Accountability and control of political party funding may soon be restored. The draft laws on this issue were submitted by the Cabinet of Ministers and MPs on the initiative of the first deputy chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Oleksandr Korniyenko.

This is already the third iteration of the introduction of state financing of parties and control over their finances. The first attempt took place back in 2008. At that time, the Agency for Legislative Initiatives was one of the organisations that promoted the idea of state financing of parties and effective control over their receipts and expenditures.

Unfortunately, 15 years ago, the majority of political forces did not accept such an idea, contenting themselves with opaque oligarchic financing. Unwillingness to be accountable and populist rhetoric slowed everything down.

But why is reporting needed at all? The general logic of state financing of parties and control over their finances is that it can:

• reduce the influence of big capital (that is, individual private donors and industrial and financial groups) on political parties and, accordingly, on the adoption of political decisions;
• make the financing of political parties transparent and strengthen control over party finances by the state;
• provide conditions for the development of new political parties, fair and transparent interparty competition.

Ukrainian parties returned to financing and control for the second time in 2015. It was part of a broader reform to fight corruption. The Ukrainian public and influential international organisations, such as the OSCE, the Venice Commission, and GRECO, supported the reform.

A special body was created – the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), which was supposed, in particular, to administer the budget financing of parliamentary parties and control the activities of all parties, collecting and checking reports on income and expenses. In case of detection of violations, administrative and, in some cases, criminal liability could be imposed. If a violation concerned the parliamentary parties, NACP had the authority to stop funding from the state budget.

The second attempt to introduce party financing and reporting proved more successful. Money from the state budget began to flow to the parties in 2016 and continues to flow to this day. However, reporting was not such a continuous process – it was mandatory from the fall of 2016 until the spring of 2020, that is, for three and a half years.

And then, the COVID-19 pandemic started. The Verkhovna Rada allowed the parties not to submit reports for the quarantine period. Because of this, it is impossible to control the parties’ activities to detect violations and questionable contributions.

This step seemed logical at one time because the coronavirus pandemic complicated the work of many bodies – both party and state. It was more difficult for them to obtain the documents necessary for reporting and organising this process.

But already in 2021, it became apparent that society had adapted to the pandemic, the work of both state and non-state bodies improved, but control over funds was not renewed.

Parliamentary parties received funds but didn’t have to report on them. They were not forbidden to do this, but they were not obliged either.

Parties could voluntarily report, but this option did not become popular. Large parties, with a few exceptions, did not submit reports. If any parties did report, they were usually small parties that had [almost] no expenses and income. Therefore, the problem of uncontrolled financing of parliamentary parties was not solved.

Talks about renewing reporting and control were cut short in February 2022. In March 2022, Verkhovna Rada relaxed the reporting requirements of legal entities: reports could be submitted or not submitted, liability for non-submission/late submission was abolished, and authorised bodies could conduct or not conduct audits of reports. There were objective reasons for this – part of the documentation was destroyed, and banks and control bodies had significant interruptions in their work.

Parties have the status of legal entities, so these rules also apply to them. This means that NACP could neither check party reports nor impose liability on the party.

Additional relaxations were created, common to all legal entities during martial law, in addition to specific relaxations established specifically for parties during quarantine.

After a year and a half of martial law, a new demand for party accountability appeared in society. So there were registered two draft laws to resolve this issue.

Its main focus is on detailing the party financing mechanism and possible party expenses, but in general, the draft law is quite versatile and provides for:

1. Limitation of contributions to party support through related legal entities and non-profit organisations, in particular, to limit indirect influence;
2. Limitation of the total amount of the contribution at the level of 20% of its total aggregate income for the last five years (to avoid financing by fictitious persons);
3. Separately, it is allowed to finance the involvement of persons with disabilities in parties;
4. The priority areas of party financing have been determined;
5. Prohibited types of expenses financed from the state budget have been established;
6. The system of distribution of state budget funds between parties is changing;
7. COVID-19 relaxations for party reporting are going to be cancelled.

This draft law is more comprehensive in terms of restoring reporting. It provides:

1. Reduction of the percentage barrier that a party must overcome in elections to receive funding from 5 to 3%, which should facilitate the development of smaller parties.
2. Martial law reporting exemptions that apply to all legal entities will no longer apply to parties.
3. If the party has state funding, its reports for previous periods (from 2020) must be submitted by 90 days after the date of entry into force of this law.
4. If the party does NOT have state funding, its reports for previous periods must be submitted by 120 days after the date of entry into force of this law.
5. Reports for these earlier periods may be in an annual format, and quarterly reports should resume in the future.
6. The NACP must verify these reports and reports voluntarily submitted during martial law within 60 days from the date of submission or the date of entry into force of the law.
7. Parties are released from responsibility if they cannot provide information due to force majeure circumstances related to hostilities (destruction, damage or unavailability due to occupation – documents or computers). Force majeure must be documented.
8. The register of party reporting resumes.

If we compare these two draft laws, the task of restoring reporting and control is better performed by draft law No. 9419-1.

Draft law No. 9419 in its current version will not lead to the resumption of reporting because martial law is currently in effect. Therefore parties will be subject to general relaxations for reporting that apply to all legal entities.

Draft law No. 9419 cancels only the COVID-19 relaxations. In addition, it does not define any transitional norms and rules for submitting reports for previous periods, nor does it consider the limitations of martial law.

Transitional provisions and cancellation of COVID-19 and martial law relaxations are in draft law No. 9419-1.

Although draft law No. 9419 does not restore party reporting, it can improve the general mechanism of state financing. Still, its current version contains part of unfinished norms that do not have real implementation mechanisms or appear to be unnecessary.

In general, draft laws No. 9419 and No. 9419-1 do not contradict each other too much. Therefore, it will be interesting to observe their consideration process because they are alternatives. Both draft laws have quite promising initiators – the Cabinet of Ministers for No. 9419 and the First Deputy Chairman of the VRU with the support of several factions and groups for No. 9419-1.

So, there is a reasonable prospect of restoring the accountability of political parties, especially those that receive state funding. Control over how they spend these funds can finally be restored.

At the same time, it is essential to avoid making mistakes made in the previous period. Most recently, on June 6, 2023, the Accounts Chamber’s report on the audit of state financing of parties in 2016-2019 was released, which covers three out of three and a half years of total control and reporting on party finances. The conclusion of this report is quite sad:

“The National Agency on Corruption Prevention has not ensured effective management, productive, economical, effective and legal use of state budget funds allocated for leadership and management in the field of corruption prevention and financing political parties’ statutory activities”.

Party financing lacks performance indicators, making it difficult for the Audit Chamber to evaluate relevant budget programs. Therefore, assessing the effectiveness of using UAH 1.5 billion to finance parties was impossible. Control over how money was spent on party financing by the NACP was complicated due to shortcomings in the legislation, which the NACP still needs to correct.

Unfortunately, neither draft law No. 9419 nor No. 9419-1 take into account parts of the recommendations of the Accounting Chamber. For example, the recommendation regarding “determining the reporting of local organisations of political parties on the spending of state funding and the crediting of state funding to separate accounts of local organisations to improve control over the targeted use of these funds” was not considered.

During the elections, political parties must learn how to resist cyber threats. Therefore, the Agency of Legislative Initiatives in partnership with Cybexer Technologies (Estonia) on July 9 held a training on “Upcoming Elections – Avoiding Risks in Cyber” in Kyiv for representatives of communications departments of parties, digital marketing departments of parties, information technologies and security departments of parties, as well as party members who are running for parliament during this election.

“Securing free and fair elections has become a fundamental pillar of a functioning democracy. The EU will continue to support Ukraine by reinforcing its legislative framework, strategy and coordination mechanisms that are in line with EU legislation and best practices, particularly with the EU Directive on security of network and information systems (NIS Directive)”, – summarized the Head of the Support Group for Ukraine at the European Commission Peter Wagner.

During the training, participants learned the best way to protect company information systems from manipulation, how to raise awareness of party members about targeted cyber breaches, such as phishing attacks and advanced persistent threats (APT), fake news, leaking, and ransomware.

In addition, each party representative has undergone individual online training about digital literacy and has completed a digital test that can identify areas of cyber risk in different categories, such as personal attitude, knowledge about technology, exposure to social media and organizational culture. As a result of testing, participants received recommendations on how to protect themselves and their party from specific cyber threats.

“Independently of our jobs, age or level of responsibility, we all need some technological literacy at the individual level, if we want to function safely in today’s digitally dependent society and to make sure that we don’t create risks to it by your behavior,” – said the Executive Vice President of the Estonian company for providing countermeasures against cyber-threats Cybexer Technologies Merle Maigre.

Reference information:

As a follow-up to the EU-Ukraine Summit statement of 2018, the European Union has launched an action in Ukraine to strengthen the capacity of the key participants of the electoral process. The training was conducted following the EU launch of a project “Support to Cybersecurity of Parliamentary Elections” in Ukraine.

Party Innovations Hub is an initiative of International IDEA and Ukrainian school of political studies, Agency for Legislative Initiatives’ project.

Oleksandr Iakymenko, Program Coordinator for Ukraine, International IDEA, told about the importance of Party Innovation Hub, which is the answer to the challenges of global processes, in particular, the crisis of representation – the gap between voters’ needs and their elected representatives’ activity. Oleksandr stressed that, on the one hand, voters should better communicate their needs and aspirations; however, on the other hand, political parties should better listen to their voters and respond to their expectations. Party Innovation Hub is focused on the innovative communication and work technologies, both with voters and within the political parties.

Svitlana Matviienko, Chairwoman of the Board, Agency for Legislative Initiatives, told about the necessity and importance of political education, stimulation of women’s participation in political process, and the development of an effective communication model. Svitlana drew attention to the fact that party digitalization helps to build intraparty democracy, transparency and accountability of parties. It also helps in democratic consolidation.

Yevhen Barshchevskyi, Coordinator of Public Consulation Program at National Democratic Institute, told the participants of the Party Innovation Hub about the system of conducting public consultations “Your Opinion” (“Vasha dumka”), which gives political parties, and NGO networks the opportunity to deliver information and receive responses via online SMS-voting or voting on the site; as well as the resource “CiviCRM”  – a system for monitoring relationships and interaction both within the party and in communication with voters.

Yulia Reshitko, Communications Manager of CHESNO Movement, and Igor Feshchenko, Analyst on political finances of CHESNO Movement, presented Party Innovation Hub participants the tools that help political parties gain competitive advantage in the political debates. For example, PolitHUB is the base of politicians and parties that have at least once participated in national or local elections since 1998. The resources gathered data from the Central Election Commission, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, local councils, party websites, National Agency for Prevention of Corruption, party archives and media archives.

Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, Chief Executive Officer at Transparency International Ukraine, discussed the openness of political parties with the participants of the Party Innovation Hub.

Why openness and accountability are essential for political parties? Which are the key audiences for political parties? Who are the main stakeholders of political parties?

Oleg Medvedev, political consultant, discussed with the participants of the training the ratings, organizational capacities of political parties, and probable political strategies before the elections.

Michael Babyak, Dome Inc., Former Director of Marketing Technology of the Republican National Committee and Trump campaign, told Party Innovation Hub participants about the factors that made Trump’s campaign successful.

How did the Republican Party use digital? What is the basis of a successful fundraising campaign? How to involve volunteers in your campaign? How can video help in this process? What is the positive impact of digital technology on the work of political parties?

Yegor Aushev, Co-Founder, Hacken, and Oleksiy Denysyuk, Cyber security consultant, Hacken told the Party Innovation Hub participants, what is cyber security; who are such “white hat” hackers and whether they can protect your system from the “black hat” hackers violations; what are the cyber threats of the modern world; how the Internet users’ information is collected, and how can we protect ourselves from this.

Yaroslav Vedmid, CEO and Co-Founder Postmen, told Party Innovation Hub participants how many Ukrainians are online today; how much time they spend there, and what they do online; what content is most appreciated, and how to adapt your content to the audience’s interests; why in social media fakes are much more popular than facts; how to analyze the impact of your content on the audience; what is artificial intelligence today.

State mechanisms are outdated all over the world. The world has technologically exceeded all the traditional political systems of representative democracy. Now, any person on the planet has no need in parliaments, or in various kinds of deputies and other authorities – the bulky state structures, or the multimillion army of officials. Now it is possible to own a remote control of the State Service of the People in your smartphone. What services should be provided instead the variety of state functions? What will Ukraine look in future? – Sergiy Gaiday, Director of Strategical Planning of Social Engineering Agency “Gaiday.com”, discussed these issues with Party Innovation Hub participants.

Oleksandr Bondarenko, Head of Special Projects at Digital Communications Agency “Reputation Management Agency” told Party Innovation Hub participants about the general trends in social media; about what kind of content is most popular; how Ukrainians read news in social networks; which sites are the most visited; which social media and messengers are most popular among Ukrainians; what are the secrets of creating successful content; how to use big data.

The event was organized be the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, weekly newspaper Dzerkalo Tyzhnia,  Internews, and USAID Ukraine.

The research “Returning home. De-occupation and reintegration of Donbas as viewed by the leading Ukrainian parties” is aimed to clarify the attitude of the main Ukrainian political parties to the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine; their vision of future of the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, as well as of Crimea; how the restoration of sovereignty on these territories should take place; what is the further of the Minsk agreements; how the amnesty should be held on the temporarily occupied territories, and other important issues.

This presentation continues the discussion “Return of the occupied territories of the Donbas. The Ukrainian Plan”, which took place on October 31, 2017. The discussion 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, noted that the presented study aims to find out how leading Ukrainian political parties characterize the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, what should be the further fate of the temporarily occupied territories of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions and other sensitive sensitive issues. Svitlana stressed that this large-scale study continues such studies of Dzerkalo Tyzhnia as “Bleeding. Why Ukrainians leave their country “and “Tree of Life “, which reveal the attitude of Ukrainians towards the key issues and processes that are taking place in our country.

Yuliia Mostova, editor-in-chief of the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, thanked all partners who helped to conduct the research. Ms. Mostova focused on why this particular research topic has been chosen. First, she stressed, that according to a sociological survey, 67% of Ukrainian citizens consider the war in the East of Ukraine to be the most important problem. The cessation of the war and the achievement of peace are the greatest expectations of citizens for the future president, whose election is scheduled for March 2019. Secondly, in Ukraine there is still no general vision, a comprehensive program of resolving the conflict in the Donbass. However, it needs to be developed, because we are aware that there can be no military victory, and capitulation will bring even more problems than it is now. Thirdly, there is a fear that a solution to the Ukrainian issue may be made during the meeting between Trump and Putin in Helsinki on July 16, 2018, without the participation of Ukraine.

The form, in which the research is presented, where the answers of all political parties are filed on the A2 format, enables voters to objectively compare the positions of the leading political parties of Ukraine on various issues.

Ms. Mostova also noted that among the political parties represented in the study, there are no such leading political forces as “People’s Front”, “Motherland”, “For Life” and “Radical Party of Oleg Lyashko”. Without receiving a response from these political forces, one can assume the following: either they do not have an opinion on these issues, or they are not sure about the position of their voters on these issues, or they are waiting for the results of the meeting of Trump and Putin in Helsinki.

Serhiy Rakhmanin, first deputy editor-in-chief of the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, stressed the importance of research for two main reasons. Firstly, Donbass is the number one issue that worries voters. Not corruption, but the establishment of peace. Secondly, the research is constructed in such a way that it requires a clear, unambiguous answer to the proposed questions. While most political parties avoid a direct answer to the question of establishing peace and ways of implementing it, the proposed study is forcing them to choose a specific response among the proposals and thus clearly define their position on these issues.

Which questions the leading Ukrainian political parties were asked? Which answers do they chose? And, most importantly, to which conclusions their chosen positions inspire, you can read in the research “Returning home. De-occupation and reintegration of Donbas as viewed by the leading Ukrainian parties” by Dzerkalo Tyzhnia.

Party Innovations Hub is an initiative of International IDEA and Ukrainian school of political studies, Agency for Legislative Initiatives’ project.

Oleksandr Iakymenko, Program Coordinator for Ukraine, International IDEA, emphasized that the idea of  Party Innovation Hub has emerged as a response to global challenges: the crisis of representation, populism, and mistrust. Transparency and accountability of political parties, the development of effective communication with voters, dialogue between political parties and internal party dialogue are steps to overcome these challenges.

Oleksandr Zaslavskyi, Deputy Chairman of the Board, Agency for Legislative Initiatives, emphasized that the Party Innovations Hub is a logical continuation of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, which is the formation of a qualitatively new level of political culture.

Yevhen Barshchevskyi, Research & Innovation Program Officer at National Democratic Institute, told the participants of the training about survey systems that allow to organize public consultations, quickly communicate with party centers, receive feedback, conduct quantitative and qualitative surveys of public opinion in real-time with the help of SMS or smartphone.

Iryna Fedoriv, Chief editor of CHESNO Movement’s website, told the participants of the training about the methodology, which CESNO Public Movement uses to conduct research on the activities of political parties; also Iryna presented the CHESNO Movement’s tools for assessing politicians and parties that are designed to help citizens make a rational and informed choice.

Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, Chief Executive Officer at Transparency International Ukraine, discussed the openness of political parties with the participants of the training. What is the attitude towards political parties in the world? Why openness and accountability are essential for political parties? What do representatives of key stakeholders expect from political parties?

Oleg Medvedev, political consultant, discussed with the participants of the training the ratings, organizational capacities of political parties, and probable political strategies.

Raoul Kramer, Thinker & Innovation Manager, Founding partner at Enabl.ist, told the participants of the training about the open source tools, their features and benefits. Why in the 21st century political parties need to go online? What is the fundamental difference between engagement and participation? How parties should engage voters in effective cooperation? How political parties from all over the world use digital instruments?

Michael Babyak, Former Director of Marketing Technology, Trump campaign, Partner of Dome Compass Inc., told participants of Party Innovation Hub about the Trump’s campaign. Why the Republican Party has invested in dgital? How to organize and conduct an extremely effective fundraising campaign? How to involve volunteers in your campaign? What is the positive impact of digital technology on the work of political parties?

Oleksandr Iakymenko, Program Coordinator for Ukraine at International IDEA presented the concept of rapid prototyping and explained the way this methodology can be used by political parties.

Participants of Party Innovation Hub tested the technique later on and discussed its benefits with Michael Babyak.

Sergiy Gaiday, Director for strategic planning, social engineering agency Gaiday.com, told participants of Party Innovation Hub about the the basis of effective communication and the real PR. What is populism? Why is it useful? What is the main task of the elite? Why do we need political parties? What is the most important communication channel in the modern world? Why Ukraine can be divided into “facebook world” and “TV world”? How to develop a discipline of thinking? Why is it important to be able to give clear definitions?

Oleksandr Bondarenko, Head of Special Projects at Digital Communications Agency PlusOne, told the participants of Party Innovation Hub about how many people in Ukraine use the Internet. What is a “Generation of Titles”? What are the most visited sites in Ukraine? How do the facebook posts rank? What are the rules of behavior for politicians in social media? How does email marketing work? What are the secrets of successful video on social media? What Ukrainian politicians are looking for on the Internet?

The Hub for Party Innovations provides a unique platform for spreading knowledge about the use of modern technologies and innovations for the development of party democracy in Ukraine. The Hub for Party Innovations was initiated by International IDEA and the Ukrainian School of Political Studies, a project of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives.

The Hub included training sessions on communication with voters, party transparency, and accountability, intraparty democracy and effective management, as well as on the Democracy Labs tool developed by International IDEA to introduce innovation and digital technology into the daily practice of political parties.

Oleksandr Yakymenko, Program Coordinator for the Great Europe Program of the International Institute for Democracy and Elections, noted that the Hub emerged as a response to the challenges of global processes, specifically the crisis of representation (representation of interests), the gap between what voters want and what their elected representatives do.

Svitlana Matviienko, Chairwoman of the Board of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, emphasized the relevance of political education and establishment of inter-party dialogue. Ms. Matviienko also drew attention to the importance of transfer from the leader-based model of party construction towards the development of intra-party democracy.

Kyrylo Tretiak, the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, observed that the Institute provides educational and advisory assistance to political parties, contributing to their democratic development and inter-party dialogue.

Yevhen Barshchevskyi, the Research and Innovation Program at the representative office of the National Democratic Institute in Ukraine, informed the participants of the training about the “Your Opinion” polling system, which gives political parties, NGOs and NGO networks the opportunity to organize online consultations through voting via text messages or a website; as well as CiviCRM – a system for tracking relations and interactions.

Oleksandra Kuziv, Project Manager of Political Memory project, Civic Movement CHESNO, and Vita Dumanska, Coordinator of the ‘Follow the Money’ Campaign, Civic Movement CHESNO, presented the resources of E-Reporting, Political Memory and Party Gold to the participants of the training. These are innovative tools for assessing politicians and parties designed to help citizens make a rational and informed choice. The resources include data from the CEC, VRU, local councils, party websites, NAPC, propaganda archives of Istorychna Pravda and media archives.

Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine, discussed both external and intraparty openness of political parties with Hub participants. Openness generates voters’ confidence in political parties and is the most important resource. To what extent are representatives of the main stakeholders in the political process prepared to openness?

Sam van der Staak, Head of the Wider Europe program of International IDEA, told the training participants about the role of technologies in restoring communication between political parties and the public; the attitude of young people to technologies in the context of the political process; how digitalization can help parties overcome the crisis of representation; why the onset of the technological era means that political campaigns never end; which online resources should be preferred; what political parties should remember using technologies.

Gefion Thuermer, University of Southampton and the German Green Party, elaborated on the opportunities that digitalization opens to political parties; how to use online resources for management of knowledge, suggestions, discussions and communication; the positive effects of digitalization; the risks political parties can face when using online resources; things political parties should take into account in order to achieve the best result using digital instruments.

Digital technologies provide a large-scale coverage that gives people a sense of engagement and involvement in political processes. Decentralization helps political parties build personal relationships with voters, even without interacting with them in person.

Michael Babiak, Co-founder and CEO of ArrowIQ, a former Director of Marketing Technologies during the Trump campaign, told participants how technologies could help build a successful campaign starting with just one Twitter account.

Digital technologies help parties build effective work in different areas: during elections and voting; finance sourcing and fundraising; general party management; networking and communication; policy development – training participants discussed these topics with Gary Klaukka, Programme Officer in the Political Parties, Participation and Representation Programme, International IDEA.

Sergey Gaidai, Director of Strategic Planning of the Social-Engineering Agency Gaidai.Kom, elaborated on such topics as the worlds included in Ukraine; the main political technology of the Ukrainian political class; the real PR and approaches to carrying it out; the essence of the technology of real action; the events Ukraine needs; and ways to form the discipline of thinking.

On December 20, 2016, the Opera Hotel (Kyiv, 53, Bohdan Khmelnytsky Str.) hosted the conference “Rise of the ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ Forces: Curtailment of Democracy?”. During the event, directors and graduates of the Schools of Political Studies from Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, representatives of civil society and international organizations discussed the results of recent elections in Western Europe and the Eastern Partnership countries.

The conference was organized with the support of the Division of Electoral Assistance and Census of the Directorate General II – Democracy of the Council of Europe. It was aimed at improving the quality of democracy via the dialogue between the Eastern Partnership countries and at discussing the processes that contribute to the decline of democracy.

The panel discussion of the conference “Rise of the ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ Forces: Curtailment of Democracy?” was dedicated to global trends in consolidated democracies. It invited guests and participants to reflect on the crisis of ideologies and parties, causes of the rise of the “right” and “viability” of right-wing ideologies among Ukrainian voters. The conference was opened by the Honorary Director of the Ukrainian School of Political Studies Ihor Kohut, who urged the participants to reflect on the challenges facing Ukraine, EU and Eastern Partnership countries after the elections in Moldova and Bulgaria and the risks that the upcoming election in France might be fraught with.

Yevhen BYSTRYTSKY, PhD, Head of the Department of Philosophy of Culture, Ethics and Aesthetics of the Institute of Philosophy of the NAS of Ukraine, who started the first panel, voiced the opinion that there are representatives of leftist ideas in Ukraine, but at the moment they are not an organized political force. They insist that there is no freedom of speech in Ukraine. In addition, such representatives argue that there is no space in the media where one could express their thoughts. He also noted: “There are certain things that have contributed to the revival of the neoconservative wave. I’m talking about the elections in Hungary and Poland, where nationally-driven right forces have consolidated, and the election of Trump. In fact, the conservative wave has captured voters in America”. He added that one of the factors contributing to this was the conflict of worldview and ideological interests. “In Europe, it is a response to the dangers that have arisen: refugees, Russia’s pressure, and the imposition of sanctions. It is also important to mention the wave of resistance to financial and industrial globalization. For instance, at the beginning of the XXI century the European world is full of local conflicts that are cruel and devoid of respect for human rights. They involve confrontation aimed at destruction of another culture”.

Natalia AMELCHENKO, PhD, associate professor, lecturer of the Department of Political Science, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, started her speech by pointing out to problems with identifying the ideologies of political parties, particularly in Ukraine, because we use old terms and try to impose them onto new phenomena. She argued, “Today, classical ideologies are in crisis. The neoconservative wave has existed before and exits now. Today the challenge is to survive it.” The speaker went on to say that few of voters, in fact, read the statutes of the parties. The statutes are read only by students who are studying these issues. They exist only for the purpose of registration and contain no clear ideology. The program of the political party Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) contains the notion of subsidiarity, but the media and talk shows are not aimed at explaining significant problems to the public, rather they exist to create an image of the politician”.

Oleksiy HARAN, Research Director of the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, pointed out that in the world there was a global tendency of populism, including left-wing populism. In Ukraine, the niche of the Left is vacant and there is a need for a normal left-wing Ukrainian party. “We live in the period after the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. What we now see as the total slippage of democracy has already happened in history. Europe and its capitalism have manifested great adaptability. The PACE, which adopted our position in the European Parliament, gave an example how to establish relations with socialists. Yes, there is a crisis, but we should not underestimate the potential of Europe, which we can also develop here,” Mr. Haran said.

Angela SEDELL, Senior Researcher at Oxford University, reminded that on June 24, 2016, Britain announced its withdrawal from the EU based on the results of the referendum. “Britain was divided into 2 camps – those who campaigned for and against Brexit. Proponents of remaining in the EU appealed to expert opinions and economic arguments. Everything suggested inflation, uncertainty in doing business, and a decline in economic growth. Their opponents said that if we left the EU, 350 million euros (EU contributions) would be transferred to the public health care. Surveys say that this message was decisive,” commented Ms. Sedell. She added that populist messages such as the restriction of migration to Britain had proved to be very effective. Consequences include the decline of the national currency and trust in the law, British Constitution and European treaties. According to Ms. Sedell, the referendum put the authority of judges and parliament in question. Another result is the mistrust of voters.

Alexandra DANCASIU, political analyst at Go-Governance (Austria), began her speech as follows: “We see many politicians talk about fear, hatred, threats, appealing to emotions rather than objective facts. We heard Trump emotional speeches during his campaign and things he appeals to now during his winner tour. Now he tells his voters things that run contrary to what he promised.” According to Alexandra, today many people can vote, but we do not have real political debates and not all voters can join them, as it used to be before. True debates do not take place because many people do not even vote. Are those who vote well-informed? Is it legitimate for them to elect politicians? Is this still the choice of the majority? Alexandra emphasized that democracy tries to gather all points of view and work out a long-term strategy. Only before elections politicians think what they should do to remain in position.

Panel II was dedicated to the “rollback” of democracy based on the results of elections in the Eastern Partnership countries and close neighbors of Ukraine. The moderator of the session, Alexander Dabravolski, urged the speakers to share their views on the popularity of “left” ideas as a result of the Soviet legacy or demand for a fair social distribution.

Olga MANOLE, coordinator of the Human Rights Program, coordinator of civic and electoral education of Promo-LEX Association (Moldova), as a member of an organization that monitors elections in Moldova, began her speech by saying that the last presidential election in Moldova in November 2016 differed from all previous elections as soon as politicians relied heavily on false and populist arguments broadcasted through the media. Candidates appealed to traditions used propaganda and backing of the church to receive support from voters. In this election they did not rely on administrative resources and bribes as heavily as before. In comparison with the parliamentary election of 2014, the electoral process in Moldova has improved a lot. Ironically, however, the methods which were used to achieve the improvement still involved an influence on voters. In this respect, the intervention of the church was especially aggressive. Olga said, “There is a probability of canceling the results of the presidential election because the gap between the candidates is very small.”

Yevhen RADCHENKO, Development Director of the NGO Internews-Ukraine, said that based on statistics there was a major shake-up among those elected to Parliament in Belarus, among old politicians in particular. It indicates a certain trend. He also suggested focusing on the situation in Armenia and the referendum of 2015, when Armenia became a parliamentary republic. “The parliamentary election of 2017 will take place on a proportional basis, and in 2018 the president will be elected in three rounds by the parliamentary assembly,” said Mr. Radchenko. He further argued that the referendum, which was held in Azerbaijan on September 26, made the power of Ilham Aliyev absolute and gave him the right to appoint the first vice president and two vice-presidents, who are essentially his economic advisers. According to Yevhen, these actions undermine the importance of Parliament. Mr. Radchenko concluded his presentation with the thesis that Europe and the Eastern countries were immersing in authoritarianism and the crisis of democracy.

Anastasia DARAFIEIEVA, Chairwoman of the Belarusian Green Party, alumnus of the East European School of Political Studies (Belarus) said that the results of this election campaign were new to Belarus. Two opposition candidates entered the parliament. “Europe is interested in maintaining stability in Belarus and taking steps to simulate democracy. This is an alarming signal that attests to the depreciation of European values,” said Ms. Darafyeyeva. Civil society is the only thing that can change the current political situation; the only way out for these representatives is to become actors and go to the level of decision-making. In Ukraine, the left-wing party niche is vacant, but there are people who could unite into such a party. “There is a lack of vision. What parties can do is to give a vision. In the situation with the EU, we are witnessing a crisis of values ​​and vision in part because it has been implemented. Similarly, in the post-Soviet countries, there is a demand for an ideology. This should be a vision of the future based on the processes of the present.”

 Hennadii MAKSAK, Chairman of the Board, Head of the Foreign Policy Council “Ukrainian Prism”, USPS alumnus, started with the fact that the Eastern Partnership countries had 2 systems: corrupt and authoritarian-oligarchic. “In Belarus, there are appointments rather than elections, there is no decent control over local elections, and OSCE commissions keep telling about that. In Moldova, there was a vote, socialists won, but sometimes they used pro-Russian methods again. In Armenia, before the parliamentary election it was clear which 2 parties would be in power. Under such conditions, the president said he would rather be the head of a party than president”, he added. According to Mr. Maksak, it would be better to without disguise about the lack of democracy or substitution of concepts. In Armenia, there is a platform for public initiatives they want to close. Unfortunately, in Azerbaijan civil society activists are behind bars.

Panel III actualized the concept of gender in politics as an indicator of democratization and the role of women in the democratic process.

Olha VESNIANKA, human rights activist, journalist, USPS alumnus, said that it was very difficult to talk about gender equality and its legal implementation in European countries. There is a large number of human rights organizations operating in the field of discrimination in Ukraine. Talking about Ukraine, we need to remember the sexist statements of former President Yanukovich and Prime Minister Azarov, whose Cabinet was known as the “Cabinet without women”. Instead of ratifying the Istanbul Convention, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine initiated meaningless discussions on the topic of “What is gender?” The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine believes that it is not important to talk about a camp for those who suffer from violence. Ukraine’s goal was to reach the indicator of 30% of women in politics, but at the moment the percentage of women in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is only 12%.

Olha AIVAZOVSKA, Chairwoman of the Board and Coordinator of Electoral and Political Programs at the Civil Network OPORA, representative of Ukraine in the political subgroup of the Trilateral Contact Group on Donbas, USPS alumnus, said that after the decentralization most of the money would stay in regions enabling women to take seats in local councils. Women in Parliament work more, preparing initiatives and providing feedback.

Parliament or any council should represent people, but this is impossible without gender and ethnic equality. In any negotiation, 25% must be women protecting the rights of women. Woman can work effectively also in military affairs. Pregnancy or gender are only pretexts for paternalistic attitudes. Talking about quotas, there are many different stances. Germans believe that “the quota principle creates quota women”. However, only the countries that have no problems can afford to say that. There are stupid women and men in Parliament. I do not agree that men are smarter than women. But it is certainly true that women do not have the same access to resources as men. If a party goes to politics to increase resources rather than champion voters’ interests, it is sure to be interested in players who have more resources, and usually these are not women. The question of the openness of political funding directly concerns the quality of staff and the gender issue. If the party receives money from citizens and the country, it will not be interested in whether a candidate has a million or not. Many parties take into account the issue of gender. I’m not a fan of the topic of womankind, but I’m a fan of the issue of quality of people. In fact, this is the same as with people with disabilities – if we do not see them on the streets, it does not mean that they do not exist.

Valentina POLIEVIKOVA, Manager of the East European School of Political Studies, founder and Chairwoman of the Belarusian Women’s Party Nadzieja (1994-2002), stated that a lot of stereotypes and patriarchal attitudes still persist in Belarus. Women need help not only in fighting discrimination but also in engaging in the decision-making process. Belarus has only 2 female mayors. Some people do not believe in the effectiveness of gender quotas; unfortunately, we do not have even this in Belarus. However, having studied the experience of the implementation of territorial quotas, we can see that the more women work, the more they vote for women because they understand their problems.

Participants of Discussion platform IV debated on the role of media in the shaping and consumption of populist messages in Western Europe, Eastern Partnership countries, and Ukraine.

The platform was moderated by Vitaly Portnikov, observer of the Radio Liberty, who stressed that the real danger wasn’t Trump’s words but rather his failure to act on them. Therefore, in the next election greater promises and populism will prevail. This is a question of the direction of movement – to new responsibility or to a triumph of irresponsibility.

 Serhiy HAIDAI, Strategic Planning Director at the social engineering agency Haidai.Com, believes that we live in a new world and don’t have to struggle with it. The only thing we need to do is to improve the culture of information consumption. Why have we begun to separate form and content? If you are not a populist, you should create a new influential form. I would rather stop pushing the panic button and get down to developing new technologies.

Andriy ANDRUSHKIV, Coordinator of the project “Reform of Public Finance Control Use” at the NGO Center UA, USPS alumnus, spoke about the PR strategies of NGOs whose messages always appealed to emotions. He noted that in order to avoid this, we should improve the level of media culture among citizens.

 Ivan HODARSKI, media and legal issues consultant at MEMO 98 (Slovakia), pointed out that fake news did not emerge yesterday. The main reason for their appearance is a lack of critical thinking, which is the main skill to counteract propaganda.

 Vitaliy MOROZ, Head of the New Media Department at Internews-Ukraine, stressed that journalism today is not as exclusive as it used to be several years ago. This has both advantages and disadvantages. The former include the fact that journalists can use many new media.

 Andriy PROKOPENKO, Managing Partner at Prokopenko and Partners, political Management, USPS alumnus, summed up all the speeches and emphasized the importance of promoting a higher level of media culture not only among journalists but also among the public.

On November 16, the Agency for Legislative Initiatives held a Training on Interparty Dialogue Skills for MPs of Ukraine in cooperation with the USAID RADA Program, the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, and the OSCE ODIHR in the office of the USAID RADA program.

During the two-hour presentation and interactive discussion on the interparty dialogue, the participants examined the significant differences between the notions of unanimity, compromise and consensus, as well as things that might go wrong in political negotiations in the case of wrong style and goals.

The trainer of the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy Jerome Scheltens explained the difference between negotiation, mediation, and dialogue and why the latter can ensure sustainable win-win results.

The MPs bombarded the trainer with pointed questions, and to answer them, Mr. Scheltens had to use the entire arsenal of international experience.

The activity takes place in the framework of the project of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives “Support for Democratic Political Culture in Parliament through Political Dialogue and Ethical Standards” implemented with the support of MATRA Program (Netherlands Embassy) and in partnership with the OSCE ODIHR Project “Strengthening Dialogue Among Civil Society and With Key Government Stakeholders in Ukraine on Human Dimension Issues”, the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy and USAID RADA Program: Responsible Accountable Democratic Assembly.

The project implies creating a dialogue platform for discussion of ethical dilemmas, which will provide for an inclusive process of the elaboration of a Code of Conduct for the Parliament or another mechanism to regulate parliamentary ethics, the approximation to international standards in accordance with the recommendations of the mission of the European Parliament, and the restoration of confidence in the Verkhovna Rada.

On November 15, the Agency for Legislative Initiatives jointly with the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, the OSCE ODIHR, and the USAID RADA Program held a training on interparty dialogue skills for NGOs in PinchukArtCentre (Kyiv, Velyka Vasylkivska/Baseina str., 1/3-2).

Jerome Scheltens, trainer, the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, explained the intricacies of meaning and distinctions between “agreement” and “consensus”:

Uliana Poltavets, Program Director of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives and coordinator of the project “Support for the Democratic Political Culture in the Verkhovna Rada via Political Dialogue and Ethical Standards”, said the following:

The project implies creating a dialogue platform for discussion of ethical dilemmas, which will provide for an inclusive process of the elaboration of a Code of Conduct for the Parliament or another mechanism to regulate parliamentary ethics, the approximation to international standards in accordance with the recommendations of the mission of the European Parliament, and the restoration of confidence in the Verkhovna Rada.

During the training, Jerome Scheltens expanded on main principles of interparty dialogue, methods of determining positions, interests, needs, and other important issues.

The activity takes place in the framework of the project of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives “Support for Democratic Political Culture in Parliament through Political Dialogue and Ethical Standards” implemented with the support of MATRA Program (Netherlands Embassy) and in partnership with the OSCE ODIHR Project “Strengthening Dialogue Among Civil Society and With Key Government Stakeholders in Ukraine on Human Dimension Issues”, the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy and USAID RADA Program: Responsible Accountable Democratic Assembly.

On November 2-3, the Radisson Blu Hotel in Kyiv hosted a training for representatives of Ukrainian and Georgian political parties, organized by the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (NIMD) in partnership with the Agency for Legislative Initiatives.

The event was aimed at transferring innovative practices for conducting political campaigns using new media and social networks. Representatives of the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties of the two countries received hands-on experience in applying various tools to create a strategy and a content-calendar of an online campaign.

Levan Tsutskiridze, Executive Director, NIMD regional office in Eastern Europe, draw attention to the excellent opportunities for the networking of Ukrainian and Georgian MPs:

Yurriaan Regouin, Program Manager, NIMD Central Office, emphasized the principles of the Institute, i.e. those of multiparty approach, inclusiveness, diversity, taking into account local context and a long-term strategy

Uliana Poltavets, Program Director of the Ukrainian School of Political Studies, Agency for Legislative Initiatives, congratulated the NIMD on the occasion of the office opening in Ukraine.