Democratic institutions for communities with limited self-governance

This analytical report examines the practice of operation of military administrations of population centres during martial law in Ukraine. The authors substantiated the need and proposed a series of targeted measures to preserve and strengthen the institution of self-governance through implementing deliberative democracy when military administrations exercise powers of local self-government bodies.

Particular attention is paid to the prospects for using the practice of deliberative democracy in deoccupied communities in the transition period to create opportunities for reinstating local self-government bodies. The proposed methodological recommendations can also be useful for local self-government bodies that seek to facilitate the development of participatory democracy in communities.

INTRODUCTION

The country’s resilience in the context of a full-scale war is measured not only by armed confrontation with the enemy, but also by its capacity to ensure, under existential risk of war, the stable operation of the entire social organism with the aim of achieving victory, preserving and enhancing the country’s capacity to recover from the destruction after the war. Continuous and effective activities of territorial communities (TCs) as basic cells of the social organism are of key importance for economic, social, and civil resilience of the country. Due to decentralisation, recognised as the most successful reform throughout Ukraine’s independence, communities became one of the cornerstones of the country’s resilience in the first months of war and should retain this role in the long-term perspective of armed confrontation with the aggressor. This means that institutions and practices of effective inclusive governance acquired by communities in the face of military challenges should not only be preserved, but also tailored to the needs of the country’s resilience. In view of the pivotal role of communities in the post-war recovery, the need to develop a practical vision of the post-war landscape of decentralisation in Ukraine is no less important.

Importantly, in the context of war, part of communities lost their constitutionally mandated local self-government bodies (LSGBs) for objective reasons. The matter concerns frontline and some deoccupied communities where LSGBs cannot carry out or resume their activities without holding local elections, which is impossible until the end of martial law, as well as communities in temporarily occupied areas (TOAs).

Such communities are currently operated by military administrations (MAs) which have proven their operational efficiency. At the same time, a prolonged lack of constitutionally guaranteed opportunities for citizens to influence decision-­making important for communities threatens to erode the institutional principles of self-governance mapped out in previous years and deteriorate trust between communities and the government, represented by MAs at the local level. In actual fact, one-person governance of communities does not always contribute to the effective realisation of local potentials and full satisfaction of community needs, and may, over time, pose a risk of corruption schemes, especially when confronting wartime challenges is replaced with achieving recovery goals. The scale of the problem will significantly expand following the liberation of the areas occupied since 2014, where the matter will concern institutional recovery of communities which failed to learn the lessons of decentralisation along with the entire Ukraine.

Since the reinstatement of LSGBs through elections is possible only after the end of martial law, and after the transition period in the deoccupied areas, it is of primary importance to disseminate the developed practices of deliberative democracy and develop new ones, along with relevant formal and informal institutions that will help, during martial law, involve community members in the elaboration and implementation of decisions adopted by MAs. This should increase the effectiveness of decisions by MAs, focus them on community development, strengthen (or even reinstate) the institutional principles of self-governance in the absence of LSGBs, and foster greater inclusiveness and further operation of local self-governance in a more effective way.

The objective of the study the results of which are presented in this report was to analyse the specifics and experience of community governance in the context of suspended activities of LSGBs, including the experience of the operation of institutions of deliberative democracy in Ukraine, set requirements for these institutions in the context of war and post-war recovery, means of their interactions with MAs, and their role in the mechanisms for reinstating self-governance of communities liberated following a long-term occupation. In view of the multi-­faceted problems of post-war recovery, it has to be mentioned that the subject of this study is not the organisation of the recovery process, nor the imposition of special economic regimes, nor the determination of the post-war landscape of the economy and society’s composition, nor transitional justice and the attitude to collaborationism, nor the reorganisation of the administrative and territorial structure and the assessment of community capacities, nor the organisation of long-term security and defence capabilities, etc. Although all these complementary objectives are extremely important, they require a separate study. However, policies for their implementation should be shaped with regard to the priority of the objectives of reinstating local self-governance. In deoccupied communities, a balanced policy of transitional justice will play a decisive role in establishing the principles of effective local self-governance.

After two and a half years of a full-scale war, perceptions of the discourse of deoccupation and post-war recovery are ambiguous in Ukraine, and this discourse is often superseded by the current problems of confronting the enemy in the ongoing war. According to the authors, the availability of well-thought-out and already recognised strategies and tools of deoccupation and recovery is also one of the components of social resilience designed for a long-term perspective which makes the struggle for Ukraine’s independence meaningful. Personnel, institutional, and organisational readiness for deoccupation reduces the recovery time lag which is critical for preserving the country’s human capital in the post-war period. A practical vision of the future of deoccupied areas is an important part of communication with Ukrainian citizens who have found themselves in temporary occupation which will contribute to the harmonious reinstatement of Ukrainian authorities there and which will be a signal for domestic businesses and foreign partners as potential participants in the recovery process.

Hence, the methodological approaches and practical recommendations of this analytical report should be useful for the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to implement the objectives of ensuring Ukraine’s resilience and recovery, relevant ministries and agencies, members of parliament and staff of the committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine involved in the legislative support of self-governance, deoccupation and recovery, incumbent oblast and raion MAs and MAs of population centres, LSGBs, and civil society organisations (CSOs).

This report is prepared based on a series of expert interviews with heads of MAs of population centres, representatives of public organisations (POs), to whom the authors are indebted for their time and valuable experience which they kindly shared.

You can get acquainted with the text by following the link