SerpApi.Org
The Ukrainian government's resignation last week has become something of an annual ritual. Each iteration is presented as a fresh start, yet together they point to a far more significant problem — a persistent crisis of governance.
Before founding a civil society organization focused on defense sector reform, I served as a government official in Ukraine.
During my time in government, I learned firsthand how difficult it can be to pursue a real change from within the system. When I initiated reforms that challenged dated and inefficient practices, I rarely saw enthusiasm for them. In reality, I faced the opposite situation, in which the bureaucratic system seemed to actively avoid those who became inconvenient.
Similar to what happened with now-former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, I was also dismissed from office after ordering an audit that revealed the misuse of resources.
Now I joke that ordering audits is a very risky business. You could lose your job.
Like Fedorov, I wanted to use my formal powers as stipulated by Ukrainian law. And after my dismissal, I chose to speak publicly about the real reasons for it rather than accept the official narrative.
This is why, for me, the significance of the latest government reshuffle goes far beyond the replacement of yet another minister. The Zelensky administration has experienced frequent personnel changes, which may present challenges for maintaining continuity and administrative stability.
However, the bigger issue is that Ukraine's institutions are still not functioning as they should, and the laws established are too often not observed in practice.
The unexpected "voluntary" resignation of Yulia Svyrydenko's government ultimately laid bare the weakness of Ukraine's parliament in the face of an increasingly assertive Presidential Office, despite the country's parliamentary-presidential system.
Under the Constitution, it is parliament that holds the authority to determine the country's political course. The formation of a new government is arguably the most consequential personnel decision in Ukrainian politics, impacting not only the direction of the state but also the daily lives of every Ukrainian.
When these constitutional rules are undermined, the consequences extend well beyond governance quality, eroding the state's ability to attract and retain talented professionals genuinely committed to public service.
Accepting a government position in wartime Ukraine is an extraordinarily demanding and often thankless responsibility.
Those who choose to enter public service should at least be able to rely on the legal mandates and formal powers attached to their office. Instead, many discover that the authority granted to them by law exists largely on paper.
In practice, the powers they are expected to exercise are often constrained by informal political arrangements and entrenched interests. This reality is one of the greatest deterrents preventing capable professionals from joining the civil service.
It also creates a broader rule-of-law problem.
Public officials cannot faithfully perform the duties assigned to them by legislation, including oversight, anti-corruption safeguards, and accountability, when the legal framework is applied selectively.
Public officials cannot faithfully perform the duties assigned to them by legislation, including oversight, anti-corruption safeguards, and accountability, when the legal framework is applied selectively.
If laws are not implemented in practice, they cease to serve as the foundation of public administration and instead become optional political instruments.
I believe that Fedorov's tenure illustrates this problem as well. He was arguably the first Ukrainian defense minister to seriously implement the model established by the 2018 Law on National Security, landmark legislation adopted to align Ukraine's defense governance with Euro-Atlantic standards. That law deliberately transformed the role of the defense minister. It established the minister as the civilian authority responsible for democratic oversight of the Armed Forces.
The defense minister is expected to oversee the work of the commander-in-chief, assess whether military capabilities are developing effectively, scrutinize how personnel and resources are being managed, evaluate institutional performance, and ask difficult questions that military commanders themselves are neither expected nor able to ask.
This model of civilian oversight is a cornerstone of NATO's democratic governance principles.
Fedorov attempted to exercise precisely those responsibilities. He launched battlefield assessments, initiated institutional audits, reviewed the effectiveness of military structures, introduced greater transparency in defense procurement, and sought to evaluate how resources and personnel were being managed during wartime. So, in a nutshell, he was fulfilling the very functions that Ukrainian law assigns to a civilian defense minister.
When I watched him begin performing exactly the role envisioned by the Law on National Security, I remember wondering how long he would be allowed to continue. Unfortunately, we now have the answer: six months.
That should concern anyone who cares about Ukraine's future.
Talented professionals who sincerely want to serve their country will now think twice before entering government. They will understand that if they insist on implementing the Constitution, enforcing the law, fighting corruption, and challenging poor governance, they are unlikely to remain in office for long.
Instead, they risk being removed quickly and decisively because entrenched interests and informal rules continue to affect the functioning of formal institutions.
Unfortunately, this remains a structural weakness that undermines Ukraine's ability to build the modern, rules-based state it has committed itself to becoming.
Ukraine has opened two new EU accession clusters, and we see it as a historic opportunity to change Ukraine's political system by giving real effect to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.
Yet one fact should not be overlooked: a transparent, public, and strictly lawful process of government formation is a fundamental expectation of Ukraine's European partners when assessing the country's progress toward accession.
Ukraine's political elites should seize this opportunity — not squander it in favor of closed-door political bargaining.
Editor's note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.
Read also: We asked Ukrainian soldiers what they think about Drapatyi, their new commander-in-chief
Read also: Zaluzhnyi breaks silence, says new commander-in-chief faces ‘incredibly difficult job’
Read also: Inside the Zelensky-Fedorov stalemate: Neither side is ready to yield
