Ukraine’s parliament sent jitters through Brussels this week with the passage of a bill which would strip independence from two anti-corruption bodies – the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office – and would put them under the direct control of a presidentially-appointed role. European establishmentarians were aghast at the bill, with one official calling the bill’s passage “a serious step back.” Voices inside Ukraine, such as the Kyiv Independent, said it was “destroying independence” for investigators. President Volodymyr Zelensky, however, signed the bill, launched and passed primarily by his party, Servant of the People, later that day.
On the surface, from a populist-right perspective, the bill is – absent context – acceptable and should even be supported. After all, “independent” agencies and positions have been used by establishments across Europe to knee-cap populist movements. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico correctly removed “independent” special prosecutor Daniel Lipšic, who had been appointed by his opponents almost explicitly to investigate him and his party (the removed prosecutor had a long history of being opposed to Fico in and out of various governments). And former Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has been the victim of multiple witch-hunts undertaken by “independent” Austrian judicial organizations.
Indeed, there is something inherently undemocratic about the existence of “independent” agencies which get government funds (read: taxpayer dollars) but have to answer to no one. These agencies often open litanies of investigations, leak saucy details to the public, and then – particularly in Austria, though this happens plenty elsewhere – simply close them a few years later, without filing charges and having dragged some unfortunate politician’s reputation through the mud.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member