Editor’s Note: This is the English-language translation of an op-ed by Ukrainian member of parliament Sergii Leshchenko, originally published in the March 31 edition of Novoye Vremya news magazine. It is republished with the author’s permission.

By trying to suppress the public’s drive to root out corruption, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is making a historic mistake. Ukrainians, who have already driven one thieving president from power, will only increase their demands for honest government.

Poroshenko is used to using somebody else’s hands to do his dirty work. He attempted to install Nigel Brown, whom Bankova wants to take the role of auditor of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, under the quota of the parliament (the executive, legislative and the president can each nominate a NABU auditor).

To bring public organizations under control, the manually controlled parliament majority voted in the Verkhovna Rada for amendments to the law on electronic declarations. What just happened is in line with other developments seen throughout the year.

Over this time, the SBU state security service, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption have turned into a troika for pursuing political vendettas, while the corrupt courts hand out indulgences to various odious figures, like exiled ex-member of parliament Yuriy Ivanushchenko, one of fugitive ex-President Viktor Yanukovych’s closest ally.

Act of revenge

In a country where a creeping act of revenge by corrupt officials is going on, only one person is pretending that he’s above it all – Poroshenko.

But the president’s attempt to pretend he’s whiter-than-white is ridiculous. The public sees it as his responsibility to fight corruption. But instead of leading this crusade, Bankova is looking for ways to break the backbone of the only independent anti-corruption body – the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.

Poroshenko, as an “accidental president” who was in the right place at the right time, has still has not resolved his basic conflict of interest: is he a businessman or a statesman?

Nasirov case

The bombshells from the investigation conducted by the anti-corruption bureau are exploding closer and closer to Bankova. The administration was unable to prevent the arrest of State Fiscal Service head Roman Nasirov, and a new salvo is expected – a case against ex-member of parliament Mykola Martynenko, a valued comrade of both Poroshenko and former Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. A case investigating whether Martynenko received kickbacks to his Swiss bank account as part of contracts for state energy company Energoatom has been opened by the special prosecutor’s office.

Nigel Brown

The zeal with which Bankova has tried to push Nigel Brown into the role of hooded executioner of the NABU is obscene. So is the result of this zealousness – three failed parliament votes within a month. The failure to get things done reduces the legitimacy of the president. Neither the authority of the government nor the pressure of the siloviki (politicians from the security services), nor their boundless corrupt collusion could gather the 226 votes required. And this indicates that the president is unable to get his dirty work done for him.

Similarly, he was unable to protect Nasirov – neither in the Feofania VIP hospital, nor in Kyiv’s Solomenskiy District Court. The desire of the head of state to control everything has a downside – the emperor is rapidly being disrobed.

Poroshenko fears not only civil activists but also a lot of politicians. Unable to achieve the appointment of “his men” or protect his accomplices, the president is becoming a lame duck, which will inevitably lead to his agenda being ignored. This is reminiscent of third President Viktor Yushchenko’s administration in its time of decline, when he was unable to secure even the appointment of a foreign minister or prosecutor general, sacrificing much and gaining nothing.

Groysman conflict

One of the manifestations of this falling away of the vestiges of presidential authority is the barely noticeable, but rapidly developing conflict between Poroshenko and Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman.

This former Vinnytsia mayor has refused to head the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko Party, and “forgot” to warn Poroshenko that he was raising the minimum wage to Hr 3,200. The president, playing catch-up, had to record a televised address in order to prevent Groysman being able to bask in the glory by himself.

Groysman did not allow Bankova to appoint his first deputy prime minister, Serhiy Bilan, as a replacement for Nasirov, putting forward instead his ally, Myroslav Prodan, as the new head of the State Fiscal Service. It’s got to the point of absurdity: When the administration learns of the prime minister’s plans to hold a roundtable with businessmen, it schedules an analogous meeting headed by the president. And, unlike Yatsenyuk, who served as the president’s lightening rod for unpopularity, Groysman is perceived as part of the political power of the president, and Poroshenko is held responsible for the failures of the government.

Attacks on anti-corruption efforts have taken place around the world.

In Italy, in 1993, attempts were made by the government of Giuliano Amato to replace criminal penalties for corruption with fines, which prompted public protests and a veto by the president. This year, a similar scheme was attempted in Romania – and 250,000 people took to the streets to thwart it.

More developing countries are featured as evidence of the fact that revelations of corruption are changing the political landscape. Social media have made the world more transparent, and information exchange is swift. This is the main protection of anti-corruption activists. Their voice is audible even in semi-authoritarian countries, as is proved by Alexei Navalny in Russia.

So Poroshenko, in trying to hold back the tide of public anti-corruption sentiment, is making a historic mistake.

Our society, which has already driven out one thieving president, will only increase its demand for honest government. And society will inevitably win.