On November 21, the Kyiv hotel hosted a presentation of the policy paper “Proposals for the Policy of Rehabilitation for People with Health Problems”.

The event was organized by the Agency of Legislative Initiatives with the support of USAID RADA Program: Responsible Accountable Democratic Assembly, implemented by East Europe Foundation.

As of now, the public system of rehabilitation services does not ensure an adequate coverage, which makes access complicated for people in need of such services. This issue requires public attention.

The study examines the capacity of the rehabilitation system to ensure the further implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The purpose of the policy paper is to elaborate proposals for the public policy in the field of rehabilitation of persons with health problems based on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and promote their maximum independence. It focuses on the international and national standards for rehabilitation of persons with disabilities, as well as gaps in Ukrainian legislation and law enforcement practice as regards access to rehabilitation services and auxiliary aids.

Proceeding from the analysis results, the paper suggests possible ways to improve the public policy in this area, outlines the prospects for introducing an alternative system that would be based on the ICF implementation.

The event was attended by around 3o participants, including MPs’ assistants, representatives of the Secretariat of the VRU Committee on Health Care, the Secretariat of the VRU Commissioner for Human Rights, the State Service of Ukraine for War Veterans and Anti-Terrorist Operation Participants, the Institute of Social Technologies, International University of Human Development ‘Ukraine’, eHealth, Clinical Hospital ‘Feofaniya’, and representatives of the public.

Oleksandr Zaslavskyi, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, pointed out that the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, within the framework of the RADA Program, promotes the strengthening of the analytical capacity of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the legislative process. Specifically, the Agency resumed the activity of the European Information and Research Center, which currently operates autonomously preparing policy briefs and responses to MPs’ requests. The Agency for Legislative Initiatives proposes two types of documents for consideration by committees: Policy Papers and Shadow Reports. Shadow Reports are aimed at strengthening the oversight function of committees and focus on analyzing certain laws; Policy Papers are documents that should be considered first and foremost within the policy cycle, prior to the bill itself. The Agency for Legislative Initiatives intends to introduce the practice of consideration of analytical papers that examine the outlined problem, the current policy, its effectiveness and flaws, provide stakeholder analysis and alternative solutions to the problem. Such documents are considered at committees’ meetings, during roundtables involving the broadest number of stakeholders; besides, they are handed out to MPs in the session hall. All these measures are aimed at improving the quality of legislation.

Bohdan Moisa, Coordinator of the analytical division of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, said that the existing rehabilitation system could not effectively respond to current challenges. Moreover, its legal framework does not comply with the international commitments undertaken by Ukraine in 2009 when it ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The World Health Organization (WHO), whose mission carried out an assessment in December 2015, also confirmed that Ukraine’s rehabilitation system did not meet the international standards.

Mr. Moisa elaborated on the groups of people in need of rehabilitation services, outlined problems associated with ascertaining disabilities, and examined the responsible organizations and institutions. Mr. Moisa also covered the topic of availability and diversity of rehabilitation centers, drawing attention to the fact that the lack of such centers affects most people with psychosocial and intellectual disorders. Speaking about positive initiatives, the author mentioned the launching of the pilot project “Creation of a System for Early Intervention Services”, as well as the introduction of professions such as physical rehabilitation physician, physical therapist, and ergotherapist into the Occupational Classification.

Mr. Moisa also elaborated on the international experience of providing rehabilitation services, focusing on the gradual transition from inpatient rehabilitation facilities to service provision at the place of residence and day care facilities. He described the British, Swedish, Czech, Polish and Israeli models of rehabilitation services. Mr. Moisa concluded his presentation with the proposal to adopt the ICF implementation approach proposed by the Ministry of Health while preserving the current achievements of the rehabilitation system for persons with disabilities.

The discussion focused on such issues as financing the provision of quality rehabilitation services; social protection of persons taking care of persons with disabilities (guardians); bias in disability assessment; limited possibilities of the ICF for adequate assessment of disability; staffing schedule of specialists providing rehabilitation services; clarification of the terms “physical rehabilitation”, “social rehabilitation” and “psychological rehabilitation”; and building multidisciplinary teams in rehabilitation institutions.

The round table was organized within the framework of events aimed to support parliamentary reform by the USAID RADA Program in cooperation with the Agency for Legislative Initiatives.

The discussion focused on the following issues:

• Support documents: types and requirements for drafting.
• Role of support documents in the registration of bills.
• Explanatory note to the bill as a gist of the concept of the bill.
• Financial feasibility study: its role, significance, specific features of preparation.

Ihor Kohut, USAID RADA CoP, made an introductory speech, encouraging all participants of the roundtable to a free exchange of views. Mr. Kohut observed:

Presenting the Policy Paper “Proposals for the Policy Concerning Supporting Documents in the Legislative Process”, Mykhailo Koltsov, expert of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, emphasized that the problem of “legislative spam” affected, first and foremost, MPs themselves and the Secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The load on the latter is particularly tough since its work is strictly regulated and there are no additional resources to solve the problem by increasing the staff or by amending regulations.

In the current situation, the most suitable of the several possible solutions to the problem is the one involving improvement of the mechanism of drafting supporting documents, in particular, the cover note. At the moment, it is but a formality and has little impact on the process of the procedural passage of the bill or on the evaluation of the document by various groups of stakeholders. Increase in the number of supporting documents due to additional opinion paper does not improve the situation either; it only worsens the load on the system.

But if we change the role of the cover note, formalize its structure, and introduce checklists in the practice of the Secretariat’s work, it can both improve the situation with a large number of bills and optimize the work of the departments.

The cover note is not intended for lawyers. It is intended for the stakeholders – MPs, civic leaders, and experts – who are not lawyers, and who need an explanation of the practical consequences of enactment of a law.

The main changes in the structure of the cover note stem from its role as a document aimed to clarify the goals and objectives of the draft law. It is supposed to contain: the explanation of its connection with the current policy, estimation of the number of resources required to implement the policy envisaged by the draft law, expected effects of the implementation and assessment of compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, current regulations and international agreements. To implement this suggestion, it is only necessary to make changes to the methodological recommendations for the legislative mechanism in order to spell out the role and structure of the explanatory note. The oversight of compliance with these requirements can be performed via checklists since they make it possible to check documents based on a single structure and can be applied by employees with different levels of qualification.

It is expected that by focusing on the structure and new requirements when preparing the cover note legislative initiative entities will be able to clarify the problems the bill is supposed to resolve, the ways of tackling them, and the consequences of its enforcement. Consequently, the content of the cover note may be the subject of discussion both during the first and second readings, as well as in communication with various groups of stakeholders. This, without a doubt, will help increase confidence in both the legislative process and laws themselves.

On November 15, 2017, the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center hosted a presentation the policy paper on “Proposals Concerning Policy on Conflict of Interests of MPs of Ukraine”.

The event was organized by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives within the framework of the USAID RADA Program: Responsible, Accountable, Democratic Assembly implemented by the East Europe Foundation.

Speakers:

• Svitlana Matviyenko, Chairwoman of the Board of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives;
• Serhiy Leshchenko, MP of Ukraine, Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Cooperation and Implementation of the Anti-Corruption Legislation of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on the Corruption Prevention and Counteraction;
• Ulyana Poltavets, Program Director of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives;
• Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine;
• Oleksandr Lemenov, Senior Expert, RPR Anticorruption Group.

The document focuses on the phenomenon of conflict of interest in the Ukrainian parliament and suggests possible ways to manage conflicts of interest and develop relevant policies. Based on the conducted analysis, it was found that 9% of MPs display signs indicative of a conflict of interest. However, due to the incoherence of legislation, lack of a comprehensible policy concerning conflicts of interest, insufficiency of penalties and inertia of controlling bodies, neither existing conflicts can be resolved, nor new ones can be prevented. The nature of the parliamentary representative function implies the existence of certain conflicts of interest, therefore it is extremely important to prevent conflicts of interest and to ensure the inevitability of punishment for violating the existing rules and conflicts of interest measures through the use of a coherent conflict-of-interest policy.

Ms. Matviienko emphasized that this study was done as a Policy Paper, a standard format for documents prepared within the framework of the RADA Program. The paper offers proposals concerning policies, that is, it suggests specific solutions as to preventing MPs’ conflicts of interests based on the current legislation and proposals for the future in the field of regulation of parliamentary activity as such.

Mr. Leshchenko claims that he has become used to hearing MPs in the session hall blatantly discussing the most effective ways to attract budget funds to the area of their interests. Mr. Leshchenko believes that a Code of Conduct can help avoid corruption problems that keep arising. MPs who are involved in business cannot make decisions in the relevant area.

Mr. Leshchenko argues that this study shows how acute the problem is and how it is settled in different countries of the world. He hopes that after the adoption of the Code of Conduct the Ukrainian parliament will have fewer conflicts of interest. It is better to prevent them than to spend money to fight their consequences. The present study will contribute to the elimination of conflicts of interest.

Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine, emphasized the importance of the study that draws attention to the permanent violations of conflict-of-interest principles, focusing on the precedence of private interests over public ones in the actions of some politicians. Mr. Yurchyshyn argues that Ukraine is gradually moving towards solving the conflict-of-interests issue. The importance of this problem lies in the fact that combating the effects of corruption is rather complicated since corruption schemes remain in place, they can easily be resuscitated and re-channeled. It is more effective to prevent such situations by setting rules that inhibit corruption. Also, Mr. Yurchyshyn emphasized that in the realities of Ukraine the Code of Conduct would only be effective if major penalties were imposed for violations.

According to Oleksandr Lemenov, Senior Expert, RPR Anticorruption Group, despite the anti-corruption regulations integrated into Ukrainian legislation since 2014, neither the specialized anti-corruption institutions nor MPs can settle this problem in their activity. Mr. Lemenov drew attention to the fact that very often senior officials did not even understand the very essence of the principle of conflict of interest. That is why it is extremely important that MPs should study the paper in detail.

The paper was presented by MP Serhiy Leshchenko, Svitlana Matviienko, Chairwoman of the Board of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, and Ulyana Poltavets, author of the study, Program Director of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives.

Preparation of the analytical materials is a part of a project implemented by the NGO Agency of Legislative Initiatives with the support of USAID RADA Program: Responsible Accountable Democratic Assembly, implemented by East Europe Foundation.

The opening speech was delivered by Jaan Reinhold, ‎Estonia’s Ambassador-at-Large for the Eastern Partnership, and Hennadiy Maksak, Co-Chair of the EaP CSF Steering Committee, the alumnus of the Ukrainian School of Political Studies.

Hennadiy Maksak emphasized that the 9 years of the Forum’s work confirmed that it was an effective instrument for a multilateral dialogue between the EU, the governments of the Eastern Partnership countries and civil society. Public activists significantly contribute to overcoming regional challenges: fighting corruption, promoting respect for human rights and defending democratic values.

The first day of the Annual Assembly was devoted to outlining the agenda of the entire event. The greatest attention was paid to the cooperation of governments and civil society in the Eastern Partnership countries, which was discussed at the first plenary session. During the session, a number of issues were raised: the prospects of regional and economic integration; media and misinformation in the media; digital instruments as a means of democratic governance. Marian Lupu, Co-President for the Eastern component of the Euronest PA, Kakha Gogolashvili, member of the Steering Committee of the EaP CSF, and Diana Jablonska, representative of the EC Directorate General for Neighborhood and Enlargement Negotiation, expressed their opinions on mechanisms to strengthen and broaden civil society involvement in policy development in the Eastern Partnership region.

Working groups discussed the achievements of all national platforms of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum, as well as the goals set in “20 Key Deliverables for 2020 for the Eastern Partnership”.

The first day culminated in the adoption of the Declaration of Civil Society. However, the Ukrainian and Georgian delegations opposed certain paragraphs of the Declaration concerning the presence of independent Russian media in the media sphere of the partner countries. Since the rules of procedure did not allow to introduce changes on the voting day, the consensus was reached via a separate opinion to the Declaration added by the delegations of Ukraine and Georgia: “Given the Russian-Georgian conflict and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the Russian occupation of the territories of the region and the enormous influence of the Russian media in the hybrid warfare, and taking into account the regulations of our countries, our delegations insist that the relevant paragraph should not apply to Georgia and Ukraine.”

The second day began with the ceremony of EaP CSF Pavel Sheremet Journalism Award. Last year, the award went to Mykola Semena, and this year the winner is the imprisoned Azerbaijani journalist Afghan Mukhtarli, who was kidnapped in Georgia during protests. Afterwards, representatives of the EaP CSF Steering Committee Hennadiy Maksak and Haykuhi Harutyunyan presented the adopted Civil Society Declaration upheld by 130 organizations from partner countries.

In his speech, Johannes Hahn, Commissioner for European Neighborhood Policy & Enlargement Negotiations, mentioned the achievements of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova in fulfilling their commitments under the Association Agreements and outlined plans for cooperation with other partner countries. The Commissioner also noted that “20 Key Deliverables for 2020 for the Eastern Partnership” could be viewed as a roadmap aimed at achieving the set goals and observed that the European Union and civil society had high mutual expectations: civil society had its vision of cooperation discussed at the Brussels Summit, while the European Union expected the maximum awareness of the population of partner countries, as well as close cooperation with a wide range of European institutions.

After several parallel discussions that were thematically distributed by working groups, the Ukrainian National Platform of the EaP CSF presented a study entitled “Ukraine in the Coordinates of the Eastern Partnership 2017-2020”, where UNP experts assessed the relevance and feasibility of the 20 deliverables and identified the priorities for Ukraine. The discussion was attended by Hennadiy Maksak, National Coordinator of the UNP, Hanna Hopko, Head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and Bogusław Gertruda, Team Leader for Ukraine, Eastern Partnership Bilateral Division, European External Action Service. All the participants of the discussion agreed that without active participation and support of civil society, none of the reforms, including medical, pension and educational reforms, could succeed. The participants identified the key areas of sectoral cooperation, i.e. strengthening the energy component and security of the EU’s eastern borders.

The second day of the Annual Assembly concluded in the election of EaP CSF national platform coordinators and EU EaP CSF coordinators. The Ukrainian delegation unanimously elected Hennadiy Maksak Ukrainian National Platform Coordinator of EaP CSF.

The last day was devoted to discussing the EaP CSF strategy for 2018-2020, namely the importance of its advocacy function and organizational reform. However, because of the lack of a quorum, none of the documents was adopted, therefore the Working Groups will work on them during the year and vote remotely.

On November 1, 2017, the Shadow Report “Memory Policy Reform: Interim Results of Enforcement of the ‘Decommunization Laws’” was presented within the framework of the roundtable on “Legislation on Condemnation of the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) Totalitarian Regimes in Ukraine: Enforcement Status”.

The event was organized by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives in co-operation with the Subcommittee on Decommunization of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy and Justice within the framework of the USAID RADA Program: Responsible, Accountable, Democratic Assembly implemented by the East Europe Foundation.

De-communization is one of the Ukrainian reforms implemented thanks to the joint work of the public and the legislative and executive branches of government. The initiators and supporters of the law held a lot of public discussions and roundtables in the specialized committees of the Verkhovna Rada, examined the expert opinions of commissions consisting of historians, ethnographers, archivists, sociologists and other researchers. Such programs as “Open Archives” and “Leaving the USSR” (the study of the experience of Central and Eastern European countries), launched by the Center for Research of Liberation Movement as far back as in 2010, helped to formulate proposals for policy and eventually made up its basis. National memory issues were included in one of the sections of the Coalition Agreement, signed by the parliamentarians of the VIII convocation, as well as in the Action Plan for Implementation of the Program of Activities of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Coalition Agreement for 2015, Plan on Legislative Support to Reforms in Ukraine and Action Plan of the Cabinet of Ministers for 2016.

In late 2016, the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance, the central executive body for implementing the policy of national memory, published the first results of decommunization in Ukraine. The Verkhovna Rada adopted 13 decrees on the renaming of settlements and toponymic sites in settlements. All in all, 52,480 objects were renamed (51,493 streets, 987 settlements (including 32 towns) and 25 districts) and 2,389 monuments (including 1,320 Lenin monuments) were dismantled. There are still 2 oblasts and one district to be renamed. Oblasts can be renamed only by introducing changes to the Constitution of Ukraine.

The Shadow Report “Memory Policy Reform: Interim Results of Enforcement of the ‘Decommunization Laws’” summarizes the interim results of the decommunization reform and highlights the issues that need to be further elaborated. The document examines the objectives of the reform (what was planned and what has been implemented at the legislative level); analyzes the reform planning at the level of Parliament and Government; discusses the principles for renaming toponyms and dismantling monuments; refers to the stages and persons who perform decommunization in Ukraine; provides official statistics on the implementation of the tasks within the decommunization package; examines the reform stakeholders, public perception of the policy and litigation; and suggests steps that need to be taken to complete the reform.

Svitlana Matviienko, Chairwoman of the Board of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, emphasized that reform in the field of memory policy is one of the key humanitarian reforms that can change the fundamental ideological principles of Ukrainian society.

Anna Oliynyk, Analyst of the Center for Research of Liberation Movement, member of the National Remembrance Policy group of the Reanimation Package of Reforms, focused on the steps that need to be taken to make the decommunization reform comprehensive. Thus, in the legislative area, it is necessary to adopt the social part of the amendments to the law on the rehabilitation of victims of political repression; to adopt a law on the principles of national remembrance policy; to adopt a separate law to settle the issue of celebrating official public holidays; to amend the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Cultural Heritage” in order to reconcile it with the decommunization laws. It is important to complete the work on the Branch State Archive of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. Ms. Oliynyk also pointed out the need to complete the establishment of museum institutions such as the Museum of Monumental Propaganda of the USSR and the Maidan Museum. Another critically important element is an outreach campaign to promote and make known new names among the public.

Volodymyr Vyatrovych, Head of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance, emphasized that the success of decommunization was due to the efforts of the public because the potential, resources, and funds of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance would not be enough to carry out such a large-scale reform.

The roundtable participants discussed a wide range of issues related to the state policy in the area of decommunization; examined the status of enforcement of the Law of Ukraine “On Condemnation of the Communist and National-Socialist (Nazi) Totalitarian Regimes in Ukraine and Prohibition of Propaganda of Their Symbols”; analyzed measures aimed at raising public awareness of the crimes committed by representatives of the communist and/or national-socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes; analyzed alternatives of the state policy in the area of decommunization; and discussed the ways to improve the legislation on condemnation of the communist and national-socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes in Ukraine.

The conference, organized by the Ukrainian School of Political Studies in co-operation with the Mirror Weekly, was designed as a platform for exchanging views and an open discussion on the socio-political situation in the liberated and occupied territories of Donbas, on the issues of return and reintegration of the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, management of the de-occupied territories, and development of a new economic model of Donbas.

Svitlana MATVIIENKO, Chairwoman of the Board of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, addressed the guests and participants of the conference with a welcoming speech, pointing out to the fact that only through the large horizontal networks could things change in our country.

The conference began with a report by Iryna BEKESHKINA, Director of the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, senior researcher at the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, on the topic “Socio-Political Public Sentiment in the Liberated and Occupied Territories of Donbas: Expectations and Priorities”. Ms. Bekeshkina focused on the specific features of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and used sociological data to show why the concept of Novorossiya is not viable. In particular, she emphasized that the stereotypes concerning the uniform nature the Southeast are wrong since Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts strikingly differ from the rest of the region. The speaker elaborated on the attitude of Ukrainians to different solutions to the issue of returning the occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and highlighted the difficulties of reintegration of these territories, given the entrepreneurial inertia of the region.

Discussion panel 1: Occupied territories of Donbass – return or farewell? The panel focused on issues of reintegration of the occupied territories of Donbas; a possibility of their separation; feasibility of a purely political way of settling of the problem of Donbas de-occupation without resorting to military force; and whether the possible deployment of UN peacekeepers can contribute to such settling.

Oksana SYROID, Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, observed that to discuss the issue of return of the occupied territories we should have a clear idea of our vision of victory in this context. Ukraine does not seek to defeat Russia through military means, but by returning only the occupied Donetsk and Luhansk regions we will surrender Crimea, and in no way is it a victory. For Ukraine, a way to return its territories is by strengthening our armed forces. It is absolutely unacceptable to return these territories at the expense of a loss of sovereignty.

Ella LIBANOVA, Director of the Institute for Demography and Social Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, emphasized that the politician seriously speaking about “cutting off” Crimea and Donbas is suicidal, because this variant is unacceptable even to those who are not against it today. This solution is a compromise that Ukrainian society will never accept. Also, Ms. Libanova elaborated on the cost of returning the territories, noting that Ukraine, already actually living without the ORDLO territories, managed to adjust to the torn ties. Donbas development will require both significant financial infusions and saturation with the new workforce since the most competitive residents of the region were the first to leave it and are not going to come back.

Heorhiy TUKA, Deputy Minister for Temporarily Occupied Territories and Internally Displaced Persons of Ukraine, drew attention to the fact that it is necessary to counter the “separation infection” – i.e. the idea that we should not return the occupied territories of Donbas, which permeated entire Ukrainian society. Instead, we should focus on the opportunities and initiatives that help engage young people from the ORDLO in nationwide events. In addition, Mr. Tuka believes that Ukraine can rely on the European Union’s economic assistance in the development of Donbas.

Discussion panel 2: What should be the model of administration in the de-occupied territories during the transition period? The panel focuses on the issue of the temporary administration system in the formerly occupied territories during their reintegration, distribution of powers during this period and its duration. It raises the issues of a special self-governance regime in the de-occupied territories, which is enshrined in the Constitution, and of the risks this measure entails.

Viktor MUSIYAKA, Professor at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, elaborated on five possible scenarios for de-occupation of Donbas and focused on the threats posed by certain provisions of the Minsk agreements, equating fulfillment of the Minsk agreements to planting a bomb under Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Olga AYVAZOVSKA, Chairwoman of the Board, Coordinator of the election and political programs of the Civic Network OPORA, Representative of Ukraine in the political subgroup of the Trilateral Contact Group on Donbas. Ms. Ayvazovska observed that we should first of all deal with the fundamental question of what we are after: people or territory; what is of value to us: human rights, the Constitution, international standards; is there a political consensus within the country as regards returning of the occupied territories of Donbas and Crimea.

Another important thing is refraining from generalizations since the generalization is an adversary of truth; and when we talk about the people staying in the occupied territories, claiming that they are ignorant, inert and incapable of commerce, we betray them.

Ms. Ayvazovska paid special attention to the need to resort to various platforms and means to solve the problem of de-occupation, otherwise, the process will fall apart.

Yegor FIRSOV, Head of the Alternative Initiative, presented a detailed plan for administration of the de-occupied territories during the transition period, emphasizing the need to establish military civilian administrations for the first three years to ensure law and order and help come back to the norm.

The moderator of the first and second panels was Serhiy RAKHMANIN, first deputy editor-in-chief of the Mirror Weekly. Ukraine.

Third discussion panel: What should be the new economic model of Donbas? The panel focused on the potential first steps towards the economic reconstruction of the de-occupied territories, restoration of economic ties and infrastructure; as well as on sources of financing for reconstruction of the de-occupied territories.

Alexander PASKHAVER, Advisor to the President of Ukraine, outlined the economic issues Ukraine is bound to face when rebuilding the de-occupied territories. Mr. Paskhaver suggested creating free economic zones, like the ones at one time established in China with their special laws, preferential terms for investors and restrictions on migration for the population.

Serhiy TARUTA, MP of Ukraine, also supported the idea of creating a free economic zone in Donbas. Mr. Taruta emphasized the need to create a strategy for the development of the de-occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. The strategy is key, then a team should be selected based on the strategy, and money should be found for the team. We should not ignore natural resources, because only an idiot will back off from turning them into opportunities. Besides, Mr. Taruta noted that the future of Donbas depended on human resources.

Oleg USTENKO, Executive Director at the Bleyzer Foundation, gave special attention to the impossibility of solving the Donbas problem while maintaining the status quo. He warned against focusing on commodity markets and outdated economic models. The speaker pointed out that the most important issue is the investment attractiveness of the region for investors and introduction of fiscal privileges. One of the ways to attract investors can be increased sensitivity – i.e. resolving conflicts in London and Stockholm arbitration.

The moderator of this panel was Yuliia MOSTOVA, editor-in-chief of the Mirror Weekly. Ukraine, who summed up the discussion and observed that we need a plan to construct the future:

Do the objective laws of nature and human development have an impact on the state as a complex social system? What are socioeconomic and political conditions necessary to build a functioning democracy in the country? What are the role of the army in democracy? What is the role of civil society and the level of the political culture of a voter in democracy as a feedback system to achieve the goal of public administration: to ensure freedoms, rights and high standards of living for ordinary citizens in the country? – these are the issues discussed with the School participants by Ihor SMESHKO, Head of the NGO Strength and Honor, former Head of the Security Service of Ukraine (2003-2005).

Discussion of the participants of the Ukrainian School of Political Studies on local development as a driver of transformations in the country with Andriy SADOVYI, Lviv Mayor.

People tend to believe that politics and morality are incompatible each other. This tradition dates back to Machiavelli. The polar opposite position is that of Kant: people in their behavior must be guided by moral motives rather than practical needs (moral imperative). Not every successful policy is highly moral, but any immoral policy is devastating. Ukrainian realities provide a lot of illustrations of the devastating effects of immoral power. Is moral politics possible in Ukraine? Can politics be moral? Should we talk about a moral movement? – these are the topics raised by Myroslav MARYNOVYCH, Vice-Rector for University Mission, Ukrainian Catholic University, in his conversation with the School participants.

The Maidan of 2013-2014 was aimed at an anti-oligarchic revolution – a leap from an oligarchic state with limited access to a democratic state with wide access. What was the purpose of the Maidan of Dignity of 2013-2014? What is happening in Ukraine – a social revolution, civil war as a war of the middle class against Ukrainian oligarchs, or Putin’s aggression? – Taras VOZNIAK, Editor-in-Chief of the Ї journal discussed these issues with the participants of the Ukrainian School of Political Studies.

What was and what was not the Ukrainian liberation movement of the twentieth century? Who were its heroes? Why was it mythologized? Why is its legacy attracting so much attention today? – the School participants talked over these topics with Ruslan ZABILY, Director of the National Memorial Museum of Victims of the Occupation Regimes ‘Prison at Łąckiego Street’ (Tyurma na Lontskoho) in Lviv.

We live in the 21st century when women and men in Ukraine’s democratic society enjoy equal rights and opportunities, equal access to political life, equal pay and professions of their choice. Is this myth or reality in modern Ukraine? Empirical tendencies manifest deepening differences between women and men who enjoy the same rights de jure and de facto. What progress has been made and what are the ongoing challenges in the context of achieving gender equality in Ukraine? – the School participants had a chance to discuss these issues with Kateryna RYABIKO, Project Coordinator, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR).

Money in politics is a necessary component of any democratic process that helps express political support, political participation, and actively compete in elections. At the same time, political funding also bears specific risks for any democratic and economic system. What are the issues at the crossroads of funding rules for political parties, public procurement procedures, role of politically aware persons and declaration of assets and revenues of political and civil servants? What measures do relevant authorities undertake to combat corruption in these areas and what mechanisms can be used to facilitate these efforts? – Dr. Marcin Walecki, Head of the Democratization Department, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), discussed these topics with the members of the Ukrainian School of Political Studies.

How should modern parties function? What is a modern election campaign like in the era of social media? What can we learn from the latest elections in the East and West? Is there a chance to create large-scale parties or are niche parties the thing of the future? What awaits Ukraine with politics again dominated by oligarchs? How can one organize an ideal campaign? – the School participants reflected on these questions with Jacques MONACSH, a former MP of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, an associate partner of the consulting company GKSV.

Uliana Suprun, Acting Minister of Healthcare, is the 21st head of this sector (since September 2016), who, for the first time since independence, has made attempts at radical change (ULIANACARE). Why do significant changes seem to be possible for the first time now? What is the current healthcare system in Ukraine like in terms of who and when pays for it and what he receives in return? What are the risks associated with the positions held by the parties to the conflict? Is there a “white book” on the development of the healthcare system in Ukraine? What is better: 5 years of change and mistakes or 50 years of “stability” and sabotage? Is there a separate “Ukrainian” way as regards the healthcare system in Ukraine? How can we make up our mind concerning which side to take? As a matter of fact, are there only two irreconcilable opposing sides? What do we lack to make an informed choice? – the participants of the Ukrainian School of Political Studies discussed these subjects with Oleh PETRENKO, Deputy Director General for Strategic Development of the ISIDA Clinic, USPS alumnus.

What is the current state of Ukrainian economy? What is the position of Ukraine on the global economic map? Do we have a potential for development? What are the conditions for reaching an economy of $ 1 trillion and what are the consequences for the public? – the School participants discussed these questions with Anatoliy AMELIN, Director of Economic Programs of the Ukrainian Institute of the Future, USPS alumnus.

Town Hall Meetings provide a platform for competent and effective discussion of any specific issues of public interest; it is a tool for ensuring citizens’ participation in governance. Town Hall Meetings are intended to highlight the role of public voices in the decision-making process by giving policy-makers opportunities to receive feedback from the public on key public issues.

DoTeBe TV channel on the Town Hall Meeting in Volnovakha organized by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives involving representatives of the youth centers of Donetsk region, young people of Donetsk region, Dmytro Lubinets, MP, and Oleksandr Yarema, Deputy Minister of Youth and Sports.

The event was organized by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives together with the Interns’ League and the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine on the initiative of Dmytro Lubinets, MP of Ukraine, in the framework of the Model District Project, supported by the USAID Rada Program: Responsible Accountable Democratic Assembly, implemented by the East Europe Foundation.

The discussion took place in the Town Hall Meeting format, which implies competent and efficient discussion of any specific issues of public interest and serves as a tool for citizen participation in governance. Town Hall Meetings are intended to highlight the role of the public voice in the policy decision-making process by providing feedback from the public on key issues of public interest.

During the event in Volnovakha, we piloted a web app for holding Town Hall Meetings, developed by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives. This web app is designed to facilitate handling information both during the process of discussion, and during processing and analysis of data. Information is better structured and easier to perceive, which improves the level of discussion. The web app helps you quickly process and display voting results on monitors; it also summarizes discussion results in a download-friendly format for their further analysis and processing.

The event was attended by more than a hundred representatives of Donetsk oblast youth centers, representatives of the towns of Nikolske, Mangush, Dobropillya, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, Slovyansk and other towns of Donetsk oblast, students, and activists.

Oleksandr Zaslavskyi, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, emphasized the advantages of the Town Hall Meeting format compared to other formats of public gatherings:

Dmytro Lubinets, MP of Ukraine, said that the idea of addressing the youth is really a proper one. Because it is young people who will develop Donetsk region and influence the whole of Ukraine. It is appropriate that changes and initiatives should come from the youth on the ground; they are much better aware of their needs than MPs. Often MPs vote for a decision without clearly understanding how it will work and without understanding the problems of people who will then fulfil these decisions. The Town Hall Meeting format makes it possible to directly hear the opinion of people and make it known to decision-makers who have to vote.

What is the main problem of the events spawned in 2014? The problem is that nobody ever tried to develop civil society, public organizations, or youth movements in Donetsk region.

The example of young people working in “I am Volnovakha” fund demonstrates how by developing themselves they develop their town and region as a whole. The increase in the number of such towns, active involvement of youth, and development of civil society will contribute to the advancement of Donetsk region and the whole of Ukraine.

Oleksandr YAREMA, Deputy Minister of Youth and Sport of Ukraine, emphasized the importance of establishing partnership relations with civil society. Only through such cooperation can we build something reliable, durable, and at the same time really interesting and needed for young people. A youth center should be a friendly space. It should work when young people need it; it should generate interesting ideas and initiatives that would attract young people, and make young people feel at home there.

The slogan of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives is “Think and act ahead of time”, and the Agency is ahead of time working to establish communication between MPs and civil society, which provides a solid foundation for further understanding and cooperation.

The most important thing is to strengthen horizontal relationships. The youth of all regions has to meet in different formats, on different platforms, and in different venues. It is important that the country develop, move ahead, and establish a better understanding between young people. It is very important that youth spaces become growth points for the region spawning new youth initiatives, new organizations, new ideas, points of view, etc.

Participants of the Town Hall Meeting “Strategies the for Development of Youth Policy in Donetsk Region” discussed two issues: 1) institutionalization of youth centers, 2) organization of communication between youth centers of Ukraine.

When discussing the institutionalization of youth centers, the participants reviewed four scenarios: the first one involved creation of a municipal youth center (in the youth sector); the second ran on the establishment of a youth center under an NGO with financing from the local budget; the third scenario implied the creation of a youth center as a structural subdivision of an existing municipal educational, cultural, etc. institution; the fourth scenario was about setting a youth center by developing and implementing a project (based on a public initiative).

The results of the voting were as follows: the first scenario scored 19% of votes; the second amounted to 47%; the third scored 30%; the fourth numbered 4%. Thus, almost half of the participants of the discussion chose the option of creating a youth center under an NGO with financing from the local budget.

Discussing the problem of organizing communication between youth centers of Ukraine, the participants reviewed 4 scenarios, the first of which implied establishment of a coordination council under the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine; the second suggested creation of an all-Ukrainian public organization of employees and activists of youth centers; the third was about establishing a professional communication network based on an Internet platform, website (volunteer initiative); the fourth involved creation of the institution entitled National Youth Center functioning as an organizational and methodological center of the network.

After the discussion, the participants voted in the following way: the first scenario scored 2%, the second scored 16%, the third amounted to 59%, and the fourth nembered 23%. Thus, more than half of the participants of the discussion preferred the third option, which involves the establishment of a professional communication network based on an Internet platform, website (volunteer initiative).

The results of town hall meetings carry no legal weight. The decisions approved within this discussion will be implemented by Mr Lubinets within his powers and capabilities as an MP.