Decentralisation in Ukraine_for Despro_english_29.03.2013

Mapping decentralization reforms in
Ukraine
Report on the results of the first project phase / 29.03.2013/
REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST PROJECT PHASE / 29.03.2013/..................1
DESPRO PROJECT MANAGER:.....................................................................................................1
DESPRO PROJECT MANAGER:
 Oksana Garnets
Report prepared by:
 V. Nanivska
 A. Chemeris
 V.Yatsyuk
 І. Ratushnyak
 O. Maksymova
 N. Pavlyuk
 A. Foros
1

Project description
The project “Decentralization support in Ukraine (hereinafter – DESPRO) under the
auspices of the Swiss resource center and consultancies for development (Skat) plays a
decisive role in the decentralization in Ukraine, supplying specific hand-on practical
knowledge and skills needed for the efficient operation of the territorial communities
and local self-governance bodies. In the post-totalitarian society, no one was in
possession of practical understanding or skills, which have been eventually obtained
due to study tours, organized by DESPRO with the goal of demonstrating the operation
of democracy at the local levels to the Ukrainians. Thus, DESPRO ensured the
materialization of the abstract notion of decentralization. DESPRO focused at specific
practical activities, thus enabling the development of unique set of publications, which
have become most popular and are widely used not only as handbooks, but also as most
instrumental vade-mecums and guidelines for the local officials. DESPRO is obviously a
successful project. Lamentably, the same cannot be said about the general situation with
decentralization at the state’s level.
The new project “Mapping decentralization reforms in Ukraine”, initiated by DESPRO
with the financial support from the Swiss agency for development and cooperation
(SDC), differs essentially from all the earlier projects. It envisages the analysis of reforms
aimed at decentralization in Ukraine and finding out why, despite huge effort and
resources invested into decentralization over the recent 20 years, Ukraine ended up in
situation, which is characterized by strengthened centralization, while the very notion of
decentralization has acquired most negative connotation due to the failure of the
respective reforms.
The new project is drafted as a whole cycle of the public policy. It covers the analysis of
the policies, including the analysis of the gaps in planning and implementing the reforms
aimed at decentralization in Ukraine as well as organization of the broad public
campaign for the support in filling these gaps and introducing efficient reform.
This document reflects the the results of the first phase of the project, which included
 Comparative analysis of the Council of Europe’s recommendations and Ukrainian
strategic and normative/legal documents, devised after these recommendations
have been passed;
 Analysis of the history of the local self-governance from early soviet times till
present;
 Specifying of the main gaps in the reforming process;
 Proposals with respect to the further project steps, including relevant methods and
schedules.
2

Highlights
Decentralization has been the most important of reforms, which followed the
democratic changes in Ukraine since 1991. The efforts and resources invested into the
reforms were so huge, and the results of the reform so much anticipated because the
“decentralization” was perceived in the post-totalitarian society in Ukraine as a
synonym of “de-sovietization” and “freedom”.
Over the 20 years of independence, Ukraine has made significant steps in this direction.
In 1997, it ratified the European Charter on local self-governance. As of today, over 3
thousand normative acts referring in some way to the “local self-governance” are in
place; 700 legal acts address the issue of local self-governance. A large number of the
Ukrainian NGOs specialize exclusively in the area of decentralization reforms. A number
of associations, e.g. the Association of Ukrainian cities, the Association of the raion and
oblast’ councils have been set up to support decentralization process. The technical
assistance projects dealing with this issue over the years of 2004 – 2012 are estimated
at over 60 million euro.
Following the ratification of the European Charter on local self-governance the Council
of Europe became involved in all the initiatives addressing the local self-governance
reform. Having analyzed the conformity of the concepts and draft laws on
decentralization in Ukraine with the European requirements and standards, the Council
of Europe has arrived at lamentable conclusions:
 The Council of Europe’s recommendations are disregarded by Ukraine. The road
map for decentralization, offered by the Council of Europe, has not been studied and
failed to become the basis for the reform concept.
 No uniform strategic document addressing the reform has been devised. The
current legislative initiatives are neither coordinated with, nor linked to the reform
concepts, nor aimed at achieving the reform goals.
 The roles of specific bodies of power in the reform process are unclear. There is no
administrative structure reflecting the responsibilities for the reform
implementation.
 The supervisory and control functions over the local self-governance bodies and
local administrations’ operation are not defined and fail to meet the international
standards.
 Consultations with the stakeholders are substituted by sharing information with
public at large, which precludes the devising of the uniform coordinated position or
setting up the support groups for the reform implementation.
 Most importantly, the functions of the state governance and local self-governance
are not divided properly: the functions of the local state bodies of authority and
those of the local self-governance bodies are not defined or separated. The councils
3

persist in performing the state functions vested in them by means of delegated
competencies, while in fact these competencies should have been delegated to the
state bodies of authority.
 The authority of the local state administrations needs enhancing, their role and
functions need cardinal revising.
 The provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine still fail to meet the requirements of
the European Charter on local self-governance, despite its peremptory ratification,
which in fact makes the said Charter non-legitimate in Ukraine. In the process of
reforming the system of local self-governance in Ukraine, no significant steps are
possible without introducing systemic changes into the Constitution. Too detailed
constitutional description of structures and mechanisms instead of principles
practically preserves the existing system unchanged. The modernization of the
Constitution itself shall become the first step in decentralization reforms.
So far, it remains unclear, why despite all the efforts and resources, the decentralization
reform never happened. Lack of obvious objective reasons for Ukraine’s incapacity in
introducing the decentralization reform called for the broader analysis of the political
legacy inherited by the country.
The issue of “governmentalization” of the local councils of the people’s deputies
acquired quite a novel interpretation in the light of analysis of soviet history with
respect to the local self-governance.
 For the first time the notion of “broad self-governance with due respect of
decentralization principle” was quoted in the UPR Constitution of 1918.
 After Lenin’s Constitution of 1919 was adopted the notions of both local self-
governance and decentralization disappeared from usage until the Law of Ukraine
“On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-governance”
was passed in 1990. The first Lenin’s decrees “All power to the councils [soviets]!”
and “Land – to the peasants, factories – to the workers!” proclaimed the
expropriation of the state power and private property. The Ukr.SSR Constitutions of
the years 1919 and 1937 established the “Councils of the working people’s deputies”
as the only bodies of the state power at all levels, while the Ukr.SSR Constitution of
1978 added to that legitimization of the hierarchic vertical of the councils united in a
uniform rigid structure under the total political control of the respective CPSU
bodies.
The Constitution of 1937: «Article 3. All the power in the Ukr.SSR belongs to the
working people of cities and villages represented by the councils of the working
people’s deputies. Article 72. The councils of the working people’s deputies. Are the
bodies of the state power in the oblasts, districts, raions, cities, settlements,
stanitsas and villages of the Ukr.SSR.”
4

The Constitution of 1978: «Article 125. The local councils of people’s deputies…
implement the decisions of the higher state bodies, manage the operation of the
lower councils of people’s deputies …»
 The Law “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-
governance” passed on December 7, 1990, introduced the notion of the “local self-
governance” for the first time since the UPR Constitution of 1918. This law in fact
engendered functional dual governance, proclaiming the councils of people’s
deputies the local self-governance bodies and state power bodies at the same time.
The local self-governance bodies were granted the competencies, delegated by the
state, with the due transfer of financial, material, technical and other resources.
 Putting an end to the CPSU monopoly on power in 1990 for the moment transferred
FULL state authority in the regions to the local self-governance. The power structure
reeled, while the vertical of executive power was disrupted. All these development
called for the new governance in the regions and for the setting up of the new
vertical of executive power in lieu of the destroyed partisan vertical.
The further changes contributed to the permanent “tag of war” game between the state
authorities and local self-government bodies (i.e. the full scope of political,
administrative and financial capacity).
 1992 – liquidation of the executive committees under the oblast and raion councils
and setting up of the President of Ukraine representatives’ institute; restructuring
former executive committees as local state administrations;
 1994 – liquidation of local state administrations and restitution of the full-fledge
regional self-governance by re-establishing the executive committees under the
oblast and raion councils;
 1995 – signing of the Constitutional Agreement – re-establishment of the local state
administrations, liquidation of the executive committees under the oblast and raion
councils;
 1997– the first attempt of thorough administrative reform came to an end and was
forgotten. The reason for that was that the State commission on administrative
reform led by the first President of Ukraine Kravchuk prepared the next “tag-of-
war” tournament under the slogan “ALL power to the councils” with traditional
liquidation of the local state administrations. Then President Kuchma abstained
from liquidating the state administrative executive vertical. This reform did not yet
offer the separation of the functions between the state governance and local self-
governance as well as the enhancement of the state power authority at the local
level by building up its unprecedented democratic capacity.
 2005 – second attempt at territorial and administrative reform led by Roman
Bezsmertny collapsed with huge resonance. This time opponents, which organized
public protests, included the leaders of the local power bodies, potential victims of
the enlargement in territorial units. Official and public versions, however, as usual
5

blamed the retrogrades opposing progress and reforms. In fact, the initiative led by
Roman Bezsmertny failed due to the lack of political knowledge. The reform, very
democratic in its essence, was implemented by entirely totalitarian method, which
was the only method known at the time. The concept of consultations with
stakeholders was totally unknown. The Council of Europe still had not issued the
recommendations promoting these consultations as the necessary tools in achieving
political consensus in a sensitive issue of a new territorial structure.
Numerous normative and legal acts developed following the Law of Ukraine “On local
self-governance” did not introduce, and, consequently, enforce the changes into the
division of competencies between the local state administrations and local self-
governance bodies. They had no significant impact on their structure and operation.
As of today nothing has changed – the functions of the state bodies and local self-
governance bodies remain mixed up. The Lenin’s principle of “democracy = all power to
the councils” still dominates Ukrainian mentality. Instead of separating functions and
competencies between the state bodies and local self-governance bodies each coming
reform only attempts to embrace the whole scope of authority by means of
overpowering the executive committees.
Ukraine does not have a single concept, which would be acceptable both for the
Parliament and for the President and government. That is why the decentralization
reforms amount only to discussions around procedures and mechanisms, without
addressing the issues of principles and foundations of local self-governance.
The Ukrainian bureaucrats have no idea of role, competencies and functions to be
performed by the state power officials at the local levels, similar to prefects in France or
voyevodas in Poland. Instead, there is a feeling of complete vacuum left by the
elimination of the CPSU leading role in the vertical of governance. The group of interests,
which is in power, i.e. the Presidential group, permanently tries to occupy this “empty
space of power”.
Each time the political force representing the President, uses the local state
administrations and local self-governance bodies in its competition for power, trying to
get control over the the executive committees and leaving the opponent without any
means or resources for performing its functions. There is no understanding of the fact
that once the inherent functions of local self-government are strictly defined and state
authority is delegated to the local state administrations, each of them would need its
own administrative apparatus in order to perform its duties. The elected councils need
their executive committees; local state administrations need their own administrative
body, whatever its name might be.
Conclusions and recommendations
CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT
6

- currently Ukraine found itself in an extremely beneficial situation, which would
ensure successful reform implementation – available political will, expressed in
the Presidential speech at the Council of Regions on March 21, 2013, and in the
reports of the Commissions in charge of the administrative and territorial
structure and local self-governance of the Constitutional Assembly of Ukraine;
available clear definition of the necessary changes – Ukraine just received the
Concept for the Constitutional regulation of the local self-governance from the
Council of Europe; crucial political need for achieving the tangible results and
demonstrating decisive steps prior to May 2013 within the framework of getting
ready to the signing of the Association Treaty with the European Union;
- Ukraine has enough reformers and clear understanding of the reforms’ goal;
- At the same time erroneous and detrimental belief that existing soviet practice in
changes management, i.e. administrative-commanding way of making and
enforcing decisions can be efficient at the background of devastated and
dysfunctional administrative-commanding system, i.e. in the situation when
political decisions of the leadership are not automatically translated into
administrative actions of the subordinates, in the atmosphere of acute political
and economic competition and freedom of speech, still persists in Ukraine;
- The democratic knowledge, skills and experience as well as the reforms
management experience can come only from the technical assistance granted by
the democratic countries;
- The reform can be implemented only on the basis of a public document defining
policy, following public consultations with all the stakeholders in order to
develop politically harmonized reforming plan, only if the charter of
administrative liability at all levels of the state administration and local self-
governance is devised with respect to the reform, only if the system of control
over the executors of the reform is set up, only if a pilot project of the local self-
governance capable of “standing on its own two legs” is launched;
- The aforementioned gaps and obstacles described by the Council of Europe’s
experts in so much detail and specifically addressed by the President of Ukraine,
i.e. the lack of public strategy, of understanding and support of the reform on
behalf of public, absence of clear and transparent charter of administrative
liability for the reform implementation, lack of systemic control over the
executors of the reform – fall exclusively under the category of methods and
ways of the reform implementation;
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES and aiming at
eliminating the gaps identified in this study in decentralization reforms in Ukraine and
ensuring the fulfillment of the intentions formulated by the President of Ukraine in his
speech at the Council of Regions’ meeting,
7

WE RECOMMEND THAT DONORS support the implementation of the technical
assistance projects, which stipulate:
 The development of political document – the map of decentralization reform (policy
mapping of reforms);
 The overcoming of totalitarian model of informing the unidentified “ public at large”
about the reforms, moving towards well-structured consultations with the
stakeholders in order to come up with the socially and politically justified stand
with respect to the reform and defining the support groups as well as opposition
groups in reform implementation;
 Carrying out a broad public policy campaign with respect to the reform;
 The implementation of the pilot model of the decentralized government capable of
“standing on its own two legs” at the local levels, with the participation of a local
council and local state administration in compliance with the European principles
and standards. Such projects will enable the setting up of a model for non-
contradictory system of local governance as well as fulfilling the Council of Europe’s
recommendations.
8

Council of Europe appraisal of the decentralization
status in Ukraine
Decentralization and local self-governance reforms as a separate area
of collaboration between the Council of Europe and Ukraine
Importance of decentralization on the path from totalitarian state towards democracy
was recognized in the very first days of the Ukrainian independence. Over the next 20
years serious steps have been taken in this direction. As of today, over 3 thousand
normative acts referring in some way to the “local self-governance” are in place; 700
legal acts address the issue of local self-governance.1
The Council of Europe and other
international organizations provided detailed commentaries to each provision of the
Ukrainian law and decentralization strategies with subsequent recommendations
concerning necessary changes. A large number of the Ukrainian NGOs specialize
exclusively in the area of decentralization reforms. A number of associations, e.g. the
Association of Ukrainian cities, the Association of the raion and oblast’ councils have
been set up to support decentralization process. The technical assistance projects
dealing with this issue over the years of 2004 – 2012 are estimated at over 60 million
euro. (See addenda). In particular, the Action Plan of the Council of Europe for the years
2011 – 2014 assigns funding at the amount of 3.3 million euro for the projects aimed at
strengthening democracy at the local level, support for the local self-governance,
enhancing the institutional capacity of the local bodies of authority and their
associations stipulated by the European standards of efficient governance, ensuring
active public participation and exercising of direct democracy. Despite all these efforts,
the reform in fact came to a standstill after the passing of the Budget Code 2001, which
introduced significant measures for budgetary decentralization. Currently Ukrainian
experts see the decentralization process in Ukraine in most negative and pessimistic
terms.
Over the last ten years the the Council of Europe has been involved in all the initiatives
related to local self-governance reform. It provided estimates and recommendations for
all these initiatives. The Council of Europe undertook the obligation to assist in the
reforming process with the goal of bringing Ukrainian legislation, institutes of power
and local self-governments into compliance with the requirements of the European
Charter on local self-governance.
1
Concept for local self-governance reforming in Vinnitsa oblast council.–
http://www.vinrada.gov.ua/rishennya_koordinaciynoi_radi.htm
9

Disappointment, misunderstanding and negative assessment
manifested in the Council of Europe evaluation of its collaboration
with Ukraine
Analyzing the compliance of concepts and draft laws addressing decentralization in
Ukraine with the European requirements and standards, the Council of Europe arrives at
lamentable conclusions. The experts of the Council of Europe are having hard time
trying to define the priorities of the Ukrainian power bodies.
“However, despite different documents on local government and territorial reform
submitted to discussion during the last few months we do not really know what is the
strategic orientation of the President of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine
for the next future and what section of the central government has the lead to
implement the political guidance spelled out in the political documents issued by the
President of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”. 2
The European Charterer of local self-government was ratified by Ukraine on July 15,
1997 by the Law of Ukraine “On ratification of the European Charterer of local self-
government” completely. The Council of Europe remarks that Ukraine in fact is violating
its international obligations failing to bring its legislation into compliance with the
European Charterer provisions.
According to Article 9 of the Constitution of Ukraine conclusion of any international
agreement, which conflicts, with the Constitution is possible only after the adoption of
amendments to the Constitution. No analysis on the compliance of the provisions of the
Charter with the Constitution was prepared and there are no conclusions of the
Constitutional Court of Ukraine on this issue”. 3
“The requirements of the Charter stipulated by the articles 3.1, 3.2, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6,
6.1, 8.1, 8.3 are not implemented entirely or partially in the Ukrainian constitution, law
and practices. The current budgetary system does not comply with the requirements of
article 9”.4
The essence of local self-governance is distorted even at the constitutional level.
«The Constitution of Ukraine conflicts with the provision 4.2.of the Charter under
which local self government bodies are considered as politically independent when
independently and under their responsibility key crucial local problems are identified
and solved in the rapidly changing world; without such a provision local self
government bodies shall carry out only the tasks assigned by the central authorities”.5
2
Note on the present projects on local government reform and on inter-municipal co-operation, 5 May
2012, р. 1
3
2012, р. 1
4
CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-
Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 pр. 1 and 2.
10

The Council of Europe points out chaotic and internally uncoordinated nature of the
Ukrainian law-making process, which is not aimed at achieving the reform goals.
«It seems extremely important to overcome the gaps between project prepared in
different segments of the central government and to achieve more coordinated
approach of the reform”.6
“For example the Draft Concept does not propose a version of reform implementation
by way of inter-municipal cooperation, which is an option in the “political proposal” to
it (p.8)”. 7
The Council of Europe does not understand why its very specific practical
recommendations and proposals concerning further steps for reforms in the system of
local governance and ways of overcoming existing problems are ignored by the
Ukrainian party, are not reflected in the concepts and new legislative initiatives of the
Ukrainian power and associations of the local self government.
„The Law „On the state civil service service”, signed by the President of Ukraine in 2012
does not take into account most of the CE recommendations so there has been no
change to the basic concept of civil service. It is still a job-based civil service. No
changes have been made to organizational structure”. 8
“Supervision of local self-government bodies which the draft tackles irrespectively of the
continuous CE advice provided with regard to European standards in this area”.9
The Congress of local and regional authorities of the Council of Europe in its
recommendation 102 (2001) regrets
a. That in the context of the centralized public administration system some Ukrainian
political forces are still opposed to any reform involving decentralization of public
powers on the basis of the subsidiarity principle Article 4.3 ECLSG);
b. Laws and [articles] of the Constitution regarding local and regional self-
government are often unclear and badly implemented ;
c. That over the last two years the above- mentioned legislative deficit and disorder
contributed in practice to create serious democratic as well as rule of law deficit
which represents a worrying step back” .
5
Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 5
6
2012, р. 6
7
CoE appraisal of the draft Concept of the Local Self-Government Reform and Territorial Organisation of Power_June
2012,12.06.2012, pp. 3-4
8
CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On the Local Government Service_2012
8.06.2012, p. 2
9
CoE appraisal of the draft Concept of the Local Self-Government Reform and Territorial Organisation of Power_June 2012 ,
12.06.2012, p. 8
11

Unfortunately, in the 9 years following adoption of this recommendation almost
none of its items have been implemented. 10
The Council of Europe expert conclusions sound like a cry of despair with regards to
further development of reforms and expediency of the assistance.
„Despite numerous draft laws which have been prepared and discussed, very little
changed. Until now none of the initiatives has been approved, the reform of local self-
government remains postponed”.11
At this stage, we are not sure that all these contributions are striving for the same
reform. We are not sure that the Draft Concept12
is linked with draft law on
amalgamation of the territorial communities of December 2011.We are even less sure
whether the new draft to be prepared on the basis of the conclusions of the seminar of
26th
April will be a contribution to the development of draft concept, or will sketch a
different strategy, more short-term oriented, less attractive for territorial communities
and as a whole less comprehensive. Lastly we are not sure whether the Draft Concept
only is supporting the amalgamation track or is open to an option between
amalgamation and institutional inter-municipal cooperation”. 13
Reform-related problems, identified by the Council of Europe
Analyzing the state of decentralization in Ukraine, the Council of Europe identified the
following obstacle on the way of introducing the local self-government:
 Excessive fragmentation at the first(municipal) tier of local government,
 Unclear definition of the first tier,
 Absence of real self-governance capacity at raion and oblast levels, відсутність
 Excessive centralization of management of services to the population,
 Lack of financial autonomy.”14
The Council of Europe points out weaknesses of the Draft concept of the reform of local
self-government and territorial organization of power in Ukraine, proposed in 2012 by
the Ministry of Regional development, constructions and housing and communal
services of Ukraine as a fundamental strategic document for the reform.
„The main drawbacks of the draft concept are:
1) The description of local government functions;
10
11
CoE appraisal of the draft Concept of the Local Self-Government Reform and Territorial Organisation of Power_June 2012,
12.06.2012, p. 2
12
I.e. the Concept for local self fgovernment reform and territorial organization of power in Ukraine, drafted by
the Ministry of regional development, construction and housing and communal economy of Ukraine, posted on
site on May 4, 2012.
13
2012, р. 13
14
2012, р. 11
12

2) The description of the respective functions and powers of the local state
administrations and territorial bodies of executive power;
3) Supervision of local self government bodies”.15
Problem of separation of functions between the state bodies of power
and local self-governments
The Council of Europe points out the importance of clear differentiation between the
functions of the local state bodies and local self-governance bodies, definition of their
competencies, and explains the guiding principles for separation of functions as well as
the need for reducing the scope of delegated powers.
“As recognized in the Proposals, the review of results should result in a transfer of some
tasks between state administrative bodies, while some tasks should be transferred from
state bodies to self-government bodies.”16
„The functions which the Government of Ukraine deems necessary to keep as the state
responsibility, can be carried out by the territorial bodies of central executive power
and state administrations should be responsible for their implementation, while local
self-government bodies must be responsible to the citizens for the performance of their
own responsibilities”. 17
“The CE advice would be to limit the list of delegated competencies: the functions of
local governments should be mainly their own tasks and powers. Long list of delegated
competencies will blur the responsibilities of the state and local government, as well as
accountability of the authorities in charge.”18
In the majority of cases related to its operation the executive committee acts not as a
council body (with reference to article 26.15 of the law “On local self-governance in
Ukraine” the “cancellation of the acts of executive bodies of the council which do not
comply with the Constitution or the laws of Ukraine, other legal acts, decisions of the
respective council, made within the framework of its authority”19
The issue of unclear role of the local state administrations
The Council of Europe draws attention to the need of cardinal revision of role and
functions of the state power bodies at the local level.
„ The recommendations of CoE experts could be briefly summarized as follows:
15
12.06.2012, p. 8
16
CoE Policy advise on the Proposals for Improving the Territorial Organisation of Power_2011, 20.06.2011, p. 2
17
12.06.2012, pp. 11-12
18
12.06.2012, pp. 11-12
19
13

- The government should reconsider the territorial organization of the State
Administrative bodies at the district and regional levels, and the distribution of
Tasks among them, taking stock of the experience of other European countries and
CoE recommendations
- Perform the audit of state administrations and their current functions
- Differentiate state administrations according to their functions and to how often
Their services are used by the citizens
- Consider creating wider raions
- Transfer the LSG functions from state administrations to LSG bodies
- Strengthen authority of the oblast state administrations” 20
In its recommendations to strengthen the authority of the local state administrations,
the Council of Europe proposes the setting up of a representative system for local state
authorities, similar to the institute of prefects in France.
The analysis of the present organization of the network of the State administrative
bodies should be linked to the Decentralization Strategy, since the tasks considered to
be
devolved upon local self-government bodies will have a strong impact on local bodies of
the
state administration and, in particular, should determine transfers of personnel from the
latter
to local self-government bodies… The way to overcome this problem is the
professionalization of the function: the heads of the local State administration bodies
must be higher civil servants with a career. In France, the ENA did succeed in
professionalizing the Prefect function since 1945”…21
“Prefects in France make up the administrative backbone of the Unitarian, democratic,
decentralized state, some competencies of which are delegated to the local bodies of
power. The main task of prefect who “implements the governmental decisions (Decree
of March 10, 1982, art.1), consists in the realization of the national policy. The prefect’s
duties include control over the legislative acts of the self-government bodies. Prefect is a
direct represeпtative of the Prime Minister and each Departmental/Regional minister.
The institute of prefect is a national tradition, as in France the nation was formed by the
state. This structure makes necessary the presence of a representative in each territorial
unit, whose role is to permanently safeguard the state sovereignty and observance of
the laws, to realize public governance”.22
Lack of European standards for supervision and control over the local
power bodies’ operation
The Council of Europe points out that the function of supervision and control over the
local power bodies’ operation is not regulated and fails to meet the international
standards.
20
CoE Policy advise on the Proposals for Improving the Territorial Organisation of Power_2011
20.06.2011, p. 1
21
CoE Policy advise on the Proposals for Improving the Territorial Organisation of Power_2011, 20.06.2011, p. 2
22
It takes 20 years to train a prefectНеобхідно 20 років, щоб підготувати префекта, 5.11.2007, p. 10, p. 3, p.
2, сp 9
14

“The specific laws on LSG bodies do not stipulate the special procedures for supervision.
Supervision of LSG bodies’ activities is exercised by the state supervision bodies. In
addition, as rule no special features of supervision of LSG bodies are stipulated.” 23
“Often in Ukrainian councils the head of an executive body department is not only the
council deputy, but also a head of a certain specialized commission under the council,
i.e. supervises his own activity”.24
Lack of coordination between the budget system and decentralization and local
self-governance tasks
The CoE conclusions make it clear that budgetary decentralization in Ukraine is not
based on the European principles and standards.
“The existing budgetary system does not comply with the requirements of article 9 of
the European Charterer as a whole”. 25
The Budget code needs elaboration as the control over the accounts is not equal to the
supervision over the local budgets’ expenditures”...26
Non-reformed civil service in the local self-governments
Analyzing the legislative regulation of the service in local self-government bodies, the
Council of Europe uncovered non-compliance with the European Charter provisions.
„Articles 3 and 10 of the Law of Ukraine „On service in local self government bodies”
include elected officials into the corpus include elected officials to the body of local
power servants, It is contrary to the provisions of the European Charter of local self-
government, which clearly define the difference between the officials of the local self-
government bodies and elected officials (Art. 7 of the Charter)”. 27
According to the CoE conclusions, the legislative initiatives with respect to the reforms
of service in the local self-government bodies, do not refer to the European principles
and systemic mechanisms which would allow avoiding lack of professionalism, political
prejudice and corruption among the the local self-government officials.
23
24
25
Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 рp. 1 and 12.
26
National Strategy (road map) for decentralization and local self government reform in Ukraine for 2010-2013,
CoE document of 30.07.2010, p. 7
27
CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On the Local Government Service_2011, 20 July, 2011, p.2
15

„The new draft law on local government service fails to provide for the recruitment of
the competent professional, to ensure political neutrality of public service and to
combat corruption”ї.28
„There are two issues regarding the scope:
 The structure of the legal framework applicable to the local government service;
 The coverage of the draft law as regards categories of personnel and functions”.29
“The problem is that draft is not about a local government service, but about the
organization of the local government service for each local government body; the draft
sets common rules, but there is neither common organization, nor proper career path
for local government service members”. 30
“No system of retraining and training of local self-government employees is established,
either at the state level or at the level of LSG associations”. 31
“As to the labor remuneration too much discretion is given to authorities for awards, as
is the case with the state civil service”. 32
«Incompatibility is reduced to incompatibility of offices of the elected representatives –
to be a member of another council or hold a position of a city, settlement or village
mayor, as well as be an employee of executive committee of “their own” council. The law
does not prohibit a council member from working at the executive administration of the
council”.33
Lack of public consultations with the stakeholders
The Council of Europe stresses the need for public consultations with the stakeholders
in order to achieve agreement on political initiatives and points out that Ukrainian
power and legislators ignore this inalienable stage of policy-forming cycle, substituting
the consultations with the interest groups with public information, and disregarding the
results of public discussion in strategic and normative/legal documents.
„Draft law „On amalgamation of territorial communities”: the schedule for the
implementation of the reform has to be regulated by the law. Enough time and a
deadline should be given at the local level in order to build political agreement on the
new boundaries. The participation of existing local government councils and their
association in the amalgamation process is not organized”. 34
28
CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On the Local Government Service_2012, 8 June, 2012 p. 3
29
30
31
32
ВCoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On the Local Government Service_2012, 8 June, 2012 p.. 4
33
34
CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On Local Initiatives_2012, 13.03.2012, с. 2
16

“Article 7.4 of the Law of Ukraine “On associations of the local self government bodies”
states “public authorities when taking a decision on local and regional development and
when determining the main spheres of the state policy on local self-government
cooperate with association on the basis stipulated by law” If the Charter stipulates all
the issues concerning LSG bodies directly, the Law makes provisions only for the main
spheres of state policy on LSG. In practice, even this law is not implemented: for
example, LSG associations were not consulted when 2010 Budget Code was drafted and
adopted”. 35
«CE recommendation: avoiding the repetition of the mistakes of the draft law of
December 2011, adopted without consultations. Establishing“perspective schemes for
the formation of territorial communities,” (PPFG) based on a consultation procedure
each oblast”. ». 36
«The English «Local authorities shall be consulted» should be translated as “Local
authorities shall be consulted, but not “informed”.37
The Council of Europe highlights serious discrepancies in the understanding of legal
language with respect to decentralization and self-government.
“The concept of a territorial community makes no legal sense because the new entity is
integrated into the legal sphere and this entity does not have the status of a legal entity
and technically cannot hold it. Mention should also be made of the numerous un-
constitutional and illegal “incorporated” communities when a settlement or a town is
incorporated into a larger town/city and a citizen is deemed member of both
communities, and can, therefore, elect two local councils, two mayors, and both the
rights and responsibilities of these two authorities are not distributed by law or any by-
law.”38
Lack of mechanisms of translating political decisions enacted by laws,
into administrative procedures
The Council of Europe points out that Ukrainian law lacks mechanisms of translating
political decisions enacted by laws, into practical actions.
„The Draft Law „On amalgamation of territorial communities is an important step to
the reform of the first local government tier in Ukraine. The Draft Law “On local
initiatives” is an attempt to regulate such an important instrument for citizens’
participation in local self-government issues as “local initiatives”. Due to the lack of
procedure that would make respective legislation provisions operational, it is not
35
36
2012, р. 1. 4
37
38
17

always possible to implement general provisions of amalgamation of territorial
communities and local initiatives in practice”.39
Constitution of Ukraine modernization should become the first step in
decentralization reform
The Council of Europe believes that appropriate amendments into the Fundamental Law
of Ukraine should be the priority step in decentralization reforms.
«In the process of implementation of the reform of local self-government in Ukraine
fundamental actions are not possible if the Constitution is not amended. The too
detailed description in the Constitution of structures and mechanisms and the lack
principles almost preserves the existing system. The Council of
Europe therefore recommends that the Ukrainian authorities begin the process of
modernizing the LSG provisions in the Constitution.
It would be important to:
 hold the parliamentary Hearings on the current state of the implementation of the
European Charter of local self-government in Ukraine and its compliance with
Ukrainian legislation; перейти до загальноєвропейської концепції
самоврядування як права місцевих влад:
 give all rights of local authorities to raion and oblast councils;
 implement in full the subsidiary principle;
 re-organize the system of relegating responsibilities/competencies;
 revise the budgetary system to ensure local self-government bodies have real
capacity to act autonomously and under their own responsibility;
 Enable the legislator to improve the system and avoid excessive details in the new
Constitution”.40
39
CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On Local Initiatives_2012, 13.03.2012, p. 1
40
Government_2010
30 July 2010, р. 12
18

Analysis of soviet legacy with respect to local self-
governance
The Council of Europe dissatisfaction with the progress of Ukrainian decentralization
reforms, persistent non-compliance with its recommendations, on the one hand, as well
as indefatigable activity of their champions on the other, make it expedient to look for
more serious causes of the failures instead of trying to attribute them to the “Ukrainian
mentality” or the notion that “they don’t want it”.
Lack of any obvious objective reasons for Ukraine’s incapacity in introducing the
decentralization reform called for the broader analysis of the political legacy inherited
by the country.
The issue of “governmentalization” of the local councils of the people’s deputies
acquired quite a novel interpretation in the light of analysis of soviet history with
respect to the local self-governance.
Revolution in local self-governance at the time of the UPR and the Ukr.SSR
1918
The UPR Constitution of 1918 introduces the concept of local self-governance and
decentralization principle.
«5. Without the violation of its single authority, the UPR grants its lands, volosts and
communities the rights of broad self-governance under the decentralization
principle».
1919
The first Lenin’s decrees “All power to the councils!”; “Factories – to the workers, land –
to the peasants!” expropriated the state power and private property by the people, i.e.
the bolsheviks’ power.
Under the Ukr.SSR Constitution of 1919 the Councils became the bodies of state power
at the local level (i.e. in the villages and cities), and councils’ congresses and their
executive committees – bodies of power in the volosts, districts and рprovinces. .
After Lenin’s Constitution of 1919 was passed, the notions of decentralization and local
self-governance disappeared from usage until 1990, when the Law of Ukraine “On local
councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-governance” has been
passed.
The rule of the councils was considered the most democratic achievement of the
socialist society, dubbed “the rule of the people”, despite the fact that the councils were
set up and governed exclusively by the communist party, which would not tolerate any
opposition.
19

1937
Stalin’s Constitution of 1937 defined the councils of the working people’s deputies as the
only bodies of the state power at all levels. The Constitution contained no reference to
the monopolistic role of the communist party.
“Article 3. All power in the Ukr.
SSR belongs to the working people of the cities and villages represented by the councils
of the working people’s deputies.
Article 72. The councils of the working people’s deputies in oblasts, districts, raions,
cities, settlements, stanitsas and villages of the Ukr.SSR are the bodies of the state
power. “
1978
Constitution of Ukr. SSR of 1978 was based on the Constitution of 1937 and established
the councils as the only system of the state power bodies. The ill-famed article 6,
establishing the political monopoly of the communist party was introduced.
«Article 2. ALL power in the Ukr.SSR belongs to people. The people exercise the state
power through the councils of the people’s deputies, which form the political foundation
of the Ukr.SSR. All other state bodies are accountable and subordinate to the councils of
the people’s deputies.
Article 6. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is the leading and guiding force of
the soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations.
Article 78. The councils of the people’s deputies – Supreme Rada of the Ukr.SSR,
oblast, raion, district, city and settlement and village councils of people’s deputies form
the comprehensive system of the state bodies of power.
Article 125. The local councils of the people’s deputies address all the issues of local
significance…implement the decisions of the state bodies of the upper level, govern the
operation of the councils of the people’s deputies of the lower level …»
The following laws were used as implementation tools in enforcing the Constitutional
provisions:
 «On local and district council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR»;
 «On raion councils of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR»;
 «On settlement council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR»;
 «On village council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR»;
 «On oblast’ council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR».
The executive vertical of the communist party (CC-oblast’committee-raion committee-
city committee…) substitutes the state executive vertical. The councils of the people’s
deputies are politically controlled by the respective CPSU departments. The councils are
composed of people recommended by the party bodies. The list of the council members
20

compiled by the executive committees of the councils was approved by the party bodies.
After the approval, the lists were submitted to the party organizations of the enterprises,
organizations and institutions to nominate the approved individuals as candidates for
the deputies’ positions at the staff meetings or the meetings of the residents of a given
area. The candidates, nominated in such fashion, were “unanimously” supported by the
voters. The attendance at the elections usually amounted to 99, 5 %.
The party bodies also recommended the quantitative composition of the councils, i.e.
how many CPSU members, Komsomol members; non-partisan members, leader, party
organizations’ secretaries, women, young people, state award winners etc. had to be
elected.
The Constitution of 1978 defined the principle of the uniformity of the councils system
exclusively as the bodies of the state authority – at the period the councils’ vertical was
in operation. The operation of the councils at various levels was determined by specific
laws establishing their functions and competencies.
The party principle of democratic centralism governed the relationship between the
councils’ executive committees. At every level the institute of “curators”, i.e. the assigned
officials, controlling the operation of the executive committees of the lower levels - was
actively used.
The councils and their executive committees operate proceeding from the decisions of
the CPSU and CP of Ukraine’s Congresses, plenums and meetings of the CC Bureau,
oblast, and city and district party committees. The draft decisions prepared by the
councils on important managerial and personnel issues are first approved by the
respective party bodies. Before a council begins its session, the agenda and draft
decisions are to be reviewed and approved by the council party group, composed of the
deputies- communists, which accounted for over 50% of all members.
The structure and functioning of the executive committees’ departments of the councils
was duplicated and controlled on the everyday basis by the officials of the respective
party structures. The heads and their deputies, managers of the departments regularly
prepared operational reports, which were made public at the meetings and plenums of
the respective party bodies. If their operation was found wanting, they could be
dismissed from office. If it happened, the possible discontent of the council was
completely disregarded. The party decision was final and could not be appealed or
changed.
Therefore, the Constitution of 1978 established the soviet power model, which negated
the principle of division of authority. The councils, constitutionalized as the only body of
the whole state power operated as a “working corporation”, ensuring the performance
of legislative and executive functions.
This constitutional status of councils allowed their use as disguise of sorts, concealing
the party dictatorship. Stalin addressed the issue, describing the communist parties as
the core of power, guiding force in the state mechanism, while the councils were kept as
transmission and levering devices, ensuring the unity of the party and the working
people.
21

The Constitution of the Ukr.SSR with changes and amendments introduced by 24 Laws
over the years 1989 – 1996 existed until June 28, 1996, when the Fundamental Law of
independent Ukraine was passed. None of the aforementioned changes and
amendments addressed the issue of the regional or local self-governance, despite the
fact that on December 7, 1990 the Law of Ukraine “On local councils of the people’s
deputies and local and regional self-governance” was passed. Similarly, the articles
regulating the operation of the new institutions of the Presidential representative and
local state administrations, which appeared in Ukraine respectively since March 5, 1992
and April 14, 1992 under the law “On the representative of the President of Ukraine”
and the Presidential Decree “On Provisions on the local state administration”, have not
been introduced into Constitution.
The impact of democratic changes in the society on local self-
governance development in Ukraine
1990 – 1992
First elections to the local councils of the people’s deputies on multi-partisan platform (
including Narodny Rukh, “Green party” etc), held on March 4, 1990, called for actions
aimed at developing the new laws reflecting new, democratic principles in setting up the
local self-governance bodies and their operation.
The Law of Ukraine “On introducing changes and amendments to the Constitution of the
Ukr.SSR” of October 24, 1990, eliminated article 6 from the Constitution and terminated
the CPSU monopoly to power. State, oblast, raion, city party units stopped their
operation as well as their control and influence over the state bodies of power.
As opposed to other European countries, Ukraine had no lustrations of the persons who
were active party functionaries. The carriers of the communist ideology, which would
not accept the democratization of public life in Ukraine, constituted almost 50% or even
more, in the Supreme Rada and local councils’ membership.
The sessions of the councils undergo democratization process. The agenda for the
session is discussed through acute polemics between the democratically minded
deputies and champions of the communist ideology. As a result, the councils
procrastinated with decisions, which had a negative impact on the executive bodies’
operation. In many case the governmental crisis followed.
On December 7, 1990 the Law of Ukraine “On local councils of the people’s deputies and
local and regional self-governance” was passed.
The Law revived the concept of the “local self-governance” first introduced by the UPR.
The soviet councils, which represented the only bodies of the state power under
the Constitution of the Ukr.SSR, were proclaimed the bodies of the local self-
governance.
«Article 1. The local self-governance in Ukraine is the territorial self-organization of
citizens for independent resolution – directly or through the bodies elected by them – of
22

all the local issues within the framework of the Constitution of Ukraine, Ukrainian laws
and their own financial and economic capacity…The bodies of local self-governance are
represented by village, settlement and city councils of the people’s deputies. Article 2.
The system of regional self-governance is represented by raion and oblast councils of
the people’s deputies ».
After banishing the communist party monopoly on state power, the legislator passed
this law to implement Lenin’s slogan “ALL power to the councils”. Before the Law was
passed, the councils had only fictitious authority on paper, being just a “democratic
coverage” for the communist party dictatorship.
With the passing of these two laws, the communist party rule collapsed, while the
councils’ authority became real. They remained the only state power until 1992.
Although the law introduced the concept of “local self-governance” in fact, no one
intended to implement that governance, because no one made differentiation between
the notions of governance and state power. The struggle continued under the slogan
“ALL power to the councils”.
This period is described as a failure to implement full-fledge local self-governance.
The councils failed in exercising “ALL power” (i.e. both governance and state power),
because after Article 6 establishing the leading role of the communist party, was
eliminated from the Constitution of the Ukr.SSR the state power structure swayed as the
vertical of the communist executive power, which used to be the major axis for the
whole operation of the councils, ceased to exist. Besides, the Law liquidated the so-called
“Russian doll” – the vertical subordination of the councils.
Following the democratic elections the local councils themselves became the centers of
the political struggle between parties – phenomenon new to Ukraine, which, due to lack
of experience and weakness of the Ukrainian government, led to chaos in regions.
Therefore, the system of governance had to be re-established in the regions, as well as
the building of the new vertical of the state executive power in lieu of the former party
vertical. That is why a year after the first law on local self-governance has been passed;
the need for essential changes in the system of governance in Ukraine became most
crucial.
The Declaration on state sovereignty of Ukraine, adopted on July 16, 1990, proclaimed
the division of power into three branches – legislative, executive and judicial – and
provided main guidelines for all the future changes.
The real division of power started with the establishment of the office of the President of
the Ukr.SSR by the Resolution of the Supreme Rada of the Ukr.SSR of June 21, 1991,
which introduced the office of the President of Ukraine and by the Law of the Ukr.SSR
“On introducing the office of the President of Ukraine and entering respective changes
and amendments to the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Ukr.SSR” of July 5, 1991.
After the President of Ukraine was elected by the people on December 1, 1991, the
process of introducing changes and amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine started.
The Constitution in force (1978 version with changes and amendments) established that
23

the President of Ukraine is the head of state and the head of the executive power in
Ukraine. The model of presidential-parliamentary republic was introduced in Ukraine.
Building the new vertical of the state executive power to replace the
destroyed party vertical
1992 – 1994
Unstable economic, social and political situation contributed to the establishment of the
office of the President’s of Ukraine Representative, which should have ensured stability
of the economic development of the country and provide for guidance in the economic
operation in the regions by means of building a viable vertical President-Government-
Regional executive administration bodies. The vertical should have replicated the
French model of governance, stipulating stability of the state. Нестабільна
економічна, соціальна і суспільно-політична ситуація сприяла введ
After the Law of Ukraine “On the President’s of Ukraine Representative “was enacted on
March 5, 1992, the President acquired the executive vertical formed of the the
President’s of Ukraine Representatives in the oblasts and regions. Although this newly
formed vertical had to eliminate the soviet power model, in fact the former revived the
latter model, under which the President’s of Ukraine Representative used to be the
oblast party committee secretary, the oblast state administration equaled to the oblast
party committee, while the heads of the executive committees of the village, settlement
and city councils, still were held responsible for the performing of functions delegated to
the as state functions.
“Article 1. The President’s of Ukraine Representative is the head of the local state
administration in oblast, cities of Kiev and Sebastopol, raion and city districts of Kiev
and Sebastopol..
Article 7. The President’s of Ukraine Representative promotes the development of local
and regional self-government, supervises the operation of the local and regional self-
government bodies…
the heads of the executive committees of the village, settlement and city councils, are
responsible for the performing of duties delegated to the for implementing state
functions.
Article 13. The President’s of Ukraine Representative forms the local state
administration in the oblasts, cities of Kiev and Sebastopol, raion and city districts of
Kiev and Sebastopol respectively”.
Many councils opposed the introduction of the institute of the President’s of Ukraine
Representative. Under multi-partisan system adopted by all councils, the conflicts
between the councils and administrations were unavoidable. Unfortunately, they were
accounted for exclusively by poor personnel policy. Therefore, the new division of
power into state and self-government never happened. The Presidential and
parliamentary influence in the regions was weakening.
24

The Law of Ukraine “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-
government” of March 26, 1992/new version of the Law of Ukraine “On local councils of
the people’s deputies and local and regional self-government” of December 7, 1990,
envisaged the delegation of some responsibilities of oblast and raion councils to the
President’s of Ukraine Representative. At oblast and raion tiers, the councils of the
people’s deputies were deprived of their own executive bodies. The self-government
with its own executive body was left for territorial units only. Severe competition
started between the then Supreme Rada speaker and the President of Ukraine.
The Decree of the President of Ukraine “On By-Laws on the local state administration”
of April 14, 1992
«2. The President’s of Ukraine Representatives shall set up the state administrations
for the oblast, cities of Kiev and Sebastopol, raion and city districts of Kiev and
Sebastopol replacing the executive committees of respective councils of the people’s
deputies and, therefore, putting the end to the executive committees’ operation”.
The Supreme Rada of Ukraine Resolution “On implementation and enforcement of the
Law of Ukraine “On the President’s of Ukraine Representative “ stipulates that after
establishing the state administrations, the property of the executive committees of
oblasts and raions, as well as the property in communal ownership is transferred to the
respective state administrations.
The process of the state administrations’ formation and liquidation of the regional self-
government was complicated and allowed for different interpretations by various
deputies. The change in the communal property owner was a most crucial issue.
Eventually the confrontation between administrations and councils and their leaders
was building up, disrupting stability in the regions. The initiated privatization process
combined with the lack of effective control further deteriorated the process of regional
governance and social stability.
All these issues became the substance for the acute debates between the Supreme Rada
and the President of Ukraine. To combat the crisis, extraordinary elections were held,
followed by the liquidation of the local state administrations.
Liquidation of the local state administrations.
ALL power to the councils
1994
In September 1993, the Supreme Rada passed a decision on extraordinary elections of
the President and parliament. The President’s attempts to have some constitutional
changes and power structure changes introduced via the Supreme Rada (specifically,
25

introducing the office of Vice-President as the head of the government) failed. Instead,
on February 3, 1994 the Supreme Rada passed a Law of Ukraine “On forming local
bodies of power and local self government”.
“Article 1. Local self-governments in Ukraine are represented by the village, settlement,
raion, city, district and oblast councils. They are empowered with their own
competencies within which they operate independently.
Oblast, raion, Kiev and Sebastopol city councils at the same time perform the functions
of the state power bodies.
Article 3. The head of the village, settlement, raion, city, district and oblast council is
elected directly by the community. The head of the council by virtue of the office is the
head of the executive committee of the respective council.
Article 8. After the deputies and heads of the village, settlement, raion, city, district and
oblast councils are elected and executive committees of the councils are set up, the Law
of Ukraine “On the President’s of Ukraine Representative” becomes invalid.”
This Law alongside with the new elections to the local bodies of power:
 Destroyed the vertical of the state executive power, having banned the institute of
the President’s of Ukraine and local state administrations;
 Established that the heads of the councils at all tiers are elected by the residents of
the respective administrative and territorial units;
 Reconstructed the councils’ executive committees to replace the state
administrations in oblasts and raions.
Ukrainian experts assess these developments as the reconstruction of full-fledge self-
governance.
The fear to lose control over the regions led to the decision of delegating the functions of
the state power bodies to the oblast, raion and city councils of Kiev and Sebastopol.
The heads of oblast and raion councils enhanced their status, as they were elected not be
the deputies, both by the voters directly. Becoming at the same time the heads of the
executive committee empowered them with the whole scope of local authority.
Decision to restitute the full-fledge local government at the regional level and
liquidation of the President’s of Ukraine Representative office at the local level
engendered the feeling of weak central power among local elite, which deemed it
incapable of effective management of regions. Thus the formation of regional elite, with
its own regional policies, started.
Since June 1994, the state governance kept weakening due to separatist tendencies of
some newly elected heads. The leftist forces in the Supreme Rada tried to re-animate the
soviet model of power.
The Draft Law “On local councils of the people’s deputies, passed in the first reading, in
fact deprived the President and Government of any levers of influence in regional policy,
while re-creating the vertical of “democratic centralism” with all the councils
26

accountable to the Supreme Rada. However, the law was never enacted by the majority
in Supreme Rada.
After elections of the deputies and heads of the local councils alongside with the
elections of the President of Ukraine on June 26, 1994, the process of renovation of local
self-government in the regions and liquidation of the local state administrations gained
momentum.
2 days after the elections the Law of Ukraine “On amendments and changes to the Law
of Ukraine “On forming local power bodies and local self governments”, introducing
changes into Article 1 of the said law was passed on June 28, 1994.
«Article 1. … the heads of the village, settlement, raion, city, district and oblast councils
and the executive committees headed by them perform the duties delegated to them as
state executive power, under the order and framework established by the law”.
Delegating these functions to the councils resuscitated the soviet model, i.e. when
councils were state bodies of power.
The newly elected President of Ukraine faced the situation when, being the head of the
executive power, he had no influence or governance in regions. The governmental
collapse followed – he had no representation in the regions, while the heads of oblast
and raion councils were responsible only for performing the duties delegated to them as
state executive power.
The exercising of ALL power by the councils is enhanced by the Presidential Decree “On
ensuring the governing of the state executive power bodies at the local level” of August
6, 1994, which established that the duties, delegated to the councils, are the duties of the
liquidated local state administrations”.
«2. Rule that prior to the passing of the relevant law, the duties, delegated to the
executive bodies, are the duties established by the Provisions on the local state
administration, approved by the Decree of the President of Ukraine of July 24, 1992
…»
Thus, the competencies of the local state administrations once again are given to the
executive committees, which were deprived of them in 1992.
The President of Ukraine ruled that in the performance of these functions, the heads of
the oblast councils are responsible and accountable to him.The heads of the village,
settlement; raion councils are accountable to the heads of the oblast councils, and,
through them – to the President of Ukraine.
This Decree could not change the situation significantly, as the heads of the oblast, raion
councils were elected to office by the population, and the President of Ukraine could
neither dismiss nor govern them. The quest for the most efficient model of regional
governance turned out as dramatic as over the years 1992 – 1993 and once again led
to the confrontation between The President of Ukraine and the Supreme Rada.
To resolve the situation in December 1994 the President submitted to the Supreme Rada
the Draft Constitutional Law “On state power and local self government in Ukraine”.
27

After the 6 months of debates around this draft, the Constitutional Agreement was
signed between the President of Ukraine and the Supreme Rada. The Constitution of the
Ukr.SSR (Ukraine) applied only when it did not contradict the said Agreement.
The new surge of state executive vertical re-construction by means of
taking executive committees away from the self-governments
1995
On June 8, 1995, the Constitutional Agreement was signed between the President of
Ukraine and the Supreme Rada. This Agreement “On main principles of organization and
functioning of the state power and local self government in Ukraine till the Constitution
of Ukraine is adopted” was based on the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On state
power and local self government in Ukraine” of May 18, 1995.
The Constitutional Agreement
 Re-constructed the state power vertical President-Government- oblast, raion, Kiev
and Sebastopol city state administrations.
 local self government bodies were divided into self-governed ( cities, settlements,
villages) and representative (oblast and raion); these latter lost their executive
committees;
 the former executive committees of oblast and raion councils were replaced by the
system of local state administrations vertically subordinate all the way up, to the
President of Ukraine;
 the head of a council and of the respective state administration was supposed to be
one and the same person, elected by the whole population as the head of the council;
 the Cabinet of Ministers acquired more power over the territories;
 The state executive bodies were removed from the sphere of the Supreme Rada
influence; similar situation was observed at oblast and raion levels.
«Article 46. The state executive bodies in oblasts, Kiev and Sebastopol and raions (
apart from the city districts, with the exceptions of districts in Kiev and Sebastopol) are
respectively oblasts’, Kiev and Sebastopol, raions’, cities’, district ( in Kiev and
Sebastopol) state administrations, governed by the heads of these administrations.
Article 49. Local self-government bodies in the villages (village councils), settlements
and cities are respectively village, settlement and city councils…
Article 53. Representative bodies in oblasts, Kiev and Sebastopol and raions (apart
from the city districts, with the exceptions of districts in Kiev and Sebastopol) are
oblasts, Kiev and Sebastopol, raions, districts in Kiev and Sebastopol, councils.”
Under the Presidential Decree “On provisions on local state administration and
provisions on raion, district (in Kiev and Sebastopol) state administration “ of August
21, 1995 and the Presidential Decree “On delegating the competencies of the state
28

executive power to the heads of village, settlement and city councils’ executive
committees and to the executive committees” of December 30, 1995, the local state
administrations acquired a range of competencies which, even in theory, cannot be
delegated to the executive power, i.e. the authority to introduce changes into taxation
system or impose new taxes. Moreover, on May 28, 1995 the Law of Ukraine “On
budgetary system of Ukraine” established additional restrictions on the resources of the
local councils, thus further debilitating local self-governments.
The Constitution of Ukraine of 1996 engendered confrontation
between the local bodies of state executive power and local self-
government bodies
1996
The Constitutional process in Ukraine began with adoption of the Declaration on
National Sovereignty of Ukraine on July 16, 1990, and lasted for almost six years. Several
drafts for the new Constitution have been devised. Finally, on June 28, 1996 the
Constitution of Ukraine was adopted.
“Article 7. Local self-government is recognized and guaranteed in Ukraine.
Article 140. Local self-government is the right of a territorial community – residents of a
village, or voluntary amalgamation of several villages in a rural community, settlement
or city – to resolve independently the issues of local importance within the framework of
the Constitution and Laws of Ukraine.
Article 118. The executive power in oblasts and raions, cities of Kiev and Sebastopol is
exercised by the local state administrations. “
Preparing the draft for the Constitution of Ukraine its authors failed to take into account
the provisions of the European Charter of Local Government, the expediency of which
was obvious. Consequently the Council of Europe would point it out many a time. The
Constitution of Ukraine, in its definition of the term “Local self-government”, contradicts
the European Charter of Local Government, as it does not provide for the rights of the
people composing a territorial community, which should have the capacity of
independent resolving of local issues bearing all the responsibility for that.
The Constitution of Ukraine, as well as other legal acts, restricts the right of territorial
community to define the structural organization of their local self-government
themselves. The central power rigidly regulates the requirements with respect to the
executive committees, departments and offices of the local councils within the
boundaries of standardized structure, recommended by the Government.
The constitutional model of the local self-government system brings forward
confrontation within the system of the local self-government, as well as between the
local self-government bodies and local state administrations, significantly deteriorates
the quality of public service and leads to the aggravation of social and economic
situation in the regions and in the whole country.
29

The efforts to unite the self-governance and state bodies at raion and oblast levels in a
single governing mechanism led to the creation of dysfunctional, internally
contradictory system of organization of power and accountability of the local self-
government system.
This approach resulted from the absolute political ignorance with respect to the nature
of democracy. The state executive vertical used to be communist party vertical in old
times, therefore now it was treated as something illegal, illegitimate from the
democratic point of view. Two concepts -“centralization” and “state executive vertical”-
were perceived as undemocratic. The institute of “voyevodas” or “prefects” was unheard
of, as well the concept that even democratic countries need to have efficient executive
verticals in order to govern their states successfully. In the said democratic countries,
the state executive verticals efficiently and corporately collaborate with the bodies of
the local self-government. Meanwhile, Ukraine obstinately tries to implement Lenin’s
principle “ALL power to the councils” believing it to be real democracy.
First attempt at administrative reform in Ukraine
1997 – 1999
Presidential Decree “On State Board for administrative reform in Ukraine” of July 7,
1997
Presidential Decree “On measures for the implementation of administrative reform in
Ukraine” of July 22, 1998
The State Board composed of professionals, scholars, executive officials and local self-
government representatives developed a draft Concept for administrative reform in
Ukraine. The Concept clearly defines the administrative reform goal, its tasks and ways
to achieve it. The content of the executive power reform at the local level as well as the
essence of the local self-government reform, its stages and tools were described in
sufficient detail. The Concept implementation had to become an important step in
building efficient regional government based on the principles of European practices.
However, the implementation caused certain problems. On July 15, 1997, the Supreme
Rada of Ukraine ratified the European Charter of Local Government without preliminary
notification. The authors of the Concept were forced to stick to Ukrainian tradition of
strong regional executive power. The European experts were immediately alert.
The text of the Concept was never made public officially. The first attempt at
comprehensive administrative reform died its natural death. The fact that the State
Board for administrative reform led by the first President of Ukraine L.Kravchuk
prepared another round of “tag-of-war” under the slogan “ALL power to the councils”
using the liquidation of local state administrations as their method of choice, was
offered as “official” reason for the reform failure. The next President, L.Kuchma, did not
dare to ban the state administrative vertical. That reform did not yet propose the
strengthening of the state authority at the local level by building totally new democratic
capacity.
30

The earlier developments resulted in passing of two laws - the Law of Ukraine “On the
local self-government in Ukraine” of May 25, 1997 and the Law of Ukraine “On local
state administrations” of April 9, 1999, which later proved imperfect and contrary to the
provisions of the European Charter of Local Government, and needed a lot of changes
and amendments.
Second attempt at administrative reform in Ukraine
2005
The second attempt at territorial and administrative reform, started by the Government
of Ukraine in 2005 under the leadership of Roman Bezsmertny, met with the most
resonant failure. This time the heads of the local power bodies – the victims of the future
enlargement of territorial units – acted as main opponents inciting public protest.
However, the official and publicized version blamed the “retrogrades” – enemies of
progress and reforms. In fact, the reformers, led by Roman Bezsmertny, were defeated
due to the lack of political knowledge with respect to democracy. A very democratic
reform was promoted by the most totalitarian method, the only method known at that
time. No one had the slightest idea of consultations with the stakeholders. The Council of
Europe has not yet provided recommendations on the expediency of such consultations
as means of achieving political consensus in the sensitive issue of a new territorial
structure.
Numerous normative and legal acts and concepts developed after the Law of Ukraine
“On the local self-government” has been enacted, failed to introduce, and, consequently
to implement the changes in dividing the competencies between the state power bodies
and local self-governments. They had no significant impact on their either structure or
scope of work.
31

Reform map structure
Analysis of all the policy elements in the reform process
1) Policy goals
 Who defined the policy goals and how?
 Are the policy goals linked to the priorities defined by the national policy and
international obligations?
 Are the policy goals related to achieving specific outcomes/results?
 Are these goals realistic/feasible with respect to the available resources?
2) Issues to be resolved to the implementation of this policy
 What are the target problems addressed by this policy?
 What qualitative/quantitative indicators or statistic data reflecting the scope of a
given problem are offered in the concept/strategy?
 Is the list of regulatory acts with respect to a given issues quoted?
 Have the causes of the problem (i.e. actions or lack of action which led to it) been
analyzed
 Are the institutions/officials responsible for resolving the problem identified?
 Is the impact of the problem upon the various stakeholders’ interests appraised?
Are the social/professional groups ( i.e. number of people) affected by the problem
(positively or negatively), identified?
 Have the analysis of potential institutions/officials/interest groups capable of
resolving the problem, been carried out? If so, how can they do that?
3) Cost of inaction
 Have the effects of non-resolved problem (qualitiative and quantitative) been
analyzed while developing the concept?
 Has the failure to implement reforms been analyzed?
 Has any justification been offered on why this problem should be addressed
immediately?
4) Solutions
 Ways of resolving the problem with the use of existing strategies and concepts.
 Arguments in favor of the selected way of resolving the problem.
32

 Proposed legislative changes.
 Proposed institutional changes (i.e related to structures, procedures, standards)for
the implementation of the chosen method. Пропоновані інституційні зміни (у
структурах, процедурах, стандартах) для
 Planned training to empower the executors of the decision with the necessary
knowledge and skills
5) Stakeholders’ position
 How will the new policy implementation affect the stakeholders?
 How will various interests’ groups respond to the policy?
 What interests’ groups will be “pro”?
 Is there any plan for mobilizing the interests’ groups to support the policy?
 Who will be “contra”?
 Is there any plan for dealing with the policy opponents, information campaign
including counter-arguments?
8)Action plan
 Specific actions aimed at implementing each of strategic priorities in the new
policy/
 Human/material resources, needed for the policy implementation.
 Indicators of success and criteria of quality assurance in the implementation of the
plan, stipulated by the strategies.
 Institutions/officials, responsible for the implementation of the actions, defined by
the concepts/strategies.
 Institutions/officials who would supervise the implementation of action plan.
 Establishing penalties for failure to implement the action plan.
33

Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions on the causes of misunderstanding with the Council of
Europe and factors making the implementation of the tasks of local
self government reform, formulated by the President of Ukraine in his
speech at the meeting of the Council of Regions on March 21, 2013,
impossible
Comparison of the Council of Europe recommendations with the Ukrainian history of
decentralization demonstrates deep misunderstanding as to the very essence of the
decentralization. The Ukrainian sources traditionally refer not to decentralization, but to
the local self-governance exclusively.
The decentralization of powers means the reduction in the scope of central
competencies and their delegation to the local level by two ways – either by transfer to
self government bodies or by changing the competencies of the local state vertical
bodies.
The self-governance for us, the Ukrainians, is tantamount to the familiar slogan “ALL
power to the councils. In fact, the self-governance is only part, one “leg” of the local
governance. The other “leg” is represented by the local state vertical bodies.
The so-called reforms, on close inspection turn out to be futile efforts to rebuild the
soviet “democratic centralism”: strong central authority with active masses at the local
level.
Futility of these efforts is explained by unconscious attempts to reconstruct the familiar
soviet models of the state governance, i.e. granting the functions of the state executive
power to the local (regional) councils. Not a single reform proposed division, separation
of the local self-government from the state executive power. All changes and reforms
were aimed at transferring the whole power to the local level; inevitably they ended up
with conflicts and deprivation of any power for the benefit of the state administrative
vertical.
The Council of Europe experts are fed up with the amazing Ukrainian obstinacy and
ability of complicating the simplest truths. They cannot imagine that we, Ukrainians, do
not understand, what the Council of Europe wants from us, asking why we do not have
a strategy for decentralization reform. Obviously, we have dozens Concepts, the
President’s of Ukraine Program for Reforms is in place, so why cannot they be used a
strategies?
We, Ukrainians cannot comprehend why our public councils, regular meetings in the
communities do not satisfy Europeans who persist in recommending consultations with
the stakeholders “to achieve political consensus in reform provisions”. Why do they
believe that our public councils and regular meetings in the communities cannot
provide for it?
34

Why Europeans are not happy with our numerous scientifically justified divisions of
functions? Why do they think that the planning of competencies in our concepts and
drafts is extremely complicated?
Why the Council of Europe does not like our control system? They insist on European
standards? What are the European standards with respect to control?
The Council of Europe does not know that lack of the European standards does not mean
lack of any standards whatsoever. We have the standards we use. They are soviet
standards. They were very instrumental in the totalitarian administrative-commanding
state.
The tragedy of our reforms is that all the soviet standards use language very akin to
democratic terminology. They are fakes, poisoned mushrooms which look like the good
ones, or even better. They are dysfunctional, deficient in the multi-partisan system and
competition between the private owners.
Lack of democratic knowledge and experience does not mean that we have no wealth of
knowledge and experience. On the contrary, we have abundance of our own, i.e. soviet
experience. It is not a crime, not our dumbness, not outlandish Ukrainian mentality – it is
a historic phenomenon. In order to master new knowledge we have to understand
properly the knowledge we already possess, i.e. how totalitarian control is different
from the democratic control, how scientifically-looking concept differs from a concept,
why public councils are incapable of ensuring political consensus in developing position,
while consultations with stakeholders can do it.
Recommendations
CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT
- currently Ukraine found itself in an extremely beneficial situation, which would
ensure successful reform implementation – available political will, expressed in
the Presidential speech at the Council of Regions on March 21, 2013, and in the
reports of the Commissions in charge of the administrative and territorial
structure and local self-governance of the Constitutional Assembly of Ukraine;
available clear definition of the necessary changes – Ukraine just received the
Concept for the Constitutional regulation of the local self-governance from the
Council of Europe; crucial political need for achieving the tangible results and
demonstrating decisive steps prior to May 2013 within the framework of getting
ready to the signing of the Association Treaty with the European Union;
- Ukraine has enough reformers and clear understanding of the reforms’ goal;
35

- At the same time erroneous and detrimental belief that existing soviet practice in
changes management, i.e. administrative-commanding way of making and
enforcing decisions can be efficient at the background of devastated and
dysfunctional administrative-commanding system, i.e. in the situation when
political decisions of the leadership are not automatically translated into
administrative actions of the subordinates, in the atmosphere of acute political
and economic competition and freedom of speech, still persists in Ukraine;
- The democratic knowledge, skills and experience as well as the reforms
management experience can come only from the technical assistance granted by
the democratic countries;
- The reform can be implemented only on the basis of a public document defining
policy, following public consultations with all the stakeholders in order to
develop politically harmonized reforming plan, only if the charter of
administrative liability at all levels of the state administration and local self-
governance is devised with respect to the reform, only if the system of control
over the executors of the reform is set up, only if a pilot project of the local self-
governance capable of “standing on its own two legs” is launched;
- The aforementioned gaps and obstacles described by the Council of Europe’s
experts in so much detail and specifically addressed by the President of Ukraine,
i.e. the lack of public strategy, of understanding and support of the reform on
behalf of public, absence of clear and transparent charter of administrative
liability for the reform implementation, lack of systemic control over the
executors of the reform – fall exclusively under the category of methods and
ways of the reform implementation;
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES and aiming at
eliminating the gaps identified in this study in decentralization reforms in Ukraine and
ensuring the fulfillment of the intentions formulated by the President of Ukraine in his
speech at the Council of Regions’ meeting,
WE RECOMMEND THAT DONORS support the implementation of the technical
assistance projects, which stipulate:
 The development of political document – the map of decentralization reform (policy
mapping of reforms);
 The overcoming of totalitarian model of informing the unidentified “ public at large”
about the reforms, moving towards well-structured consultations with the
stakeholders in order to come up with the socially and politically justified stand
with respect to the reform and defining the support groups as well as opposition
groups in reform implementation;
 Carrying out a broad public policy campaign with respect to the reform;
 The implementation of the pilot model of the decentralized government capable of
“standing on its own two legs” at the local levels, with the participation of a local
36

council and local state administration in compliance with the European principles
and standards. Such projects will enable the setting up of a model for non-
contradictory system of local governance as well as fulfilling the Council of Europe’s
recommendations.
Schedule for the proposed project
Project components Implementation
timeframe
1. Public document on state decentralization policy
1.1. Database of normative documents 6.05. – 31.05.2013
1.2. Database of political documents 6.05. – 31.05.2013
1.3. Database of the state bodies responsible for
6.05. – 31.05.2013
1.4. Database of self-government bodies responsible for
6.05. – 31.05.2013
1.5. Database of international organizations supporting and
implementing decentralization projects
6.05. – 31.05.2013
1.6. Database of all decentralization projects 6.05. – 31.05.2013
1.7. Studying Ukrainian experts’ opinion on decentralization
reforms
20.05. – 07.06.2013
1.8. Analysis of international recommendations and
conclusions with respect to decentralization reforms
20.05. – 07.06.2013
1.9. First draft of the public document developed on the
basis of respective methodology
27.05. – 14.06.2013
1.10. Discussion over the first draft of public document on
decentralization policy
17.06. – 05.07.2013
1.11. Introducing changes and commentaries 1.07. – 13.07.2013
1.12. Devising second draft of public document on
decentralization policy
8.07. – 26.07.2013
1.13. Discussion over the second draft of public document on
decentralization policy with all the stakeholders
9.09. – 08.11.2013
37

2. Public consultations and public campaighn
2.1 Identifying stakeholders 01.08. – 23.08.2013
2.2. Schedule of consultations with the stakeholders 19.08. – 30.08.2013
2.3. List of issues offered for consultations 19.08. – 6.09.2013
2.4. Carrying out consultations in the selected regions 9.09. – 8.11.2013
2.5. Processing of the consultations’ results 16.09. – 15.11.2013
2.6. Presentation of the results at public events, in
Parliament and Governmental structures
9.12.2013 –
24.04.2014
3. Pilot model of decentralized local government
3.1. Devising model concept 15.07. – 13.09.2013
3.2. Identifying participants 15.07. – 13.09.2013
3.3. Questionnaire for the interview 1.08. – 13.09.2013
3.4. Conducting the interviews. Discussing the model
concept
16.09. – 8.11.2013
3.5. Processing the results of the interviews 23.09. – 15.11.2013
3.6. Familiarization with the international expertise. Sharing
best practices
21.10. – 27.12.2013
3.7. Introducing changes and commentaries to the model
concept
11.11. – 27.12.2013
3.8. Devising the administrative responsibility map 2.12.2013 –
17.01.2014
3.9. Formulating reform-related changes to the by-laws of
the governing bodies and job instructions for the
officials
16.12.2013 –
24.01.2014
3.10. Discussion with the stakeholders over the needed
changes
27.01. – 28.02.2014
3.11. Compiling final document describing the decentralized
governance model
24.02. – 20.03.2014
3.12. Presentation of the results at public events, in
Parliament and Governmental structures
16.03. – 24.04.2014
38

METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
Methods of analyzing reform gaps
Approach to the gaps’ analysis
From its very first steps, the Ukrainian self-governance has been implemented without
clear strategy of development. The proclaimed policy aimed at reforming the executive
power and local self government bodies is missing in Ukraine, and the best reform
models are still to be chosen. Ukraine failed to meet its obligations to the Council of
Europe with respect to the full-scope implementation of the provisions of the European
Charter of Local Self Government.
The international partners of Ukraine, first of all the European Union and its member
countries, as well as other countries with highly developed democracy constantly
provide assistance in the efforts to develop and implement the reform targeted at
decentralization and local self governance. This support comes in different forms and is
provided both through political dialogue (official commentaries, conclusions,
recommendations prepared by competent bodies, first of all, by the Council of Europe)
and within the framework of the technical assistance projects ( analysis, consultations,
sharing of best practices, developing draft laws etc). Alongside with the provisions of the
European Charter of Local Self Government, the outcomes of this support define
organizational, procedural and substantial framework for this reform.
It gives the opportunity of comparing the key aspects of this framework with the
respective characteristics of the current situation in Ukraine in order to identify existing
discrepancies in the area of decentralization and local self governance and define the
ways and steps to overcome them.
The analysis of the discrepancies in the reforming process covers two areas:
 organizational (procedural), which defines the level of compliance with the
principles and procedure of democratic governance in devising, planning and
implementing the reform;
 substantial, which defines the level of compliance of the documents’ and activities’
content with the proposed conclusions and recommendations, as well as with the
results of the research containing the justification for these conclusions and
recommendations.
These two aspects are taken into account in the analysis criteria offered below.
The following information sources are used for the gaps’ analysis:
40

Decentralisation in Ukraine_for Despro_english_29.03.2013

Decentralisation in Ukraine_for Despro_english_29.03.2013

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Decentralisation in Ukraine_for Despro_english_29.03.2013

Similar to Decentralisation in Ukraine_for Despro_english_29.03.2013 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Decentralisation in Ukraine_for Despro_english_29.03.2013