Minister of Justice Denys Maliuska claims that the Law on deoligarchization is achieving its goal, and such people in business lose their political influence. People's deputy from the "European Solidarity" party Iryna Gerashchenko notes that this Law is rather a tool of the government to build an autocratic regime. Oleksandr Marusiak, an expert at the Center for Political and Legal Reforms, believes that this Law will not solve the problems with the oligarchs and that this struggle is somewhat idealized and overestimated. On Wednesday, July 13, during OPORA.Live stream, the representatives of OPORA discussed deoligarchization and the extent to which current legislative decisions can contribute to it or create additional problems.
According to OPORA's senior analyst Oleksandr Kliuzhev, after russia's large-scale aggression, there were doubts that this draft law would work within the stipulated time frame. It was adopted in September of the previous year, but it is already obvious that there will be no postponement of the entry into force and practical implementation of this law. And in fact, on the eve of practical steps for its implementation, the "Media Group Ukraine", which is related to Ukrainian businessman Rinat Akhmetov announced that it is actually leaving the media business and handing over licenses for relevant activities to the state.
"The fact that we returned to this discussion, which used to take place around the law on deoligarchization, indicates that we have come out of a certain shock after the barbaric attack of the russian federation. And we, too, have already started thinking about the future. I personally believe that this is a plus because thinking about the future of the country is also part of our resistance to russian aggression. And this discussion is also, in my opinion, positive, because Ukraine should be in a certain global discourse. And at the global level, at the level of foreign countries, there is an academic, political, and governmental discussion about what oligarchic influence is and how to prevent it. And this debate is much more complex than simply calling to 'dispossess' people who have extreme wealth or do nothing at all. It has many layers. And this discussion around the Ukrainian law, which we can support or oppose, it gives an impetus to determine, in fact, what Ukraine will do with oligarchic influence, who are oligarchs in general, how we define them, and whether we have already found effective steps countermeasures to this negative influence, which still exist, and here we have to be frank," Oleksandr Kliuzhev said.
OPORA's legal adviser Pavlo Romaniuk noted that a relevant regulation on the register of oligarchs was recently developed. The Secretary of the National Security Council stated that the register is already working, while work is being done on gathering information on the inclusion of certain persons in this register.
Denys Maliuska, Minister of Justice of Ukraine, believes that the implementation of the Law on Deoligarchization is already bringing visible results.
"The oligarchs did not just try to influence politics during these years, they determined the entire political landscape, they created political stars, they destroyed political figures. They were the determining engine of the Ukrainian government and politics during all these years. Therefore, we do not have to soften their role—it is obvious and understandable. Actually, the purpose of this law was to remove such a large influence of oligarchs. At least so that they stop making a lot of money from it. And as a maximum, so that they stop distorting the perception of reality, which they could do by manipulating the mass media. Moreover, this was not done directly, we did not force anyone to do anything—we created incentives for the oligarchs to lose their status on their own," Denys Maliuska said.
The Minister notes that since its drafting, the Law has received two major waves of criticism, regarding which it is now possible to claim that it was a deliberate disinformation campaign to prevent the adoption and implementation of this Law.
"You can now find a video of politicians and analysts who said that this law was funny and would not bring any serious results. Then, over time, the criticism changed and the phrase 'it's funny' turned into 'gross violation of human rights', that there are not European practices, that this is a step beyond all reasonable and permissible limits, that this is a total leveling of basic human rights. Where was the second wave of criticism? From now on, it is safe to say that both waves are and were disinformation campaigns intended to prevent the adoption of the Law and its implementation. Because it was not empty talk, the oligarchs were really scared and invested a huge amount of money in discrediting the Law. They poured the moneu in through their media and through the media of their relatives, or those who were ready to support this kind of media wave," Denys Maliuska said.
And part of the critics' arguments regarding non-European practices, according to the Minister, was nullified by numerous statements of European politicians and, in particular, the latest statement of the European Commission.
"The European Commission even made the implementation of the Law on Oligarchs, with subsequent consideration of the conclusions of the Venice Commission, a condition for the start of negotiations regarding Ukraine's membership in the European Union. It is important to understand that the conclusions of the Venice Commission are not yet available, no one has seen them yet. However, the fact that the European Commission considers the law on oligarchs fundamental, important for Ukraine to prove that it is part of the European Community and shares common values, is a very important factor. In particular, in her speech in the parliament, Ursula von der Leyen pointed out, let's say, numerous goals that the Ukrainian authorities still need to achieve. And among the positive things that have already been achieved, there was only one moment—it was precisely the adoption of the Law by the only country in the entire Eastern European Community, which is aimed at restricting oligarchs. It was on the top of the list of reforms that had been or were to be carried out under Ursula von der Leyen. Therefore, by and large, the goal is already being achieved," Denys Maliuska said.
In his opinion, now, for example, Rinat Akhmetov's departure from two criteria that would allow him to be included in the Register of Oligarchs is taking place. Thus, there is an exit from the criterion of participation in political life due to the loss of the mandate by his business partner Vadym Novinsky, as well as an exit from the media business as a criterion of influence on the media sphere. These two criteria eliminate the biggest irritants, the biggest influence of an individual on the political life of the country.
"It is not only about the statement made by Mr. Akhmetov, there were also other actions of individuals in order to avoid the effect of the Law on Oligarchs. From the latter, for example, the withdrawal of Mr. Novinsky from the parliament. It was not announced, at least in the media, that it was somehow connected with the Law on Oligarchs, but let me remind you that anyone who understands the structure of the Law on Oligarchs will understand that Mr. Novinsky was a direct connection to recognize as an oligarch Mr. Akhmetov. Because they are business partners, and Mr. Novinsky, as a people's deputy, is a political figure. And therefore, in the case of the continuation of the status of Mr. Novinsky as a people's deputy, the sign of participation in political life would be activated, which would automatically turn Mr. Akhmetov into an oligarch. Therefore, in this case, the refusal of the mandate, whether it was the goal or not, I don't know, I will not judge, but it removed Mr. Akhmetov's direct connection with the parliament and removed the most obvious sign of participation in political life for Mr. Akhmetov. That is, he never wanted to be included in the list of oligarchs. His latest statement is just a sign that he has not changed his mind, and he considers this Law dangerous and would not like to get there. In fact, regarding the press release made by the company, Mr. Akhmetov also drew attention to the fact that certain provisions of this press release were clearly commented on or written by lawyers on a point-by-point basis. It is clear that some 'foot in the door' remains, so that, if anything, later go to court and appeal. We are talking about the part of the press release, where it is announced that 'I did not have time to sell in the too short period established by law, and the russians also prevented the sale with their war.' This phrase does not have a special communicative meaning, it has only a legal one, in order to create a reserve for himself later for a possible further appeal in courts, in international courts, anywhere with the aim of returning either to himself the assets or their monetary compensation with reference to the fact that the government or the Russians put them in a difficult situation where a valuable asset had to be given away for free. I do not yet see any other characteristics besides the legal one, maybe communicators see something else in it. This is my subjective opinion, I am not ready to say that it is so, but it seems that legally it is a 'foot in the door' in order not to completely close the legal mechanisms of returning to business," Denys Maliuska said.
Denys Maliuska emphasizes that the developers of the Law, the "Servant of the People" party, never claimed that its implementation would immediately and automatically remove the oligarchs or their influence on political life, but that this Law is the foundation for cleaning oligarchs from the political scene and stopping their enrichment in the state budget. In addition to the Law, a number of other measures are needed to regulate activities, including activities of those who will avoid the status of oligarchs based on the criteria. In particular, there is an anti-oligarch plan, approved by the order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, where the list of measures is much broader than just the implementation of the Law on Oligarchs.
The Minister of Justice also told what restrictions should be expected for those who will be included in the Register of Oligarchs.
“From the outside, it looks like the functionality or limitations are pretty soft. First of all, we are talking about a ban on certain operations, such as official financing of political parties or participation in privatization, as well as in defense. There are stricter restrictions, for example, any meetings with top government officials, judges, or similar people in similar positions must be declared. That is, any deputy who meets with an oligarch will have to immediately submit a declaration describing who he met with, when, and what was the subject of the conversation, which also causes discomfort. But the most difficult thing for respectable people who could be included in the list of oligarchs is the very status of an oligarch. Because such status automatically leads to certain complications for doing business, which they would not like very much. If you like, it is to some extent a taboo in the public consciousness that for a normal businessman who wants to conduct business in a normal way, or who has suffered significant losses as a result of russian aggression and wants to use civilized tools to obtain compensation, such as a trip to the ECtHR or to Arbitration, they must prove that they are an honest business deserving of fair compensation and have obtained that business in an honest and fair way, so compensation must be in full, not partial or no compensation at all. Let me remind you that, for example, another person whom society often perceives as an oligarch, Ihor Kolomoysky, also tried to sue Ukraine in Arbitration, where he demanded the recovery of billions of US dollars. And he did not succeed in this, primarily due to the fact that the Arbitration Court in Stockholm was critical of such person and the way in which he acquired his assets, namely, the way that somewhat resembles the use of corrupt connections, and refused consideration of his statements and claims against Ukraine for the recovery of compensation. For foreign arbitrations, for Western business, for the international community, the purity of a person's reputation is a key factor. A person who does not have a clean reputation, international organizations, international financial organizations, or even at this stage international courts will not deal with, will move away from such cooperation as much as possible, which reduces the possibility of doing business to almost zero in the modern world. Reputation is everything. Actually, that is why we are observing the maximum departure from the oligarchs' regime, voluntary, as we had hoped. We hope that this is not the only example of a departure from oligarchic methods of political struggle or business, that such practices will continue and that we will not have to use the tools laid down in the Law on Oligarchs, but in the future, we will smoothly but quickly transition to the civilized conduct of political discussion and political struggle", Denys Maliuska said.
It is worth noting that during the full-scale war, the influence of oligarchs in Ukraine noticeably decreases naturally, for example, due to the loss of assets as a result of hostilities. But the Minister of Justice believes that the influence of the oligarchs will not be restored after the war.
"Indeed, 100% true, during the war, the relevance of the law decreased significantly. The war reduces the influence of the oligarchs automatically—their assets are destroyed, media influence is limited to the telethon. And the rest of the potential impacts, which were there, are significantly reduced. At the same time, President Zelensky has repeatedly stated that the country will not be the same after the war as it was before the war. The influence of the oligarchs will never recover. And the conclusion of the European Commission, which I mentioned earlier, was also an additional aspect that gave impetus to the implementation of the Law, which said: if you want to conduct negotiations on joining the EU, implement the Law on Oligarchs taking into account the conclusion of the Venice Commission. The law is being implemented, we are waiting for the conclusion of the Venice Commission, and will consider and implement it. Again, we still do not have a clear understanding of what the Venice Commission will write, nor does the European Commission have a clear understanding. But again, we will work and look at the analysis and conclusions", Denys Maliuska said.
In his opinion, in our realities there are actually two motivating factors for oligarchs to seek to have political influence—they are earnings from the budget and the opportunity to protect their property from system encroachments. But these incentives can be removed by cutting off state flows, as well as by creating a full-fledged defense mechanism, in particular, in the courts, which requires a reform.
"It is necessary to create mechanisms for proper protection of property and property rights, which are not related to participation in politics. First of all, of course, this is something that has already become a problem, judicial reform. Fortunately, it is now at the most difficult stage. Namely, the process of formation of the commission for the selection of members of the Supreme Council of Justice of the OK and the Constitutional Court has already been completed, you can put an end to it. We understand that the members of such commissions are independent, truly worthy people who are in no way connected to the authorities and are only interested in creating independent judicial institutions that will guarantee their proper functioning. Therefore, we are on a good horizon here and we see the proper implementation of the judicial reform. There are certain other elements related to the protection of property rights. I can speak, for example, with confidence for the area that is in my area of expertise. Stories of raiding, taking away the property, and making changes to the Register just to change the ownership, when they even managed to rewrite the parliament building to some homeless person who lived in the Donetsk region, this period has long passed. Accordingly, at this stage of ownership, as far as registration actions are concerned, I am ready to guarantee security. On the other hand, the oligarchs also understand very well that their participation in political life often does not generate security as much as it generates danger. Because then, in order to get certain votes for this or that draft law, for example, or for this or that political decision or support for this or that political candidate, the authorities have, let's say, an incentive to 'tweak' the business of such an oligarch a little. And this creates only additional risks for the oligarch's business, which would work more calmly if the oligarch did not participate in political life. Therefore, in the context of Ukraine, I do not think that the protection of property rights is such a valid argument for an oligarch to remain in political life. It seems to me that he will sleep more peacefully without such participation and simply using tools—good lawyers in the first place, international courts, and the correct structuring of property rights so that it is possible to rely not only on domestic courts but also on international arbitrations and the European Court of Justice human rights Although, again, I have a vision that now the judicial system is not the same judicial system that was, for example, 5 years ago or 3 years ago. Now there are parts of the judicial system that work very, very well, and with good lawyers, you can achieve excellent results. And rich businessmen can definitely afford good lawyers," Denys Maliuska said.
In his opinion, limiting the influence of oligarchs is only the first stage of anti-oligarchic work. The second stage is to dispose of the available resources wisely and fairly so as not to artificially create any elites.
"Theoretically, such risks exist. There are voters and civil society to control the government so that it does not abuse the opportunity or excessive access to certain resources. It is also the decency of the authorities to be transparent, clear, and explain their actions. There are also questions for individuals who could be included in the list of oligarchs, why certain assets are transferred to the state, for example, and not for 1 hryvnia to some international media company with a good reputation, for example, the BBC or something similar. It is not necessary to concentrate everything on the state. In the same way, the public should calmly ask, and demand, whether the state itself can decide on further construction so that this anti-oligarchic mechanism does not generate new oligarchs or does not generate incentives for the authorities to abuse their power. In order to continue to provide, on the one hand, a high-quality product, and, on the other hand, a product that would not engage in brainwashing for citizens, only in a different way or in a different direction, as the oligarchs did before. However, in any case, whatever happens to the license for television and radio broadcasting, the level of danger will surely decrease for the simple reason that the state does not have enough funds to create a bright mega-interesting product into which certain political notes could be sprinkled at points, which would create politicians or destroy politicians. That is, the product may, in theory, be less interesting, and less money will be invested in it, not because it will simply be some kind of greed of the owner, but because television will be a weaker tool for political wars and it will lose the sense to invest money in it, which is not confirmed by any what is the business model. Although again, I can only say a compliment to those businessmen who risked getting into the register of oligarchs, they really directed their business to become self-supporting due to, for example, advertising. There are many stories where companies have either already gone out of business or could go out of business in the near future. That is why such large companies tried to enter the normal media business in the horizon of 3-4-5 years. But at the same time, they were still allowed to continue playing political games and manipulating the consciousness of citizens with such a tool until it became a business model. But even after entering the business model, there was no obvious forecast, an obvious understanding that this business model would not involve active participation in the political game or abuse of resources," Denys Maliuska said.
Iryna Gerashchenko, a People's Deputy of Ukraine from the "European Solidarity" party, considers it a big mistake to think that the statement of Akhmetov's media holding is solely related to the implementation of the Law on Deoligarchization.
"Actually, I do not judge this statement solely by the influence of the so-called Law on Oligarchs. It is a very big mistake to think so primitively at all. I think, first of all, when during the war, a large Ukrainian business loses not just its position but also loses its assets, and this directly applies to Mr. Akhmetov's holding, which not only lost Azovstal but also many other businesses. Businessmen and oligarchs are people who know how to count money, and they think about how to preserve their main assets today, and how to develop them further. Well, unfortunately, the media in Ukraine has never been a profitable business, it often requires, on the contrary, large infusions. And that's why I often associate this approach with the business, first of all, the challenge that the holding is facing today. Second, it is obvious that today there is no such media market and media business in Ukraine. There are no advertising markets at all today, all advertising has disappeared, and it is obvious that it will not end tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or even on the day martial law ends. That is why today the media business is not just unprofitable, it is a too expensive toy even for Akhmetov. The third question is about the conditions of the so-called "single marathon" when the owners of TV channels are forced to pay for licenses, pay salaries to teams, and maintain equipment related to media projects, but at the same time the editors, I'm not talking about the owners, and not even the editors have no influence on the editorial policy. Under the auspices of martial law, we have classic political censorship with black lists, with a complete definition by the Ministry of Information Policy and the Office of the President of what can and cannot be aired. Then it becomes simply not a media, it becomes, you know, such a postcard of the authorities. This marathon is becoming, in my opinion, extremely toxic. And it makes no sense to pay such crazy money for it. And, I think that the oligarchs understand this very well. The Office of the President has long wanted to clean up the media space. Indeed, they tried to do it through the Law on Oligarchs, and now they did it under the auspices of martial law. And, believe me, please, well, there are not many people who want to play along with these stories now. Therefore, in fact, I see this as a very big threat", Iryna Gerashchenko said.
She emphasizes that obviously the influence of oligarchs on all spheres of life in Ukraine was very big, and it was important to fight against it.
"I believe that our team started this work by implementing, first of all, a system of anti-corruption institutions, which is very important in the context of fighting corruption and the oligarchy in principle. And, secondly, through specific mechanisms that should stop this influence of monopolies on all spheres of political and social life in Ukraine. Because oligarchs are not just wealthy businessmen, they are monopolies first and foremost. Well, monopolies, first of all, are, of course, energy carriers. I want to say that this is why there was such a 'retaliation' to our political team, for example, from the owner of the '1+1' channel, who did not hide that he considered his history with 'Privatbank' a vendetta when the state reprivatized 'Privatbank' for to simply not cover the financial system of Ukraine. And today we see that the influence of these people is actually only increasing, and no Law on Oligarchs solves this problem. Next, please take a look at how the Ukrainian parliament works today, interestingly, and the party in power—what laws they lobby for, implement, and how they disagree with the statements and policies of the fight against the oligarchy. For example, for the last few months, we have simply stopped trying to stop the Political Party Financing Act. They used the populist statements that it is necessary to stop all this financing of political parties in conditions of war. Excuse me, but then who will finance the political parties and the expenses of people who work in the regions today? Oligarchs? Party owners? Actually, a lot of things that actually have an influence on politics should be followed precisely by the bills that are brought to the session hall, how they are voted on and who gets the profit from them. And we see in fact that the influence of the oligarchs on monopolies, their complete retention of these monopolies as their own pocket enterprises, especially all these olenergo and in other spheres, has not gone anywhere—on the contrary, it is intensifying. Therefore, my attitude towards these laws is actually skeptical", Iryna Gerashchenko said.
In addition, the deputy noted that the requirement for Ukraine's application to the EU was not only the clause on de-oligarchization. According to her, the government avoids talking about other points and their importance for the EU. For example, more than a year of no appointment of the head of the SAP, the return of Portnov and his influence on the judicial reform, and the opening of criminal cases against the opposition. In particular, she named a number of open cases against Petro Poroshenko, among them: the Privatbank case, the case of the liberation of Mariupol, the case of the counteroffensive in Donbas, and the case against Biden.
"And all this was opened in full seriousness, taxpayers' money was spent on it. And, it is obvious that all this was not done without the input of the oligarchs, who declared a vendetta against the former President for the fact that this struggle with oligarchic influence on, including Parliament", Iryna Gerashchenko said.
She also agreed that it is necessary to unite together so that the Ukrainian political community and parliament depend only on voters, not oligarchs. But she also reminded that the current government came to its offices not without the help of oligarchic channels. According to her, those people who were always in the sphere of influence on the Office of the President did not lose their fortunes.
"That is why we did not vote for this Law. Because we submitted a bunch of amendments there, none of them were taken into account. In fact, the draft law was adopted with regulatory violations, and we pointed this out to our colleagues. And indeed, Mr. Maliuska repeated several times, and I can agree with him that the conclusions of the European Commission regarding granting Ukraine the status of a candidate for EU membership stated that the Law on Oligarchs should be implemented, taking into account the conclusions of the Venice Commission, which are not yet available. But at the same time, there are very clear conclusions of the European Union regarding the need not to kill the anti-corruption structure and institutions, that the head of the SAP should be appointed, and that freedom of speech is needed. We have big problems with this, and I am very sorry that the authorities prefer not to notice these problems", Iryna Gerashchenko said.
In her opinion, the construction of an autocratic, authoritarian regime is no less dangerous than the influence of oligarchs on all spheres of public life. In particular, the deputy believes that we see the seeds of such a regime in Ukraine, including the example of the so-called "Single Marathon", where under the auspices of military censorship, which, of course, should be self-restraint in a state of war, all this is replaced by political censorship. Gerashchenko talks about the fact that the heroes from the front, opposition political parties and entire institutions such as the Verkhovna Rada and the Government do not appear in the marathon, and that all this is happening with the consent of journalists. She compares it to the times of Yanukovych and the "topic lists" of Medvedchuk.
"The situation is very serious. And, actually, I don't think that if the state gets such a monopoly in the media sphere, it will be less dangerous than the influence of the oligarchy", Iryna Gerashchenko said.
She reminds that in Yanukovych's time, under the auspices of the fight against the old government, there was a complete cleansing of the political field, the opposition, and the media, but after that, the power of the oligarchs entered the field. And only the sacrifice of the heroes of the Heavenly Hundred stopped this gang.
"What do we see today? Absolutely uncontrolled use of budget funds, 'big theft', which, due to the beginning of the war, remained out of the public's attention, what sums were spent, what was rolled into the asphalt, with what kickbacks it took place, why were there only a few companies involved in this so-called 'big construction'. All this is a lot of questions. And I am convinced that we may already have some young oligarchs in the country. Maybe we don't have their names, because we don't have SAP, in fact, NABU activities are blocked today, there are no free media, and we don't have investigative programs today. I'm sorry, we have a public broadcaster, in which we invested so much effort in its reform that we stopped having state television—it was reformed into a public one, and its slot turned into the same propaganda television. I want to emphasize once again that I stand in a clear position that wartime is not a time for quarrels, or raising any political topics that can divide society. This is not the time for political competition, of course, but I don't want to be disingenuous. Let's turn on the 'One Marathon'. For some reason, there is 'Bayraktar News' of the '95th Quarte'" which mocks Poroshenko, on the 'RADA TV' channel slot, where there is no parliament at all. There are no whole institutions there, the parliament does not exist even on session days. And everyone is silent about it. Excuse me, please, isn't this the oligarchic influence of some person who continues to fight there with some politicians? And doesn't all this affect the state, its reputation, the construction of autocracy, and our international image worse than oligarchic influences? Therefore, I would urge that we treat the problem of influences more broadly and systematically than in the context of a single Law," Iryna Gerashchenko said.
She also notes that freedom of speech and opposition rights help monitor the situation, including with oligarchic influence. And also calls to wait for the conclusions of the Venice Commission for implementation.
"This Law really has very serious flaws, which, in my opinion, do not quite work for the stated high goal of combating oligarchic influence on all spheres of life in Ukraine," Iryna Gerashchenko said.
According to her, even before the full-scale invasion, the killing of the Prozorro system began, and now, under the auspices of martial law, all purchases from it are withdrawn. And this must be stopped. In addition, she notes that under martial law there were several attacks on decentralization reform and attempts to disrupt horizontal linkages and re-centralize budget flows. She also notes that today we have, in fact, a "zeroed" parliament, which she compares to "La Scala"—a stage where distinguished guests perform. Well, independent and strong media, in her opinion, play a leading role in preventing such oligarchic influences in any sphere. She emphasizes that despite the closure of three channels, their political team never allowed this issue to be voiced externally, realizing the importance of Ukraine receiving international aid.
"I believe that the issue is not in one Law. It is possible to adopt a million beautiful laws and at the same time build an authoritarian state", Iryna Gerashchenko said.
She also cites the story of how Lukashenko came to power under the slogan of fighting corruption. Then, together with journalists, she was put on the "black list" of non-entry for the first time, when she made several materials about those unfair elections.
"We see that he built an autocracy and a criminal regime in Belarus under this slogan. It would be very undesirable for Ukraine, which today demonstrates such valor, sacrifice, and feat of our Armed Forces, to lay the foundation of an authoritarian regime at the same time. I consider it unacceptable", Iryna Gerashchenko said.
According to Iryna Gerashchenko, despite the fact that the Minister of Justice Denys Maliuska repeatedly stated that he included Poroshenko in the list of oligarchs, representatives of the parliament from the ruling party did not hesitate to hide this in public. In her opinion, this Law was written for specific people and no one took into account the position of the classical definition of the oligarchy regarding influence on the authorities.
"I don't know which government Poroshenko is influencing now. I want to remind you that our faction is influential with our ideology, the strength of our professionalism, and our team, but we are 27 deputies in the parliament. The majority has 254, and I fear that among these people, there is the power of the oligarchs. Therefore, there is no doubt that the authorities opened more than 100 criminal cases against Poroshenko, among them, by the way, I emphasize once again, was, for example, the case about the Kerch Strait, that Poroshenko then tried to give an order to our military sailors simply fulfill their military duty", Iryna Gerashchenko said.
Regarding the media, Iryna Gerashchenko noted that the situation can be improved now. In particular, we can stop spending state funding on the russian-language TV channel "FREEDOM", or even when doing it in a foreign language, then do it in English. Instead, the "RADA" TV channel, following the principle of European countries, will make a YouTube project for primarily broadcasting the sessions of the parliament.
"As for the reconstruction plan of Ukraine, it is very important, it is a complex issue. We want to hear from the Government. Well, agree that it is not normal when members of the Ukrainian parliament do not know this program, it is not presented to them in the conditions of a parliamentary-presidential republic. I am convinced that we must fulfill our obligation to the Council of Europe. There should be no state channels in Ukraine, it should be private business and investment. And our partners have always invested heavily in civil society, supporting investigative programs. I am convinced that it will be important enough, they should be broadcast precisely on the public broadcaster. Well, when three, for example, TV channels are cut, 'Priamyi', 'Channel 5', 'Espresso', which have signed agreements on broadcasting programs of the BBC, 'Deutsche Welle', 'Radio Liberty', please excuse this is also not normal. I think that it is necessary to start talking about it", Iryna Gerashchenko said.
Oleksandr Marusiak, an expert at the Center for Political and Legal Reforms, believes that the Law on Deoligarchization will not solve the problems with oligarchs and that this struggle is somewhat idealized and overestimated.
"Remember, in 2019, parliamentary immunity was abolished? It was a rather populist decision. And, as with the oligarchs, this decision was demonstrated as if it would solve all the problems in our parliament. In August, it will be three years since this Law was voted on for the first time. What results are we seeing? To what extent did parliamentary immunity really negatively affect parliamentarians? It had a partial effect, also negative. However, we do not see the achievement of the result that was announced to us. And it was said directly as a panacea. Here it is with the oligarchs. This excessive idealization of this fight against oligarchs reminds me very much of this strange step in 2019 when the immunity of deputies was abolished, and now individual deputies can be brought to justice if they wish, or not. The same with oligarchs. It will be possible to make someone an oligarch, someone not to be an oligarch—the Law allows this. Because legally this law is written absolutely horribly. Almost all of its articles are devoid of legal certainty, and if desired, it is very easy to come up with some interesting political manipulations. Therefore, in my opinion, in general, this whole discourse of the fight against oligarchs is still overrated. That is, whether there will be this Law or there will be no Law—the oligarchs will not go anywhere. Of course, they will. Another thing is that maybe this Law just wants to fight certain oligarchs. This, most likely, from the political side, can be so. Therefore, wherever there is the possibility of arbitrariness and such selective application in the legislation, we remember that this Law provides for the inclusion of oligarchs in the NSDC Register, and the NSDC is formed entirely by the President. Here, once again, extra-constitutional powers are granted to the President, through which he can still show certain such authoritarian tendencies. And Zelensky has behaved like that more than once," Oleksandr Marusiak said.
The expert also believes that this Law is a test of the semi-presidential system of government in Ukraine where the President has his own majority. Yanukovych had a somewhat similar situation regarding such support in the parliament, but there was a different model. And in the post-Soviet space, many dictatorships began with the fact that the President had his own majority.
In his opinion, the Law will not solve the problem with the oligarchs, because there is no "pill" for this. A complex problem cannot be solved in any simple way.
"If we want to fight specifically with economic problems, then we need to change the relevant legislation. At least let's start with the tax one, with the economic one—there is chaos there. Support of medium-sized businesses, so that we do not have only small entrepreneurs and oligarchs, but still have small businesses, for example. This reform in the 90s began in post-communist states. Therefore, in my opinion, this Law will not lead to the fact that we will have fewer oligarchs or that they will become less influential. And if this Law is needed solely to eliminate political competitors, then, of course, there are all the tools for that and they can be applied here very easily if desired," Oleksandr Marusiak said.
According to him, probably such a Law as a way of redistributing the influence of oligarchs is a pioneer in the context of examples in the world. But the absence of such legislation does not mean the absence of oligarchs in other countries, on the contrary, the same USA has a completely different political culture, including this issue, which cannot be introduced in the legislative field. After all, this is what grows implicitly in society itself.
The expert mentions lobbying with public reports and state financing of political parties among the Western practices of legislative regulation of the issue of oligarchs' influence on politics.
"Often, our Constitutional Court is used precisely for political purposes, in order to disrupt some reform. As a rule, this same reform is done incorrectly so that it can be appealed later—the Constitutional Court is to blame as usual. It's a very simple scheme and it works flawlessly for us. Therefore, once again, it will be necessary for certain political forces or actors to challenge this Law, they will challenge it. Another matter is how long the Constitutional Court will consider it. We see that we have cases that have been hanging there since 2015 and no one wants to particularly consider them. If a specific case arises with a specific individual who believes that his rights have been violated due to this Law, due to its application, he will appeal to the Supreme Court, then to the ECHR. Indeed, it is possible to select an article from the European Convention that this Law violates. First of all, our beloved rule of law is absent in this law because of the first element—there is absolutely no legal certainty," Oleksandr Marusiak said.
Although, the expert also notes that he would not like to see such shameful cases against the state of Ukraine. After all, in the event of a loss, the payments according to the court decision will be made from the state budget, and, therefore, from taxpayers' funds.
He notes that, of course, there are different options for not getting into the Register of Oligarchs, or being excluded from them after getting into it. For example, it is possible to get out of one of the signs, several of which are provided for in the Law, in particular, to sell your media business or not to personally participate in the political life of the country and finance a party through intermediaries. Thus, one can, in fact, remain an oligarch, but legally not be one. In addition, the expert emphasizes that since the President actually decides whom to include in this list, it is possible to negotiate directly with the President and not be included. Perhaps that is why someone may not be afraid of being included in the Register of oligarchs because he knows that the National Security Council will not make such a decision regarding him.
"There is another problem that the Law is actually leaky. That is, there you can still find ways to influence political parties, even formally and without violating this Law. I would say more that it even creates problems with these declarations of contacts since there is also not very clear about where to provide these declarations, and how to provide them. And here, too, there will be a lot of abuse. On the other hand, let's imagine it worked, everyone provides this contact declaration. Won't the situation be the same as with these declarations of officials, that there will simply be so many of them that no one will process them—there will be no computer algorithm that will check it, and it will be very difficult to do it manually", Oleksandr Marusiak said.
According to him, many horror stories can be told about strict legislation, but in practice, it can turn out to be a disaster, because no one will comply with it.
"Until we have justice at the appropriate level and appropriate bodies, including anti-corruption laws, we can pass 10 such laws against oligarchs, and this will not give anything, in my opinion. Therefore, here, on the one hand, there is an overestimation of this Law, that it will solve everything, and, on the other hand, there is such an underestimation that, in principle, it will not do anything. I am still closer to the second pole because it is not so easy to eradicate oligarchs after all. But it is possible to unbalance the power system", Oleksandr Marusiak said.