Why Ukrainian reforms are just an imitation.

Recently published global rating of The Global Competitiveness Report (http: // www3. weforum. org / docs / GCR2017-2018 / 05FullReport / TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017% E2% 80% 932018. pdf) once again confirmed that the Ukrainian business knows perfectly well: against the backdrop of loud statements "about reforms", "about the" dictates "of the IMF, Ukraine took 81st place in the Global Competitiveness rating, and Russia - the thirty-eighth. Last year Russia - 43 place, and Ukraine - eighty-fifth. And this despite the fact that in Russia there is an almost authoritarian regime of Putin, the arbitrariness of "siloviki" and "manual" regulation of the economy. And yet, the situation in Russia is definitely better than the Ukrainian one. And do not say here that it's a war. If we were talking about ten to fifteen points, we can still understand. But we are talking about forty points. At the same time, in the absolute coefficients the situation is even worse: the rating of Ukraine in absolute figures is now equal to the rating under Yanukovych 4.1), while Russia last year had 4.51, it was 4.64. That is, there is a real growth in absolute coefficients.

You can say as much as you like "about the wonderful reforms" that are going on in Ukraine, turning a blind eye to the insane price growth, but the situation in the country is extremely bad. But now I want to touch on the issue of reforms, which, in fact, in my opinion, there is simply no. I want to touch on the problem of reform ideology.

In this regard, a very interesting comparison with Russia. On the one hand, for a large part of the population of Russia there is a strong belief in the budgetary sphere, in state enterprises, in state regulation of the economy, and. In this respect, in Ukraine, with its citizens' faith in themselves, in their own strength, it has a huge advantage over Russia. Indeed, at the grassroots level, Ukraine has much more easily switched to purely market relations. However, in my opinion, the position of the elites is fundamental. In Russia, the ruling elite, for all its kleptomania, arbitrariness of the siloviki and authoritarianism, understands that the rules of a market economy can not be replaced by arbitrariness and the right of a bureaucrat. And although now in Russia on the eve of the next term of Putin there is a new renaissance of "siloviki", liberals in the Russian government still exist. It is thanks to them, their professionalism and experience that the Russian economy managed to survive the sanctions and pressure of the West.

Despite the increasingly obvious authoritarianism of power, Russia retains an expert environment, there is a real discussion of economic laws, and the populism of the State Duma does not affect the economic bloc. Unfortunately, in Ukraine the situation is an order of magnitude worse.

One of the main reasons for this situation is the lack of professional liberal economists in Ukraine. The situation, I would even say, is exactly the opposite: Ukraine, for all its economic problems, remains an "anarchy" fiefdom in all spheres of political, economic and social life. Practically the entire Ukrainian establishment, from government officials to leading journalists, is exclusively people of "left" convictions. The "Left Idea" in its various variants ruled the ball in Ukraine, and one can hardly expect that in the near future the situation will change.

In the forgotten times of the First Maidan at the end of 2005, on the eve of the parliamentary elections of 2006, the institute, which was then headed by Ksenia Lyapina, analyzed the economic programs of the political parties running for the 2006 elections. It turned out that, and, in general, not surprisingly, all these programs in the part of the economy were one person and contained a standard set of left slogans. Ten years have passed, but politicians have not appeared in the country who are able to offer a different version of the country's development.

Many, including the author of these lines, thought that the second Maidan would change the situation in the country. However, this did not happen, and the reason here is much deeper than just someone's delusions.

Yes, on the one hand, people came to the Maidan against the bureaucratic vertical Yanukovych. The system of looking, taking away property, frank charges in the form of mandatory kickbacks - all this caused a sharp rejection by the Ukrainian business of the team of Viktor Yanukovych.

However, at the same time, the Maidan posed to the country a very serious ideological question: a million people who went to the Maidan decided to change the fate of the country. But how were they going to change it?.

Strictly speaking, there are two ways: you can convince others of your rightness, and can make them act as you want. In the first case, you inevitably need to look for a compromise with them. In the second - you need to look for a coercion tool.

In fact, it was then that the main choice of post-Maidan Ukraine was made. And the choice was coercion!.

One can justify it by the fact that we have a mass of "shovels", that not everyone wants to go to Europe, that for many, patriotism is not good, and so on. But we must understand very well that if you decide to make the dissenters do what you want, you will inevitably need a TOOL. And such a tool is the Ukrainian bureaucracy.

Ukraine in modern history has always been a purely bureaucratic country. Bureaucracy, by the way, is a purely "leftist idea", the logic of the bureaucracy is always based on the primacy of collective (state) interests over personal (individual). Bureaucracy is always the result of a beautiful idea of ??equality, equality, national revival - for it is an instrument for the implementation of ideological projects. The authors of these projects almost always forget that the real bureaucracy has its own rules of the game. "Left" ideologists always think that bureaucracy is a perversion of beautiful ideas. Leon Trotsky in his works in exile tried to prove that the Stalinist bureaucracy is the Thermidor of October. In fact, this is certainly not the case. Any power based on the ideology of a common cause (equality, collectivism, national revival), is always forced to use the bureaucratic system - as an ersatz of citizens' self-activity. And it is not accidental that Bulgakov writes to the "Diaboloid" even at the time of the NEP, when the Leninist bureaucracy seemed weak and insignificant, and the future Stalinist bureaucratic world was something unreal. But even then the world of the Soviet bureaucracy shook with its mystical madness. He carried in himself the germs of the future of total arbitrariness.

But back to Ukraine.

The actual consent of the leaders of the Maidan to the bureaucratic implementation of Maidan's ideas by the hands of the bureaucracy put an end to the realization of the main idea of ??the Maidan - the revival of Ukraine. The bureaucracy will never go on economic reforms - it's her death. Unfortunately, in our country the politicians did not understand that the main problem of the country is not the oligarchs. They are only a consequence, a consequence of the bureaucracy.

There will be no bureaucracy - there will be no oligarchs.

Today Ukraine remains a more bureaucratic country than even Russia. And the country's competitiveness rating very accurately shows this. And the worst thing is that we do not have politicians, economists, or even journalists at the levels of the country (with very, very rare exceptions) who could oppose this terrible trend. We continue to walk amicably "left! ", Safely guaranteeing chaos and devastation.

(To be continued).