The Prime Minister has no idea about the mechanisms for preparing the Government’s Program of Activities: Valeriy Chaly
The actions of Ukrainian governments, regardless of their composition and political orientation, are traditionally accompanied by criticism – both expert and public. The new Cabinet of Ministers under the leadership of Yulia Svyridenko was no exception. Despite the fact that the government has just started its work, its leader has already managed to repeatedly cause a wave of negative evaluations. Suffice it to remind you that Svyridenko publicly declared the absence of large-scale corruption in Ukraine, which caused public indignation. Now a new reason for criticism has appeared after her post about the government’s priorities and the formation of its activity program.
Politician, diplomat, former ambassador of Ukraine to the USA Valery Chaly believes, that the prime minister’s public statement about the start of government work, the outline of priorities and the methodology of forming plans shows at least three disturbing things. Firstly, he notes that in the words of the head of the government, the ignoring of the mechanisms for determining the priorities of the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers established in the legislation can be traced. Secondly, he sees in the statement signs of a lack of a clear understanding of the very procedure for preparing the government’s activity program. Thirdly, Chaly draws attention to the misunderstanding of what the structure and content of the draft Program of the CMU should be.
The former diplomat avoids a direct analysis of legislative norms, but reminds that Ukraine has already had both positive and negative experience of preparing government programs. In his opinion, their formation requires a high level of professional training. He emphasizes that first the Program of the Cabinet of Ministers must be approved, and only after that – a plan of measures for its implementation. Chaly points out the logic of the process: if the program is created by mechanically adding plans of various formats, this only demonstrates a formal approach. Instead, the government should adopt a balanced plan with clearly defined deadlines, responsible persons and funding sources.
He emphasizes that, with the exception of the intention to submit a program of activities for consideration by the parliament, there is no clear rationality in the approaches of the new team. Chaly critically evaluates the general framework of the process and calls it an attempt to “play a trick.” In such a situation, in his opinion, there will be no result – and the government has no chance of success if it does not change the principles of work.
Despite this, the exposal expresses the wish that the new team will still be able to effectively fulfill its constitutional role. He reminds that all citizens, including government officials, are in the same conditions and bear joint responsibility for the state.
Chaly asks a direct question: isn’t it time to finally resort to using a professional approach in government work. If there is a lack of knowledge, he suggests turning to Ukrainian and foreign examples, consulting with specialists, getting acquainted with analytical developments. He questions the expediency of the existence of universities, academic institutions and analytical centers, if the government does not use their potential in the preparation of strategic documents.
According to Valery Chaly, the term when it was possible to simulate the activity has expired. And the government, if it claims to be trusted, should start working professionally — not in declarations, but in the real process of adopting and implementing state policy.
