. Some of local rulers can grow nearly as independent as medieval barons, with equally detrimental results to Ukraine as whole.

In contrast in the west power is carefully dispersed between variety of entities of different levels of authority. Different organizations and institutions within the same city are controlled by different levels of government and even departments within the same government. Some controlled by local authorities and others by state or federal ones. 

That means that even if mayors and local consuls are independently elected, collect their own revenue through rates and can spend these money and act independently without any intake from the higher tiers of government. 

That however does not make them too powerful as important originations in the city are controlled by central authorities directly and local authorities have no say over what happens there.

Take for example Port of Odesa that is controlled by elected mayor of Odesa. This makes positions of mayor of Odesa very powerful and financially lucrative as it controls both profits and functioning of the port. 

That however makes positions of mayor of Odesa beholden to the interests of the port and people who control it. That leads to situation where port mafia spends money and influence to keep control over the Odesa consul and mayor. Mayor, installed by port mafia, keeps port mafia interests above interests of city residents and even Ukraine as a whole. 

That lead to port and mafia becoming fabulously rich and everyone else staying poor. National interests of Ukraine are sidelined by those of the port mafia. communal interest of Odesa residents is also ignored by mayor who knows that keeping port mafia happy is what keeps him in power and not citizens of the city. That is bad for people of Odesa and bad for Ukraine as a whole.

In the west port as major as Odesa would be controlled by port authority directly and not by mayor and consul. That port authority could be rather independent but ultimately would answer to central government and not to an elected mayor.

Doing the same in Ukraine would solve many problems. Mayor of Odesa would be untangled from port and its interests and could focus more on the communal interests of people of the city. The Port of Odesa, essential for national interests of Ukraine, would not be beholden to unaccountable mafia, who misuses democracy to cover their robber baron practices.

As a general rule Ukraine should study what exact powers and responsibilities are delegated to each layer of government in the west. Then implement the same division of power in Ukraine. SBU might have to take control of port of Odesa directly and then keep providing security there. 

Slimmed down and divided authority would lead to a situation where each organization could focus and its functional responsibility and will be free from power struggles between big players such as mafia, central government or even Russian meddling.