Is anti-corruption reform truly our top priority? What plan does Ukraine have for its reconstruction? How can social media strengthen local self-governance?

Olga Lymar, Executive Director of the Reanimation Reform Package Coalition, spoke about these topics in an interview with KyivFM Radio. Listen to the full conversation here. Below is the textual version.

Host Yuliia Hloza: Do you think we are already at the stage of forming a conceptual vision for rebuilding our country? Or, due to the lack of a coherent strategy, is this still a rather vague process? While we have a plan that is very ambitious, spanning 10 years and including 850 projects, it is not a comprehensive strategy.

Olga Lymar, Executive Director of the Reanimation Reform Package Coalition: Let’s take a historical perspective and recall that the state indeed had the idea to create a national recovery strategy. I’d like to emphasize that this recovery was primarily about continuing reforms. In 2022, there was a Presidential Decree, and even a draft strategy was created, involving many working groups. The Reanimation Reform Package Coalition also delegated representatives. This preliminary plan was presented at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Lugano, Switzerland. Although it was supposed to be refined, it has essentially been abandoned and is not being used as a reference point.

If you are referring to the plan with 850 projects, it primarily addresses reconstruction projects—hard infrastructure projects. 

If we’re talking about recovery as the continuation of reforms, I believe the state now has several plans to guide us. One worth mentioning is the Ukraine Facility, a plan developed by the Ukrainian government with input from various stakeholders, including the parliament. It has been approved by the European Commission. The implementation of this plan, which includes periodic reporting, is linked to financial assistance from the EU. Some legislative acts have already been adopted in line with this plan.

Overall, in the next five years or more, the recovery process and the continuation of reforms—which, I’d like to stress, we are not starting from scratch—will inevitably be tied to our integration into the EU. Last year, Ukraine received candidate status, and this year, we officially began negotiations. Currently, roadmaps for the fundamental cluster of reforms are being developed. This cluster encompasses a wide range of political, economic, and financial reforms.

Host Yuliia Hloza: However, the war complicates Ukraine’s situation. I feel that these reforms should apply to the entire sovereign territory of our country, yet more than 20% of Ukraine is currently occupied by the aggressor.

Olga Lymar: Absolutely, the local context must always be taken into account. The experience of war must be reflected in these processes. Civil society organizations emphasize this point strongly, urging international partners to consider it as well. For example, when it comes to elections, this will be a unique process that requires preparation now. We must ensure that they can be conducted democratically in Ukraine.

Host Yuliia Hloza: Olga, are we discussing elections after the war, or elections during martial law?

Olga Lymar: Only after the war, of course. I am not talking about elections during martial law. We have had several discussions, including those we organized, emphasizing that elections cannot be conducted during martial law. Moreover, doing so would not demonstrate any higher level of democracy. On the contrary, holding elections in the current conditions would be dangerous.

Host Yulia Hloza: Let’s return to our main topic, which concerns reforms. When we talk about the recovery of our state, it’s not just about physically rebuilding structures but also about implementing reforms. Considering the recent corruption scandals, it seems to me that anti-corruption reform remains a priority. However, we already have several anti-corruption bodies established since 2014. This raises the question: why, despite all these measures, do we still have systemic abuses, including within government bodies?

Olga Lymar, Executive Director of the Reanimation Package of Reforms Coalition: That’s an interesting question. By the way, regarding reform priorities: judicial reform has always been considered more important than anti-corruption reform.

In reality, if we hadn’t seen any corruption cases, we could have claimed that our anti-corruption agencies and their architecture were ineffective. Unfortunately, corruption exists, not only in Ukraine but in other countries too. I’d even say that the current revelations and court proceedings indicate that the anti-corruption system is working. Whether these changes are systemic or not cannot be easily determined and requires research. I believe we’re at a stage in the anti-corruption reform where we need to study how it is being implemented and how specific recommendations are functioning.

For example, recent scandals involving the Medical-Social Expert Commissions (MSECs) have shown that their reform has been long overdue. The situation has become so critical that now the entire society understands the need for reform. Still, the European integration process and our work on the fundamental cluster will significantly improve systemic processes, including corruption prevention. Preventing corruption is key since it often arises where there are inefficient processes that are easier to bypass with corrupt schemes. We are working on this. As a Ukrainian citizen who pays taxes here, I am as outraged as you are by these issues. But let’s not exaggerate—sometimes, we talk about corruption so much that it seems ubiquitous, although most people, according to surveys, have not encountered it personally.

Host Yulia Hloza: Perhaps people claim not to have encountered corruption because of psychological reasons—they want to present themselves better or avoid being associated with corruption. I’m not sure such surveys can provide a fully relevant perspective in this context.

Olga Lymar: It’s hard to find a perfectly relevant method because we rely on the Corruption Perceptions Index globally. Many analytical centers in Ukraine and worldwide are improving methodologies to measure corruption. For now, we mostly measure perceptions rather than the actual presence of corruption in a country. Naturally, we must address corruption cases and ensure the attention of civil society and journalists. But systemic solutions require deep analytical research.

Host Yulia Hloza: How do corruption risks affect our integration into the EU?

Olga Lymar: I believe our EU integration will not hinge on the presence or absence of specific corruption scandals, especially since corruption exists within the EU itself. Integration will be determined by meeting systemic indicators and passing a series of laws, which can be measured and aligned. It’s crucial that, in fighting corruption, we don’t inadvertently create new problems or copy EU legislation without considering local contexts.

For example, the European Commission required us to adopt a lobbying law. While it made sense in the EU, in Ukraine, it became a tool for persecuting civil society organizations, including anti-corruption groups. This law has since been amended with a softer text, partly thanks to our advocacy, though it remains imperfect. The lesson here is not just to check boxes but to approach reforms thoughtfully, involving all stakeholders—international partners, the EU, the state, and expert civil society organizations.

Host Yulia Hloza: Ukrainian society fears that everything may look perfect on paper, but laws might not be implemented in practice. Has the Coalition accounted for such concerns?

Olga Lymar, Executive Director of the Reanimation Package of Reforms Coalition: Of course. Advocacy for a law or reform doesn’t end with its adoption. The next step is evaluating its effectiveness after a few years. Some of our reforms are now 10 years old, and it’s time to analyze how they work. We are launching projects in this area. Our European integration process, which involves aligning Ukraine’s legislation with the EU’s, gives us a chance to review past decisions.

Host Yulia Hloza: Judicial reform is considered the most critical. Western partners often emphasize its importance. For example, out of 216 corruption cases related to MSECs brought to court in recent years, only two resulted in convictions, and these are still under appeal. How can we comprehensively address issues in the judicial system?

Olga Lymar: It’s a complex problem. Reforming MSECs should be separate from judicial reform, as we cannot rely solely on courts to handle isolated cases. The judiciary faces broader issues, such as an overwhelming number of cases, which prevents timely and fair rulings. Judicial reform is crucial because it’s part of the fundamental cluster reviewed first by the EU. Without it, other reforms won’t progress. Judicial reform will be a focus throughout our European integration journey.

Host Yulia Hloza: Will there be people to implement these reforms and rebuild our country after the war? Recent surveys indicate that many Ukrainians abroad don’t plan to return. For example, a Munich Institute study found that 25% of Ukrainian refugees in Europe don’t intend to return.

Olga Lymar: That’s a challenging and painful issue. At the “Democracy During the War” Forum on November 1, renowned demographer Ella Libanova said, “I hope Ukraine will be home to those who truly want to live here.” Rather than focusing solely on returning refugees, we need to create conditions that make Ukraine a comfortable place to live, using advanced technologies, science, and intellectual potential.

Surveys of Ukrainians abroad often list housing, safety, and access to quality healthcare and education as key factors for returning. These issues need our attention.

Host Yulia Hloza: How can democracy and local self-governance develop during war? While local communities have been vital in resisting the enemy, war also centralizes power.

Olga Lymar, Executive Director of the Reanimation Package of Reforms Coalition: We have significant access to information from the media or other sources. These are tools that can be used to advance democracy during wartime.

For example, public consultations are one such tool. Recently, the Law “On Public Consultations” was signed, stipulating that citizens must be informed in advance about decisions made by the government or parliament. However, the law currently does not apply to members of parliament themselves. We hope that amendments will soon be adopted to extend the scope of this law to include MPs.

Regarding local self-government, many experts who have worked on decentralization reform (considered one of the most successful local government reforms according to the Council of Europe, by the way) believe that at the beginning of 2022, decentralization helped communities respond to the enemy, especially near the front line.

At the same time, the discussion should not focus on centralization or decentralization of power right now but rather on specific steps. Many decisions are still made within communities, and they continue to have significant powers and opportunities. However, we must recognize that the decentralization reform did not take wartime conditions into account. It was largely aimed at enabling communities to develop their capacities, economic potential, and investment attractiveness. Now we understand that communities are in vastly different situations, such as those in the Kharkiv region compared to the Lviv region. Communities in Kharkiv are not as capable or investment-attractive as those in Lviv.

This is where the government must step in to support communities in surviving. Of course, this involves engaging civil society organizations, particularly those that were initially involved in the decentralization reform. The government and parliament need to adopt new laws that will help communities maintain their capacity, even despite the war.