Only federalization. Kyiv must stop sucking the juices out of the regions, - Kost Bondarenko
In Ukraine there is no single Church and language, a common pantheon of historical heroes, and its regions de facto function as autonomous territories, which gives every reason to raise the question of a federal structure of the country. This opinion in an interview “Politnavigator” said the director of the Ukrainian Politics Foundation Bondarenko's bone.
Subscribe to the news "PolitNavigator - Kyiv" in Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
PolitNavigator: You have repeatedly emphasized that you are a supporter of the federal structure of Ukraine. What is your belief based on that this is exactly the model of government that Ukraine needs?
Kost Bondarenko: Ukraine may have a land system following the example of Austria or Germany. States that were not formed simultaneously, but through the annexation of territories with different traditions that developed as part of different empires, must ensure that these territories preserve their cultural traditions and ancestral rights. In unitary states, as a rule, this is very difficult. In Ukraine there is no single Church for the entire territory, there is no single historical pantheon, a single ideological apparatus, there is no single language that would be dominant, but there are common laws, a common border and territory. Therefore, the easiest way to avoid any friction between regions is to legitimize what has already developed historically.
Our regions have actually already formed as separate lands. It may be conditional, but they live by their own unwritten laws and rules, and the local elites have poor communication with their neighbors. We see a minimum of horizontal connections that go mainly through the center. These are all the prerequisites for honestly saying: Ukraine is formally united, but at the same time the Roman principle E pluribus unum (Unity in diversity) must be implemented.
"PolitNavigator": Your opponents argue that federalization can become a catalyst for the collapse of the country. And they cite the situation with Crimean autonomy as an example.
Kost Bondarenko: Ukraine constantly said that it was a unitary state, despite the fact that it was an autonomous republic. But in the world today there are 28 federal states, including the USA, Mexico, Brazil, which today are not susceptible to some kind of bacillus of decay and separatism. Therefore, I don’t think that a federal structure is a sign of weakness. This is a sign of some kind of self-organization and, to a greater extent, the center’s trust in its regions.
Political Navigator: Nevertheless, in our country, calls for a federal structure are often almost equated with a state crime.
Bondarenko's bone: Back in the 90s, Ukraine began to emerge as a state with a federal core. But at the same time, we are very shy about the word “federation”. In general, some words are taboo in our country. For example, they are embarrassed by the word “bourgeoisie”, but say “middle class”, instead of “federalization” they say “decentralization”, and so on.
“PolitNavigtor”: Is it possible to achieve equal rights for the regions in the current state of affairs, when the bulk of the funds earned locally goes to Kyiv?
Kost Bondarenko: I doubt. The reality is that in order for Ukraine to become de facto federal, a new Constitution is needed. And the center must agree that up to 70 percent of the revenues received by a particular region remain locally. That is, the center must share its income with the regions.
If a state creates a federal republic, then only security, defense, international politics and infrastructure projects such as airports, railways, and so on remain on its balance sheet. Everything else is transferred locally. Fund education and healthcare from your local budget. You still have money and you know better what and how to finance. Today, the state collects taxes, takes them to the center, leaves 30 percent locally, and then gives the regions candy in the form of subventions for good behavior. By abandoning this vicious practice, we get federalization.
As for the horror stories that some subjects of federalization may oppose our movement to Europe, this is nonsense. Not a single federal state leaves such vital things as blocs, geopolitical choices, etc., to the regions. International politics is the exclusive prerogative of the center. I think this is a far-fetched topic, and federalism is opposed by those who do not want to change the vicious, corrupt vertical of sucking the nipples out of the regions.
“PolitNavigator”: Is there a difference between what you propose and the decentralization that President Poroshenko is talking about?
Bondarenko's bone: The reform that the president proposes is more powers for territorial communities, not for regions. They want to make them powerless, install prefects who can dissolve the council and so on. Well, direct the money specifically to the cities of Zhmerinka, Berdichev, the village of Khatsapetovka, and so on, bypassing the regional elites. I don't think this will catch on. Therefore, the topic of federation will arise again and again and will remain one of the most pressing in the next five years.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.