Read also: Electing bad leaders in Ukraine: how to break the vicious cycle #UAreforms
Those that drafted the law say that it has been a successful experiment but the legislation should now be supplemented. Let's take a closer look at the benefits and the drawbacks of this experiment, presented at.The parties overwhelmingly spend on self-promotion
In 2016 state funding was provided to parties represented in parliament proportionate to their results in the last elections (in 2014). Last year the state allocated UAH 191 mn ($ 7 mn) to political parties. However, the Opposition Bloc (the successor of the party of the runaway tyrant president Viktor Yanukovych) refused them and Batkivshchyna did not receive the state funding in the 3rd quarter because it did not manage to prepare the necessary documents, so 162.7 mn ($ 6 mn) was actually distributed to parties last year.As the reports revealed, UAH 63.4 mn ($2.3 mn) or 39% of their allocated funds were spent on different kinds of self-promotion. In comparison, only UAH 10.6 mn ($393,000), or just 7%, was spent on the rent of premises and only UAH 9.9 mn ($367,000), or 6%, on salaries.
The success and points for improvement
Weak points Despite receiving funds from the state, shadow financing of the parties still exists. For example, Narodnyi Front did not mention any centers of the party in regions which would have the status of an entity. Also there was no any mentions of the centers of Radical Party of Oleg Liashko in the third quarter. The way the parties were allocating money to the regional centers is not transparent. They either gave the majority to the center office, or divided it disproportionately between regions. “For example, there are two neighboring oblasts. One receives 300,000, another gets a million. The number of the members of the party is approximately equal, the elections results are also almost equal,” said Viktor Taran, the head of the anti corruption NGO Eidos. “One of the biggest problems is that contributions are done by anonymous persons,” says Syumar. She explained that in financial reports the information about the sponsors is absent or partially present. Another example of the lack of transparency is that parties exceed the maximum possible allowable contribution from one person, as well as parties not spending money on disseminating their policy, analysis, or teaching their members. So far there is no serious punishments for the violating the legislation despite the risk of harming a party’s reputation. Progress Still, the legislation has made parties make huge steps towards transparency. For the first time society has received access to information on parties’ finances. Before it came into force, it was impossible for society to see even a 15 page report on this. “Now financial reports of parties consist of 200-250 pages. For the parties which are not represented in the parliament it is about 100 pages,” said Taran. He also emphasized that introducing state funding has proved that parties can survive without oligarchs money and that will be the next step of the reform. Among other positive changes is that parties started to develop their regional networks. “The accountability reform did take place. This is the main success of this law,” concludes Taran.Financing for 2017
In 2017 the state will allocate UAH 442.4 mn ($16.4 mn) for the statutory activities of the parties:
Narodnyi Front |
UAH 113.7 mn ($4.2 mn) |
Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc |
UAH 112.1 mn ($4.1 mn) |
Samopomich |
UAH 56.4 mn ($2 mn) |
Opposition Bloc |
UAH 48.5 mn ($1.7 mn) |
Radical Party of Oleh Liashko |
UAH 38.3 mn ($1.4 mn) |
Batkivshchyna |
UAH 29.2 mn ($1 mn) |
The first half-year of the law’s implementation showed that Ukrainian politicians still feed citizens with slogans and promises but don’t provide real strategies or show intentions to implement them.