Kyseliova, Yulia

English

Policy Documentation Center

Spring demobilization of  state secretaries
RESEARCH UPDATE
Vol. 9. No. 22/317, June 2, 2003
By Yulia Kyseliova, UCIPR analyst
It Finally Happened…
Three days before celebration of its second anniversary, state secretary institution was abolished. The May 26, 2003
presidential decree "On Some Measures for Optimization of Governance in the System of National Executive
Bodies" provided for liquidation of the state secretary institution.
Under the decree, offices of state secretaries of ministries, their deputies and first deputies shall be abolished and
substituted with those of vice ministers and first vice ministers. Appointment of first vice ministers and vice
ministers shall be done according to presidential decision after Premier’s submission. The President of Ukraine shall
also determine the number of first vice ministers and vice ministers of each ministry. It is necessary to point out that
respective presidential powers are not indicated in the Constitution of Ukraine. Article 106, Subsection 10, of the
document reads, "On Premier’s submission, the President of Ukraine shall be empowered to designate and dismiss
from their offices members of the Cabinet of Ministers, chairmen of other national executive authorities and regional
state administrations." Hence, under the Constitution, vice ministers are viewed as "chairmen of other national
executive authorities". Article 114 of the Ukrainian Constitution clearly establishes composition of the Cabinet that
shall consist of Prime Minister, First Vice Prime Minister, three Vice Prime Ministers and ministers. On Premier’s
submission, the President of Ukraine shall appoint personal composition of the Cabinet. The Constitution does not
provide for offices of vice ministers.
In general, 100 state secretaries, their deputies and first deputies of 16 Ukrainian ministries as well as the office of
state secretary of the Cabinet of Ministers shall be abolished. The number of state secretaries and their deputies
differed from ministry to ministry. For instance, that number was the largest and amounted to 11 in the Ministry of
Interior (state secretary, three first deputies and seven deputies), in the Ministry of Finance - 10 (state secretary,
eight deputies and state secretary of the State Department of Financial Monitoring at the Ministry of Finance) and in
the Ministry of Economy and European Integration - 9 (two state secretaries, two first deputies and five deputies). 5
ministries, including the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Fuel and Energy and the Ministry of Defense, had only
two state secretaries. The Ministry of Finance had just one state secretary - state secretary of the State Department of
Financial Monitoring.
On May 28, 2003, first "victims" of the presidential decree emerged - two Deputy State Secretaries of the Ministry
of Ukraine of Emergencies and Affairs of Population Protection from the Consequences of Chernobyl Catastrophe
Volodymyr Loginov and Valentyna Levchenko were dismissed.
Establishment of State Secretary Institution: Common Remarks
The state secretary institution was established under the 29 May, 2001 presidential decree "On Regular Measures for
Further Implementation of the Administrative Reform in Ukraine". Its creation had been envisaged by conception of
the administrative reform that failed to become a consolidated public program geared toward reforming the system
of public governance. Expediency of introduction of a new institution was explained by the need to ensure stable
work of the government. Introduction of new offices was justified by the need "to release ministers from duties
relating to routine administrative functions and simultaneously preserve stability and certain independence of
apparatus from changes in political course or political leaders." At the same time, the document abolished offices of
first vice ministers and vice ministers as well as the office of state secretary of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine,
his first deputy and deputies. According to the 2001 decree, the President of Ukraine should designate state secretary
of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, his first deputy and deputies as well as state secretaries of ministries, their
first deputies and deputies for the period of his presidency. Resignation of the government or some of its members
should not entail removal of state secretaries who acquired the status of state officials, for they should ensure
succession and stability of governance. The 2001 decree also introduced a term "political figure" and all members of
the Cabinet should acquire that. Meanwhile, state secretaries were vested with large powers. They headed
ministerial staff, presented ministers with proposals for distribution of budget funds, coordinated activities of
territorial bodies of ministries, enterprises, establishments and organizations within ministerial jurisdiction, dealt
with personnel issues etc.
It should be pointed out that the above decree emerged almost simultaneously with appointment of Anatoly Kinakh
as Ukrainian Prime Minister. Given that political situation, after resignation of the Yushchenko’s government,
different political forces within the parliamentary majority liked to exploit a thesis about the coalition government.
At that time, introduction of the state secretary institution could appease to some extent party and oligarchic
appetites relating to offices in the government, as ministers-politicians, who could solve nothing a priori, would not
be able to perform functions of influential figures on political scene.
It is also expedient to mention rhetoric of those times that attended presentation of the decree. Former Head of the
Presidential Administration Volodymyr Lytvyn said, "The need for respective decisions can be explained by
permanent changes in composition of the government under the circumstances of transitional period and political
restructuring, which causes the problem of disorganization of executive power." (The news agency Interfax Ukraina,
May 29, 2001)
Meanwhile, practical application of the May 29, 2001 decree was rather problematic. Like nowadays, at that time,
there was no law on the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine that should actually settle the issue of power
disorganization and provide for establishment of relations between the government and the parliament. Within
several years, the President of Ukraine repeatedly vetoed the above law. The opposition voiced apprehension that
introduction of the state secretary institution might paralyze work of the Cabinet, as it would perform almost
identical functions. There were assumptions about possibility of creation, through the state secretary institution, of a
peculiar counterbalance to the Cabinet that even could become a political body. Some MPs drew a parallel between
secretaries and commissars of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Army of 1918. As a matter of fact, state secretaries were
vested with more powers than ministers who depended on the President. Later on, the situation was stabilized due to
introduction of numerous changes to the 2001 decree. In July 2001, the President signed the regulation on the status
of state secretaries of ministries. The document read, "State secretary of a ministry, hereinafter referred to as state
secretary, shall be a state official empowered to organize and ensure work of a minister. State secretary shall be
accountable to a minister." The afore-mentioned actually meant subordination of state secretary to a minister. Also,
there were other changes that minimized possible risks of formation of a parallel branch of power within the system
of national executive authorities.
The Issue of State Secretaries: between Motivations and Arguments
Several reasons for abolition of the state secretary institution were given officially in decrees and comments to them.
The major reason was that the above institution did not comply with the proposed format of the political reform.
Other reasons implied a regular purge of the Cabinet and stagger among the higher echelons of executive power.
The process of further job placement of some state secretaries will demonstrate to what extent the above thesis
represents the facts. Even today, it is understandable that all of them could not become vice ministers. Commenting
on the presidential decree, Prime Minister Victor Yanukovych stated, "Given the situation, changes in personnel are
inevitable and there is no exception to this rule."
Hence, official abolition of the state secretary institution is motivated by the need "to create and ensure favorable
conditions for consistent implementation of the political reform in Ukraine." According to official comments, the
state secretary institution is still not included into newly proposed schemes of the political reform in the context of
restructuring executive power. However, in his latest address to the Verkhovna Rada, the President of Ukraine
Leonid Kuchma asserted, "Approval of political status of a minister shall be attended with consolidation of the
institution of state secretaries of the government and ministries to be appointed by the Ukrainian President."
Proceeding from texts of official documents, "long protraction of the process of enactment of legal documents on
procedure for organization and functioning of national executive authorities and on status of their chairmen" can
serve as the other argument. In comments on the presidential decree, special attention is paid to it. Apparently, the
matter in question is the law of Ukraine "On the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine" repeatedly vetoed by the President
though the document does not provide for introduction of the office of the state secretaries. The next day, Minister
of Justice Olexandr Lavrynovych came forward sharing the opinion about inaction of the Verkhovna Rada related to
legalization of the status of high state officials. He emphasized that within two years, a respective legal act
regulating functioning of executive power and its division into state service and political offices was not passed.
Olexandr Lavrynovych said that both the Cabinet and the President had the right of legislative initiative but none of
them succeeded to legalize administrative and political novations in the system of public governance.
The above caused certain misunderstanding of some MPs. MP Mykola Tomenko vigorously reacted to institutional
novations and said that the parliament beared no relation either to introduction or abolition of the state secretary
institution.
By the way, in 2000, Head of the Presidential Administration of that time Volodymyr Lytvyn stressed that the
decree on introduction of the state secretary institution should be the first in a series of documents providing for
structural changes in the system of power. Though, the Presidential Administration did not take any further steps in
that direction.
The Cabinet of Ministers became not a political but quasi-political body. Existent political practice proved that
nothing radical occurred but renaming of first vice ministers into state secretaries. Given the situation, the state
secretary institution failed to acquire the role of administrative body that should ensure work and activities of
politicians. On the contrary, it has become a common practice when a state secretary assumed not only
administrative but also political functions. Comments to the presidential decree by Deputy Speaker of the
Verkhovna Rada Olexandr Zinchenko deserve attention. He said, "Abolition of the state secretary institution will
give rise to search of a solution to the issue of optimization of public governance. The matter in question is not a
simple change in the name but enhancement of the role of persons responsible for decision-making." Such a
viewpoint demonstrates efforts of MPs to make ministers real political figures. Today, the above statement remains
of declarative nature, since as a rule; state secretary more or less successfully performed "political" duties of
ministers. They presented the Verkhovna Rada with drafts, came forward at parliamentary hearings, gave political
assessments to and interpreted certain facts and events on behalf of ministries. Availability of respective tendencies
a priori served as a reason for misunderstanding of and contradictions with ministers who de facto and de jure did
not have the status of political figures.
First and foremost, such a situation can be explained by a specific logic of formation of contemporary quasi-
coalition governments in the absence of stable political groups and in the presence of the situational majority formed
on the basis of quasi-political principles under administrative pressure. Meanwhile, stable political formations can
exist provided that a principle of proportionate parliamentary elections is realized and that the parliamentary
majority bearing political responsibility for the government is formed according to the above principle. Given
Ukrainian realities, talks about the coalition government are nothing but pure declarations, for there are no legally
fixed principles of responsibility for actions of ministers as political figures within governmental coalitions. Today,
cooperation of "coalition ministers" with associated parliamentary factions is of rather comical and inconsistent
nature.
Therefore, abolition of the state secretary institution does not approach public governance in Ukraine to that in EU
countries. It is understood that mechanical copying of foreign experience is impossible due to specificity of the
Ukrainian governance system where every branch of power actually bears no responsibility for its activities.
"Presidential decision will make executive power stronger. We shall strengthen its vertical line that has to
implement all decisions taken", pointed out Premier Victor Yanukovych commenting on the presidential decree.
Analyzing the above quotation, it is possible to conclude that prior to abolition of the state secretary institution;
executive power implemented not all "decisions taken". At the same time, interpretation of redistribution of powers
between the Presidential Administration and the Cabinet due to liquidation of the respective institution seems rather
simplified. The expected law on political reform will highlight key points in administrative context.


Spring demobilization of state secretaries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Policy Documentation Center