Irresponsibility in State Governance: What Does the Dismantling of Parliamentary Control Lead to
Ukrainian society has long ceased to be surprised by parliamentary scandals — fights under the dome, blocking the tribune, shouting, placards, jostling, protest speeches instead of balanced debates. Live political drama became the background for the usual news. But what happened today in the parliament goes beyond a banal quarrel – and it is no longer just a show. Due to another, but this time, fundamental dispute, the parliamentary session was closed early. In the center of attention was draft law No. 13387, which proposed to prosecute government officials for systematic failure to appear before the parliament — even after the Council officially voted on their report. And although this sounds like an elementary norm of parliamentary control, part of the political elite openly ignored it. In Ukraine, which is in a state of full-scale war, the government must be not only effective, but above all responsible. However, the reverse dynamic is taking shape in Ukraine — responsibility is disappearing as a management norm.
Scandal in the parliament, which is despised
A dispute broke out again in the session hall of the Verkhovna Rada, which turned out to be symptomatic not only for the Ukrainian parliament, but also for the general state of political responsibility in the country. The basis was draft law No. 11387 — a document that provides for the administrative responsibility of civil servants who do not appear before the parliament after its official invitation. We are talking about situations when ministers, heads of departments and other officials deliberately ignore the duty to report to the people’s elected officials, even if the Verkhovna Rada decided by a separate vote to hear such a report.
It would seem that we are talking about an elementary thing: a government official who receives a salary from the state budget must, at the request of the parliament, come to the session hall and answer questions, explain his activities, report to society. This used to be the case, but recently a new trend has emerged: officials openly ignore such challenges when it comes to topics they are uncomfortable with, disdaining the legislature as a whole. At the same time, the absence of any real sanctions makes such behavior completely unpunished. Bill No. 11387 was intended to change this situation.
It is noteworthy that the initiator of this draft law was the Speaker of the Parliament Ruslan Stefanchuk. But he himself, faced with the pressure of the deputies with the demand to submit the document for consideration, refused to do so. Despite public appeals from Yaroslav Zheleznyak (“The Voice”), Artur Gerasimov (“European Solidarity”) and Maksym Buzhanskyi (“Servant of the People”), Stefanchuk decided not to put the question to the vote. Instead, he proposed that the factions and groups discuss the document in a backroom format — at a conciliation council. This step caused an immediate reaction – some deputies blocked the tribune, and the meeting of the Verkhovna Rada was closed early. Officially – due to “lack of productive work”. In fact, because of the refusal of the parliamentary leadership to allow discussion of the issue that calls into question the current political comfort of the executive power.
Viktoriya Syumar, a member of the “European Solidarity” faction, reported that the plenary session of the parliament closed early in order to avoid voting on the resolution on the recall of People’s Deputy Maryana Bezuglai from the post of deputy head of the committee on national security, defense and intelligence.
“Parliament enthusiastically votes on personnel issues – they appoint vice-chairmen and people to committees. But there is one taboo topic – her name is Maryana. Despite the demands of most factions. Because “they don’t surrender their own.” Demonstratively. She, the former head of the TSK for the “Wagnerivites”, is truly untouchable. This, in fact, is the answer to the question of how independent she is in her attacks on the head of Zaluzhny and who exactly is behind those attacks.” – emphasized Syumar.
However, this incident should be considered more deeply – the situation of the aborted consideration of draft law No. 11387 highlights several dangerous trends at once. The first is the actual destruction of parliamentary control over the government. The constitutional norm, which provides for the reporting of the executive power to the legislative power, is increasingly devalued in practice. Instead of open dialogue – ignoring. Instead of public responsibility — demonstrative absence. The second problem is the imitation of the reform. The draft law, which aimed to change the rules of the game, was submitted not by someone from the opposition, but by the speaker of the parliament and the majority of “Servants of the People”. But when the moment came to bring it up for consideration, it was the speaker who stopped the process. This shows not only the lack of political will, but also the system’s fear of transparent procedures. After all, the introduction of real responsibility is always a threat to those who are used to acting without it.
All this is happening against the background of public getting used to the irresponsibility of the authorities as something normal. The minister does not come to the parliament – there is no reaction. Parliament votes on the report — the official ignores it, and it doesn’t even cause a political scandal. Consideration of the draft law, which should make such actions impossible, is blocked — and this does not cause a systemic crisis either.
For the first time in a long time, the question arose in the session hall not about another subvention or reform “on paper”, but about something basic – about responsibility. About the duty of ministers to appear before deputies, answer uncomfortable questions, admit failures and explain their actions not behind closed doors, but publicly, in front of the country. But this, as it turned out, is what those who rule the state are most afraid of today. Today’s conflict is not just a technical dispute, but a symptom of a deeper process.
What else is happening within the walls of the parliament
Before today’s incident, another significant conflict took place. As People’s Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak reported, the head of the State Security Office (UDO) openly ignored the summons to the Verkhovna Rada, despite the fact that the deputies officially voted for his presence in the session hall. The reason was a gross violation of order near the parliament building, when UDO employees did not let part of the people’s elected officials into the session hall. This incident caused an uproar among parliamentarians, as a result of which a decision was made to hear the head of the UDO. However, when the time came, he did not appear. That is, respect for the parliament has been lost even at the level of power structures subordinate to the president.
“The Verkhovna Rada lowered itself so much that ministers, the general prosecutor and the heads of law enforcement agencies did not come to the hall to be challenged… And now even the head of the UDO openly sent her.” This is a direct quote from the public speech of People’s Deputy Zheleznyak, which clearly captures the state of affairs: the parliament is becoming an empty institution, devoid of levers of influence even within formal procedures.
And this tendency is not limited only to contempt on the part of the executive power. Part of the responsibility also lies with the parliament itself. The day before, the Verkhovna Rada failed to vote on summoning Defense Minister Rustem Umyerov to the hall. It was about his report on important international negotiations — both Ukraine’s negotiations with the United States and trilateral contacts between the United States, Russia and Ukraine, which took place in Riyadh. Only 134 people’s deputies voted for the proposal to listen to the minister.
Iryna Gerashchenko, who took the initiative, expressed deep indignation:
“The Verkhovna Rada should know the results of the negotiations in Riyadh not from the release of the White House and not from Putin’s manipulations, but from Ukrainian government officials. Did the negotiation group have directives to agree to at least a partial lifting of sanctions from the Russian Federation – because it all comes down to that – for the security of the Black Sea or the release of prisoners? Is the Ukrainian delegation aware of the risks of lifting sanctions from Russia during the ongoing invasion
It is madness when a country like blind kittens does not understand where they are being led in negotiations and does not know our plan to end the war. But such an inert and irresponsible parliament was elected by the people.” – summed up the deputy.
Thus, we are dealing not only with passivity, but also with the complete dismantling of the political mechanism of control over all branches of government. Parliament actually loses its subjectivity. His requests are not fulfilled, and the deputies themselves do not find a majority even to force the minister to report. In a system where no one comes, no one reports, and no one answers, parliamentary democracy turns into a fiction. And with it comes trust in the authorities as such.
How the state loses its institutional responsibility
For years, Ukrainian society has watched how governments change, laws are revised, and state institutions are transformed. But at the same time, it gradually got used to something else — the loss of responsibility of officials for their own decisions. Until recently, the arrival of a government official at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada was the norm, especially when it came to a report or discussion of personnel decisions. Parliament had a political weight that was listened to. The authorities did not allow themselves to neglect direct invitations, because it meant a public scandal and political consequences.
Today the situation has changed. The Verkhovna Rada is demonstrably ignored by both individual ministers and heads of accountable structures. Moreover, even in the case of systemic failures, corruption suspicions or public conflict with institutions, officials do not bear any real responsibility. Instead of resignation – a new position. Informational silence instead of a report. Instead of job analysis, appointment to a diplomatic or representative position. This applies to both central authorities and personnel policy at the level of the government, parliament and the President’s Office.
This practice forms a new political culture in which the concept of responsibility disappears as a legal and moral category. The function of control disappears from the parliament, the obligation to report from the executive power, and the hope for a transparent and accountable system from public life. If this trend is not stopped, the country risks losing not only the balance of power, but also trust in the governance mechanisms themselves. Under such conditions, any reform, no matter how profound it may be, will inevitably remain declarative.
When the boundaries of responsibility between branches of government blur in the state, it inevitably creates the effect of paralysis of the management system. In times of war, the consequences of such irresponsibility become not just dysfunctional, but dangerous. In conditions of extreme threat, any evasion of responsibility, avoidance of reporting or refusal to participate directly in decision-making affects not only the effectiveness of the state, but also its ability to survive.
Consequently, state bodies are gradually losing responsibility as a category. In the long term, a state with irresponsible power degrades institutionally, it loses the ability to be a subject before external partners, as it does not guarantee the implementation of decisions to which it formally agrees. It loses its internal mobilization, because society does not see who is behind the real will to act. And in the end, it loses its authority – both domestically and internationally.
In times of war, this means one thing: a state with irresponsible power cannot win. She does not fulfill her obligations, does not correct mistakes, does not respond to challenges. It continues to exist by inertia – until the moment when external pressure does not finally destroy its structural shell.
The situation in the Verkhovna Rada increasingly clearly demonstrates the systemic erosion not only of executive discipline, but also of parliamentary subjectivity as such. Today’s incident is not just another scandal in the parliament, but a deep crack in the principles of parliamentary democracy. And until key institutions are ready to take responsibility for their actions, reforms will remain at the level of declarations. The Law on the Responsibility of Officials is turning into another political gesture — effective, but empty.
