Unlock Editor’s Digest Lock for Free
FT editor Roula Khalaf will select your favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Last month, Ukrainian President Voldy Mie Zelensky signed a law that provided new authority for Ukrainian prosecutors over two important national institutions. This is the office of the National Bureau of Anti-Corruption and the specialized anti-Corruption prosecutors. Both were founded after the 2013-14 revolution with enthusiastic support from the West.
Thousands of Ukrainians quickly poured into the streets of Kiev and other major cities, proclaiming that “corruption was murdered” and that “Ukraine is not Russia.” The rally was the first major anti-government demonstration since the start of Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine in 2022. They broke the tacit agreement that it was heresy to blame the government in the age of war.
The signing of the law also caused the most serious crisis ever in Kyiv’s relationship with the EU and the IMF. In total, there was a risk of up to 600 billion euros being frozen with EU linked support. And then came Zelenskyy’s Volte Face. Instead of digging into his heels, he reversed the course and restored independence to both institutions.
We see that massive protests and international pressures could be the best strategies to protect democracy. However, Brussels should be careful not to fall in love with anti-corruption agencies. They are not all created equally.
The moment thousands of angry citizens were demonstrated in Kiev, thousands of equally angry Bulgarians flooded the city of Sofia to protest the abuse of power by the nominally independent Bulgarian Corruption Commission and demand its closure. Mayor Varna’s politically contaminated arrest made the committee seem like the political tool currently being used to trust and undermine the opposition.
To make the issue even more complicated, the leaders who demand the closure of the committee were the same as those who designed it and empowered both to investigate and arrest.
Do anti-corruption groups prefer anti-corruption groups when they expose enemy crimes, but do they dislike them when exposing allied misconduct, or is this even more? The Bulgarian protests show that citizens are fully aware of the corrosive power of corruption, but they also understand the damage caused by weaponizing institutions designed to eradicate it.
Faced with the dilemma of making unpopular compromises to end the war and the unpopular decision to continue the fight, Zelensky, naturally, poses great risks to his government, fearing that, even in doubt, escalate accusations of corruption directed at his allies. Many Ukrainians have condemned the corruption of the state due to the fatally delayed construction of defence fortresses and the country’s recent military retreat. They also fear that pessimistic outlook about the outcome of the war could increase the risk of stealing at high places. Foreign shelters may seem attractive to government officials who are threatened at home.
When trying to integrate his power with this new law, Zelensky would likely have deposited the bank with the anti-corruption institutions to criticize Ukraine and Trump’s light empt against the general reticity of Europe. However, the calculation turned out to be incorrect. He misunderstood Europe – even worse, misunderstood his own society. His movement was an unforced error and an unexpected gift to Russia.
It is not only the obvious immunity of those in power that makes Ukrainians worried, but also the possibility that if anti-corruption institutions are captured, it could become a tool to destroy democracy.
Citizens on the streets of Sofia should make it clear to both their leaders and the people of Brussels that the so-called independent institutions are indeed independent. Public protests seem to be the last line of defense against corruption as well as against such abuse of power.
The dangerous ploy to conquer Zelenskyy’s anti-corruption agency may have been driven by his desire to protect his loyalty, facing investigation. However, the Bulgaria example suggests that some governments have darker motives. Governments, especially those under pressure, are interested in managing anti-corruption agencies. Not just because they want to guarantee exemptions to their loyalists, but because they want to practice selective justice and pursue their opponents.
When Vienna mayor Karl Luger was accused of working with many Jews at the turn of the 20th century while preaching anti-Semitism, he famously declared, “I will decide who is Jew.” Once corrupt governments have the power to determine who is corrupt today, democracy cannot stand the opportunity.
