Why so hard?: Rule-of-law, reform, and state sovereignty in Ukraine and Moldova

Abstract

Unlike their luckier neighbors to the west, Ukraine and Moldova did not enjoy a convenient geographical location, a national consensus, a clear identity or the state traditions to make their transition effective after the meltdown of the Soviet empire. Their initial transformation was gradual, with leaders at the helm inherited from the communist past. Thus began an evolution, in many ways similar to that of many other CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries, that led to an oligarchic but pluralistic Ukrainian and a captured oligarchic Moldovan state. So far, reform efforts have not been successful, demonstrating the strength of the new systems that came into being. In Ukraine two revolutions aimed at radical reforms but the first one failed and so far the second did not deliver the kind of liberal state that demonstrators and Western partners expected alike. The case of Moldova is similar but here mistakes of the Western partners also contributed to the current, unreformed outcome. Increasingly, the issue centers around the rule-of-law, the establishment of a competent and independent judiciary – in a geopolitical space that could not be further away from what Luttwak 26 years ago imagined with his description of a transition to geoeconomics. In large parts of the world, including Eastern Europe, bad old traditional geopolitics is very much alive and shapes everyday life in the most dramatic way.