Dialogue imitation: why do not work with business meetings with business – Andrei Dligach explains

Now the government has actually disrupted the appointment of the Bab Director, citing some security grades, allegedly links to candidates with the aggressor country and so on. In your opinion, how does this decision affect Ukraine’s obligations to our international partners and in general the country’s investment attractiveness?

Andriy Dligach: However, I would not prioritize the fulfillment of international obligations. This, of course, is important and, of course, violates our obligation to the International Monetary Fund. But frankly, the International Monetary Fund recently conducted another assessment of the fulfillment of the obligations of Ukraine. The next mission will be short and reaction from the International Monetary Fund may be short.

But there is also a government chance to remedy this situation by the end of July, according to the IMF beacons, and yet to approve the candidacy. Briefly about the history of the question. The idea to concentrate economic drilling at one institute was first formulated during a presidential meeting with business in June 2023. It was then that the Ukrainian business demonstrated several digits.

The first figure is the growing simply by the frantic pace of business distrust of state institutions, which is manifested in the fact that business considers unpredictable actions of the state, which at any time can worsen the conditions for business, as a risk that becomes the second after military risks. That is, the state itself is at least a risk to business than war. Accordingly, even then, two years ago, it was obvious that the business was beginning to actively devond into the Ukrainian economy, fearing an increase in pressure from law enforcement and law enforcement agencies, and production and investment opportunities beyond Ukraine. This has already cost Ukrainian GDP about 15%.

At that time, the President himself proposed the idea – the concentration of economic submission in one body with the understanding that both the National Police and the DBR for some reason, although the DBR should not at all relate to business, the Prosecutor General’s Office, and the regulatory bodies of the DPS, the LCA, and other institutions. Let us, instead of resorting to moratoriums that do not give the desired effect, restart these institutions, let’s restart the bebb, and we will take it as the only body that can check the business. And then this actual promise of the president was perceived by the business as a very positive signal.

Eventually it took two years. The year went to the formation of a new Baby law, the year went to the organization of the Baba head. It’s only a head, it’s just the first step. And if this is broken, what are the reason to trust the state in business? If the state even formulated the rules of the game violates. These rules of the game do not have the opportunity to cancel or not accept the results of the competition. Accordingly, business associations are now asking the authorities, whether there are really reasonable reasons to raise the law, why the state does not communicate, why the state does not collect a meeting with leading business associations, does not explain its position? And this approach destroys those crumbs of still preserved investment climate that remain in the country.

At the end of June, NABU detective Tsyvinsky won the competition for the post of director of Bab. In your opinion, what are the consequences of disrupting this purpose for Ukraine? Can we, for example, limit our partners?

Andriy Dligach: Now, in parallel with the disruption of the competition, there is a discussion, which concerns that business and civil society representatives can do in such a situation. In particular, whether to press on international partners: they say, look, breaks the competition, do not give us money, let the authorities first resolve this issue. Of course, no one does so.

Civil society is mature in us. It understands that we need to defend the position that no stupid or erroneous actions of the authorities should jeopardize Ukraine. Ukraine is larger than just the state with its mistakes, with its corruption. Therefore, our Western partners see everything that is happening. They see everything. They see a broken competition, see these inadequate communication actions committed by the state, but behave as adults. It is too infantile-believe that only business association communication can destroy international assistance. Of course, it’s funny.

Therefore, international partners without letters of business associations and the appeal of analytical centers see what happened to the competition. They make their conclusions. These conclusions are unfortunately disappointing for Ukraine,

What are your forecasts for the development of this situation with the appointment of the winner chosen by the commission? In your opinion, how will it develop? What are the scenarios?

Andriy Dligach: Unfortunately, we do not believe that the Cabinet of Ministers will now cancel its decision and appoint the winner of the competition for this position. There are two scenarios. The first is a scenario that the commission will insist on its own decision. In the script number two, the commission offers the second winner of the competition, because there, there, I would like to remind you that almost two persons had the highest final points, so the commission can offer a second candidacy, especially since this candidacy is also supported by civil society. But perhaps the letter from the SBU applies to both of these candidates. In this case, the commission will have to hold a second competition. It would be the worst scenario, because with such a scenario we do not have time to appoint a Babe’s leader by the end of July.

You just mentioned the right letters from the SBU. And, in fact, the following question is related. We watched several schemes for disrupting this competition. These are letters from the SBU that you mentioned is the failure of the commission members, the government’s decision and so on. What else can the authorities come up with to bury this process in your opinion?

Andriy Dligach: I got the feeling that it is not the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers itself … It is too abstract. Was that the President’s call? Was there any such an explanation? The situation is seen as follows. First, NABU, a too independent body that has shown its effectiveness and continues to prove this effectiveness. And in the government they see the influence of NABU on the unity of the Cabinet of Ministers, on its ability to make decisions. It is quite strange because the independence of NABU is supported by both international partners and civil society.

So complain about n Abu looks very strange. But there is an understanding that certain power structures consider NABU’s decisions motivated not only by Ukrainian national interests, but by some more interests. And then the question is why we are not published by these conclusions. If there is information on which NABU detectives that have access to state secrets, take actions that do not meet the interests of Ukraine, then in the interests of our security to publish this information. If someone considers in Ukraine that the appointment of a person with access to state secrets is a risk of national security, then I have to say, and this opinion is supported by business coalitions and analytical centers, which is much more risky for the country in terms of national security: it is internal quarrels, it is the destruction of national unity, destruction of normal.

This is the risk of national security than any appointments. Moreover, the business is why it is considered normal when the national government is under investigation, why we do not use European practice, when the initiative officials who have reputational risks, take either a pause, or release from positions in order to preserve. Unfortunately, I will say that this is a systemic problem.

The systemic problem is that neither the President nor his environment understand the importance of the institutional approach. They form councils on entrepreneurs’ support instead of communicating with a consolidated business that has a business association. This is a much greater risk.

And in your opinion, can you somehow end with these “SBU letters”? If they are manipulative. Because, for example, we know the scheme of Artem Shila, what the Glooms of the SBU in order to remove competitors on the tenders of “Ukrzaliznytsia” is a clear scheme. How do you think you can fight it? And is it possible at all?

Andriy Dligach: Yes, the first idea that was supported by the president is the idea of eliminating economic jurisdiction in the SBU. Make sure that the SBU could not deal with economic issues. Of course, the SBU will still have a tool that is used, by the way, during a moratorium on business checking, a tool for accusing business of terrorism, or co -co -co -companies with Russian companies. Still used for pressure on business. But for this purpose there should be a judiciary as a higher point of justice. And, on the other hand, we seem to have two SBU at the same time.

One SBU, which is actively assisted by the SBU, which conducts stunning operations, actually destroys the enemy in both the rear of Ukraine and the rear of the enemy himself. The SBU that we should definitely be proud of. Here is the question to the head of the SBU. Why is there a parallel to the SBU then, which deals with such obviously customized “commercial” questions? Isn’t it worth changing it? And from the point of view of business and analytical centers, the answer is obvious. In fact, the question is very simple now. If the state is not going to stimulate our internal defeat, then the state should change the tone and style of communication with civil society.

How do you evaluate the current efficiency of Bab? Is this body needed? Could it be worth passing on to other law enforcement officers?

Andriy Dligach: Bab is a fault institution. The model that was laid out of the heavy hand of those who created the Beb showed their absolute inefficiency. Bab is unprofitable for the state, its maintenance is much more expensive than the economic effect it gives. In short, this is an absolute failure.

When Bab was created, we talked about these risks. I remember this very well, but the idea that an analytical body should appear and the only body that, accordingly, has detectives and the ability to carry out business checks, and in all other bodies it is cleaned, it was the right idea, for more than four years. It was a key. But since the Bab existed in parallel with the fact that we actually remained the punitive function of the tax, the National Police, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the SBU, and the DBR took over this role, and other institutions that still pressed on the business – the Beb in such a model did not make sense.

Now, if we reform the Criminal Procedure Code, Bab should be the only effective body with a priority for analytics, with less opportunities for business pressure on business and with effective interaction with the Business Ombudsman Institute. Well, most importantly, this body should be completely restarted, with a completely different logic that is laid in its functioning. In the end, the same managed to do the same in the NAPC, in NABU … The logic of a new bill was built in this experience.

Therefore, of course, this institute is needed, but not in the form in which it has existed for the last 3 years. Since this institution is worth the state budget for more than a billion, almost one and a half billion hryvnias a year, the relevant topics it should do – it should be systemic topics for creating a shadow economy of the state. We have a game business that remains redeemed from paying taxes, we have an evasion of excise duties (according to analytical centers – more than 30 billion UAH per year), we have a corrupt customs and tax systems, that is, as you can see, tasks – for hundreds of billions of hryvnias.

The last real meeting of the President with business was in June 2023. Although they recently conducted another. How can you comment on it?

Andriy Dligach: The recent meetings were a conference. These were not a meeting where the President listened to business representatives. These were meetings where the President expressed his position and there was no real dialogue. Of course, the meaning of such meetings is minimal. The first and most importantly: not the President and his administration should determine who should be at such meetings. Business has a clear consolidation, business has business associations, the vast majority of business associations are combined into a business community coalition for modernization of Ukraine, there is a CCI. There is a Business Ombudsman Institute, there is a European Business Association, the American Chamber of Commerce, Federation of Employers. Accordingly, such structuring of a business implies that the President’s office should learn to conduct dialogue with institutions, with an institutionalized business, with those who represent the interests of different industries, different types of businesses, in size, by geography, not to determine which entrepreneurs to invite.

If the president needs feedback, then the Ministry of Economy, together with the “action”, made a great business tool, a great tool called a pulse. And in the pulse, we, together with the Ministry of Economy, analyzed the results of such feedback. There is everything that business associations say in the first wave of analysis. The same is evidenced by the studies conducted by analytical centers, including Advanter Group – they are constantly published. All priority issues are consolidated there, many of them have prepared and sound solutions.

Further analytical centers, together with business associations, form proposals for public policies, part of the decisions-mostly with the Ministry of Economy-is already implemented. But you can also implement all the necessary decisions together with the Verkhovna Rada and the CMU. The role of the President is leadership, in order to approve the vision vector of transformation, to confirm that the issue of economic stability is as important as defense capability. And on the other hand, the president, and this communication of business and power is needed to record that business is the key problems not so much deregulation (where much is being done), not only the issue of human capital (here is the key to reservation The issue of trust in the state, the reduction of unjustified pressure on business – nothing is solved. And this does not need to meet with individual businessmen. Work, systematic work with business associations and analytical centers are required.