Before the first anniversary of the government’s work, the Cabinet of Ministers presented the Plan of Priority Actions till 2020.
As for me, I support the strategic planning, although many opponents of the authorities have already drawn a parallel between these and the Soviet ‘plans,’ and gloated over the ‘five-year plans achieved for three years by Groysman,’ Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Feldman considers.
– There is only the question about the feasibility of this planning. In order to implement, and, the main thing, to report about the implementation of the plan, the Cabinet of Ministers must remain inviolable during 4 years. None of the governments have managed to work for so long during the whole history of Ukraine, and the current instability inside the authorities arouses many questions concerning the long-term ambitions of the Cabinet of Ministers.
Of course, the conditions, which the current government are forced to work in, are difficult. That is why it will be twice as difficult to implement what is planned. However, despite everything, it is impossible to deny that there is a range of good professionals in this government, who have already demonstrated their abilities, and I think that it is necessary to give them an opportunity to develop their beginnings. Nevertheless, there are also the ministries arousing many questions to them.
As far as I remember, it is at least the 6th ‘fundamental reformatory document.’ The Coalition Agreement, the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, the Action Program of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Strategy for Sustainable Development “Ukraine 2020,’ IMF’s Memorandum: during the recent three years, the authorities achieved serious success at the level of planning and declaring in the issue of reforms. The problems start when the content of these hundreds or thousands of pages of the plans and goals faces Ukrainian reality.
Certain regulations of the new document arouse many questions as well. For example, the authorities selected the course of the reduction of the state support of the coal industry. By the end of the year, 5 state mines will be closed, while the liquidation procedure will start on 9 mines more. At first sight, it looks strange, especially on the background of the ‘emergency measures’ in energetics and the threats of the government to start rolling blackout.
However, I assume that economically this decision may be justified if the mines are unprofitable. But politically, this decision doesn’t hold up against criticism: what will do the miners from Donbas and where will they go after losing their work? Does this decision favour the strengthening of pro-Ukrainian positions or will it intensify separatist moods?
Or, let’s take another example – pensions and social benefits. The document gives quite an evasive description of the pension reform. But it is already clear that the main target of the reformer is people, who retire due to the age but without the necessary duration of employment. In order not to lose the right to the pension benefits, they will be offered to buy this ‘duration’ from the state. Is it fair?
The plans of the Cabinet of Ministers also include the establishment of the institute of social inspection to toughen the control of those who obtains any state social benefits or payments. On the one hand, it is high time to establish order in social payments and to struggle against corruption schemes in this field. But, on the other hand, isn’t it possible for this inspection to become a huge corruption hierarchy itself? Won’t the Social Benefit Recipients Registry be used by the authorities at the elections to put pressure on the electorate?
The innovations may affect not only the pensioners, but the small business as well: the Plan stipulates the ‘review of the simplified taxation system,’ which in reality may turn out as a cancellation of this ‘simplified system’ advanced by the IMF. According to the logic of the government, it is exactly due to the tax relief for private entrepreneurs billions of hryvnias are not coming to the budget every year.
Moreover, the website of the Cabinet of Ministers provides the presentation of the Strategy including 14 pages, the part of which is devoted to the infrastructural development of the regions. According to the maps, for some reasons, Kharkiv oblast turned out to be deprived of ‘key objects’ in the field of energetics and health protection, as the most part of them is planned for Western and Central Ukraine.
In any case, the wide discussion and the expert critics of the strategic documents is a necessary constituent of the development of state policy in democratic countries. That is why I see more advantages in this three-year strategy than disadvantages.
Nevertheless, I would be more interested in learning not just another plan of the Cabinet of Ministers, but the report about the specific actions made by the government during the last year. I hope that the government will report to the Verkhovna Rada and all Ukrainians on April 14 for the executed work instead of giving us the new ‘portion’ on promises extended for N years.
