The media has repeatedly reported that dissatisfaction within the Coalition with Infrastructure Minister Andriy Pyvovarskyi is growing due to his inability to implement reforms. Members of Parliament claim that, in his six months in office, Pyvovarskyi has not only failed to fulfill all the terms of the Coalition Agreement but has even failed to formulate his vision for reforms in the sector.
Pivovarsky's helplessness was confirmed a few days ago, when the Ministry of Infrastructure launched a Facebook page called "Suggest to the Ministry." Beneath the official logo is the page description: "The Ministry awaits your proposals on necessary reforms of Ukraine's transport and infrastructure."
The Ministry of Infrastructure's desire to finally embrace reform is certainly touching, but it begs the question: what reform program did Pivovarsky bring to the minister's post, and what did he spend his six months in office? Was he training to be a minister? But can the country afford such "training" for top amateurs, when every day, every hour, is precious?
It should be understood that formulating a reform concept and providing legislative support for it are the initial and most important stages of reform. And Pivovarsky failed miserably at this stage, wasting his time on the dubious appointment of CEOs of state-owned enterprises and on abstract discourses about business process models for the railways.
Wasn't it obvious that Pivovarsky's appointment would end in failure? From the very beginning, experts and journalists criticized the appointment, as Pivovarsky had no experience in any of the subsectors under his command—not railways, not aviation, not ports, not anything else. His education was also completely unsuited to the position he occupied.
The first rule for inexperienced ministers is: "If you don't know what to do, open the Coalition Agreement and take your action plan from there." But Pivovarsky hasn't even thought of that. However, some Coalition members argue that Pivovarsky doesn't need reforms at all. After all, reforms primarily mean fighting corruption and dismantling corrupt practices. One MP described the situation this way: "There's some behind-the-scenes scheming going on at the Ministry of Infrastructure around ports and airports, but Pivovarsky hasn't yet explained how he plans to dismantle old corruption schemes and reform these sectors. There's also no progress in road maintenance and operation—one gets the feeling the incompetent minister simply doesn't want to change anything there. Yatsenyuk's advisor, Malin, installed his own man—an Odesa native—at Ukravtodor through Pivovarsky, and they don't need any reforms or decentralization there."
And what reforms can Pivovarsky implement if, in six months, he hasn't even managed to organize competitions to select candidates for the top positions at major state-owned enterprises, making a fool of himself? The question arises: what competitions are we even talking about if the minister still has no idea where to take the industry? What reform framework is he planning to recruit candidates for? One suspects that Pivovarsky is trying to appoint leaders who won't change anything.
Whatever one might say, the conclusion is clear: Pivovarsky is unable and unwilling to change anything in his infrastructure sector. This conclusion suggests that Pivovarsky's tenure as minister is short-lived. And on the Ministry's website, which "awaits our proposals for essential reforms of Ukraine's transport and infrastructure," the most urgent message should be posted: "Minister Pivovarsky must resign as soon as possible."
Matvey Blank
The material has been added to the section Send SKELETa
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!