Warning to authorities from sociologists

"It's not just corruption, but the presence of incompetent individuals around the President that gives Russia an opportunity to succeed,” states the article published by Ukrainska Pravda on September 17.

The publication was a response to the government's panicked reaction following a July public opinion poll. This poll asked whether the President of Ukraine should personally bear responsibility for corruption within the government and military administrations. 

The results were striking, with a staggering 78% of Ukrainians responding "yes," while only 18% held the opposite view. For Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who still believes in nationwide support, this outcome must have come as a profound shock.

In light of the prevailing sentiment, pro-government figures responded by strongly and cynically criticizing sociologists.

Authorities should appreciate sociologists' contribution

Mykhailo Fedorov, the Minister of Digital Transformation, described the survey as "very strange" and likened it to a "targeted attack." Davyd Arakhamia, the leader of the "Servant of the People" presidential faction, saw the study as manipulative. Lesser-known members of the "Servant of the People" party also raised concerns about the survey's alleged American sponsorship.

Sociological organizations expressed their frustration. This survey is standard, questioning the constitutional powers of the head of state, which is further amplified during times of martial law. Sociologists are entirely justified in their approach.

Anyone familiar with the methodologies of sociological firms would recognize this question as professional and accurate. At the very least, the government should appreciate the role of sociologists in gauging public sentiment. During this summer, Ukrainians were constantly exposed to corruption scandals involving lawmakers, officials, military committee leaders, as well as figures within the Ministry of Defense and military administrations.

People started complaining that "corruption has increased compared to the pre-war period," and there was a sentiment that "our soldiers are sacrificing their lives while others profit from the war."

In such a context, understanding whether society holds the president, as the Supreme Commander, personally responsible for these scandals is vital to preventing major errors that could harm national unity. This is as important as recognizing the heroism of our soldiers and the professionalism of our Armed Forces.

Instead of gratitude, sociologists have faced unwarranted insults, which are unbecoming of a democratic government in a democratic nation.

Two key goals for Ukraine

In his article, Petro Burkovskyi outlined the potential consequences of this approach for Ukraine's leadership, led by President Zelenskyy and his associates. He highlighted two critical issues: the decision to postpone the disclosure of electronic declarations of lawmakers for another year (the president had to do this due to public pressure), and the pursuit of holding presidential and parliamentary elections while the country is at war. He cautioned that these actions could push the nation towards another mass protest (Maidan) and potential defeat in the ongoing conflict.

Burkovskyi quoted one of the deputies from the president’s party, who argued that the demand for opening electronic declarations represented only a portion of society, not the entire Ukrainian population. It's worth noting that a similar narrative was used by the Party of Regions back in November-December 2004, during a time of growing public discontent.

Burkovskyi issued a stern warning about conducting elections amid the ongoing war: "Anyone who insists on holding elections for the president and his party before achieving our goals for independence is essentially undermining the Ukrainian state!"

In his view, Ukraine must focus on two primary objectives: first, achieving "strategic isolation of Crimea and the dismantling of the Black Sea Fleet, which would reduce the Kremlin's incentive to maintain control over Crimea and jeopardize Russia's shipping routes in the Black Sea." Second, Ukraine should aim to create conditions where the continuation of the conflict on Ukrainian soil increases the likelihood of Russia losing control domestically.

Being mindful of public sentiment 

It is noted that talks about holding elections have been ongoing for more than a year. As soon as Russians retreated from Kyiv and the northern regions, suffering a significant defeat in Izyum and Lyman, pre-election preparations gripped government offices. The halls of the Verkhovna Rada buzzed with rumors and predictions of General Valery Zaluzhnyi's potential removal from office due to his surging popularity, even surpassing that of the president.

However, the mood in the military and society, along with advice from our allies, helped calm this frenzy.

Soon, discussions turned to the possibility of spring elections using electronic voting systems. I firmly believe that this is impractical given the ongoing active hostilities, the plight of millions of internally displaced persons, and refugees abroad.

As the Armed Forces prepared for a spring-summer offensive, and with the excitement of receiving several dozen Leopard tanks, authorities began talking about achieving victory before Independence Day and holding presidential elections within the constitutional deadline in the spring of 2024. More pragmatic government officials cautioned that this might be unrealistic, as the offensive was expected to be neither easy nor short, and conducting elections without military who fought at the front would be unwise.

Petro Burkovskyi added more weight to this argument, emphasizing the urgent need for the government to focus on state defense and root out corruption within its ranks. Failing to do so would risk alienating the Ukrainian people and facing accusations of treason.