Antti Hartikainen
Freelance Senior Consultant, Former Head of EUAM
Ukraine
Finland
Ukraine's integration into the EU has progressed exceptionally swiftly, especially during Russia's large-scale invasion. Decisions made on the status of an EU candidate country and the start of membership negotiations have kept the motivation of Ukrainians high. Ukraine has been able to quickly implement the changes required by the EU for progress in integration. But are these changes, which have been required so far, usually of a very technical nature, what is required of a future EU Member State?
At what stage and how will the progress of EU integration be measured in terms of the impact of changes? In my opinion, the appointments of heads of government organisations, organisational reforms, changes in legislation or the formulation of strategies, which have been required so far, are not good indicators for measuring the development of different sectors of society. It would be more important to know what is the impact of the leadership appointments or organisational reforms made on the functioning of society? How has the new legislation been implemented and what is its impact? How has the implementation of the adopted new strategy progressed and has it improved the efficiency of society in this area? For a credible development of EU integration, reliable answers to these questions are needed.
Reforms in Ukraine must enter a new phase. Until now, achieving results has largely depended on the decisions of politicians and legislators. It has been possible to make progress in reforms largely by leading things. In the future, more extensive commitment by society to reforms will be required. Leadership skills, management of people is emphasized. It will be more difficult to make progress. War fatigue must not be allowed to bother us. Luckily for Ukraine, their politicians and agency management are professional, youthful and fit people. They are looking to the future and the vision is clear! The difference with the greying authoritarian leaders in power in Russia, who have passed their best ability to act years ago and are aiming to regain the days of greatness of history, is like night and day.
From a management perspective, Ukraine's chances of success in reforms are excellent. The situation is made difficult by the fact that the reforms required so far, such as the appointment of directors or the approval of new ones by law, are cheap, but the operational reforms required in the future will also require significant financial resources. At least for the EU as well as the key supporters of Ukraine, this is very well understood. I am therefore convinced that these resources will be provided. One of the reasons for this is that there will also be some supporters for whom it is politically impossible to support the war effort.
Corruption is a key problem related to reforms in Ukraine, the second biggest enemy of society after Russia. The most important indicator of the level of corruption in Ukraine is Transparency International's ranking of the level of corruption in different countries of the world. This indicator, which is largely based on surveys and has been in use for a long time, certainly provides a reliable comparison result compared to other countries. However, more accurate and precise indicators are needed to measure the progress of Ukraine's anti-corruption reform. These indicators should be able to measure the effectiveness of key measures and reforms. What concrete results have been achieved in society with the reforms? Is the practical implementation of laws and other regulations appropriate? Ukraine's judiciary has so far been the weakest link in the fight against corruption. Thus, the ongoing reform of the judiciary has been identified as the mother of all reforms in Ukraine. Its success is a prerequisite for the success of other government reforms.
In addition to the right meters, the right measurement methods are also needed. In this regard, more transparency is needed in Ukraine. So far, the EU has assessed Ukraine's progress largely on the basis of documents or reports submitted by them. In the future, various assessment teams will be commonplace, for example, in the border security sector. Such teams require access to offices and premises, various plans and documents to see, and the opportunity to talk to officials and test their skills. In other words, these teams want to see with their own eyes how activities are organized and make their assessment of the level of activity based on their own observations. In wartime, restricting access to certain offices and information is partly understandable, but the lack of transparency is not only a problem caused by war. It is essential to understand that both evaluators and assesses always learn in these processes. It is a question of joint development and trust. This trust must be mutual.