Zelenskyy told "servants of people" about his intention to run in next election, - Politico
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a closed meeting of the "Servant of the People" faction last week, at which he expressed disappointment in his own party and complained about MPs, civil society activists, and journalists for failing to promote a strong image of Ukraine among Western partners.
This was reported by Politico, citing members of the faction who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity "for fear of inviting presidential wrath," according to Censor.NET.
Meeting between Zelenskyy and the "Servant of the People" faction
The MPs marked the meeting by "underlying tension."
"Referring to reports about corruption and rights violations, the president combatively stated that Ukrainians saying anything negative about the situation inside the country were distracting from where the focus should be — on the war effort and bolstering support from foreign allies," the article states.
MPs expected Zelenskyy to be more gentle, especially given the recent attempt to dismantle the anti-corruption infrastructure, which sparked mass protests.
Monopolisation of power
Instead, the publication writes, Zelenskyy focused on the state of war "and made clear his intention to run in any elections held after."
"And it appears it’s no longer just Zelenskyy’s partisan rivals who worry about a creeping monopolization of power," journalists noted.
The author writes that doubts and complaints are growing within the ranks of "Servant of the People" regarding Zelenskyy's highly personalised method of governance and his tendency to treat parliament with contempt. Furthermore, his actions against anti-corruption bodies continue to irritate some of his own MPs.
The President's Office tried to shift the blame for the attempt to eliminate the independence of the NABU and SAPO onto the Verkhovna Rada. Politico writes that this episode made many lawmakers wonder how Zelenskyy and his advisers failed to predict such a violent public reaction.
Public opinion polls consistently show that even in wartime, Ukrainians consider corruption to be the country's main internal problem.
Political opponents have long complained of "the Ukrainian leader’s populist impatience with the constraints and complexities required to govern a democracy and of his innate prickliness to criticism." His defenders, however, are dismissive of the complaints, saying "war requires a firm, decisive hand." At the beginning of the year, the head of the Presidential Office, Yermak, said: "Especially during wartime, decisions must be made quickly and clearly."
Presidential aides also point out the president enjoys high favorability in opinion polls.
And even many critics agree that "the clamor and messiness of democracy shouldn’t be allowed to imperil the country as it fights an existential war," but they also stress that other wartime leaders took a markedly different approach — notably Britain’s Winston Churchill, sought to attract the best the country’s best, brightest and most capable from across the political spectrum to fill the ranks of wartime bureaucracy.
Western partners are concerned
It is not only Zelenskyy's political rivals who are concerned about the drive to centralise power. Although Western allies are refraining from any public criticism so as not to give Russia any room for propaganda, three European envoys have expressed their concern on condition of anonymity. Some "Servant of the People" MPs also question recent events, including the dismissal of mayors and pressure on state institutions that are supposed to be independent.
Control of the government by the Verkhovna Rada
Even before the full-scale invasion began, the government was impatient with parliamentary oversight. Now, it has effectively abandoned the procedure of ministers reporting to parliamentary committees and is avoiding meetings, the publication writes.
At the same time, the author notes, the President's Office is increasingly trying to gather the votes needed to pass necessary bills. This is because current MPs are increasingly resisting pressure from the presidential administration and fear that voters will blame them if something goes wrong.
Personnel decisions
The publication also describes recent reshuffles in the Cabinet of Ministers, which led to the forced resignation of well-known figures such as Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and "Ukrenergo" CEO Volodymyr Kudrytskyi. Valerii Zaluzhnyi's resignation is also mentioned.
Politico writes that each reshuffle led to "the president’s clam-like coterie of trusted friends and advisers accrue more power and control," while outliers ready to question and challenge — or who show streaks of independence — get ejected.
The mood in the ruling party was not improved by Zelenskyy's notorious quarrel with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.
Attendance at a meeting with the "Servant of the People" faction
According to the publication, MPs expected Zelenskyy to try to calm his party at last week's meeting. However, interlocutors said that things did not go as planned. The president was dissatisfied with the low level of attendance at the faction meeting - about a hundred MPs failed to turn up. Tensions only increased when one of the parliamentarians questioned the advisability of reducing anti-corruption bodies at a time when they were focusing on employees of the President's Office.
While Zelenskyy did say he’d consult with them more in the future, "that seems unlikely," one of the lawmakers lamented. "The whole narrative points to a further tightening of the screws at home. As far as the President’s Office sees it, you’re either with Zelenskyy or you’re a Russian stooge."
Tightening of the screws
Politico says that indeed, the screws are being tightened.
"Just this month, for example, a group of around 20 former and retired Ukrainian diplomats and envoys were included in a regulation banning lawmakers and officials from traveling overseas without the express approval of authorities," the article states.
Former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said:
"It is difficult to understand why, in the fourth year of the war, it suddenly became so important to ban a group of no more than 20 people from traveling abroad — people who have the contacts and authority to promote Ukraine’s interests among foreign audiences. The only explanation can be political.
And once such political logic takes hold, it becomes possible to arbitrarily decide which categories of people are allowed or forbidden to do certain things. Ambassadors are only an example, but one that reveals a much deeper problem."
