Over the weekend, another scandal broke out in Kyiv: the historic Zelenskyi estate was demolished. The mayor of the capital Vitaliy Klitschko called it a "cynical provocation" and noted that a few days before the incident, the city administration submitted documents to the Ministry of Culture to protect the building and give it the status of a monument.
"Activists come to the city hall building, saying, 'Klitschko has demolished the monument.' But why don't the outraged demonstrators go and ask questions of the parliament, which for more than five years has not passed the draft law submitted by the city so that the capital has leverage over the unscrupulous owners of ancient buildings?" Klitschko said.
In turn, Acting the Minister of Culture Rostislav Karandeev blamed the capital authorities for everything, saying that it was they who were working improperly in this direction.
However, the demolition of the Zelensky manor raises a much broader issue of cultural heritage protection in Ukraine.
The protection of cultural heritage is one of the components of national security and preservation of national identity, especially in conditions of aggression from Russia. The enemy is trying to destroy the history of Ukraine, and therefore the protection of monuments is an important part of this struggle. However, in the spring of this year, an order of the Ministry of Culture appeared, which deprived citizens of the right to independently initiate the protection of cultural heritage.
Previously, the public played a key role in the process of protecting monuments. For example, in the case of the demolition of the "Flowers of Ukraine" building, the people of Kyiv were able to quickly protect it, obtaining the status of a monument. This became possible thanks to the old rules that were in force at that time.
Currently, according to the new order, specialized public organizations can no longer independently prepare documentation for entering an object into the List. They have to apply to the relevant cultural heritage protection authority, which makes the process much more complicated. Also, 10 working days were set for consideration of the application, but the reasons for refusal to be included in the List are not clearly defined, which allows officials to block public initiatives.
The new procedures carry significant corruption risks. From now on, the decision to grant the status of the object of cultural heritage is made by the collegial Advisory Council, which removes the responsibility of individual officials. The lack of transparency in the work of these councils and the possibility of manipulating the value of objects increase the risks of corruption.
In addition, the new Order was adopted with violations of public consultation procedures. The Ministry of Culture did not conduct mandatory consultations before issuing the order, which is a violation of the State Anti-Corruption Program.
Changes in the procedure for entering objects into the List have significantly complicated the protection of cultural heritage. From now on, if the inclusion of a building in the List is blocked at the level of state administrations, it is no longer possible to apply to the Ministry of Culture. This takes us back to the old days when such decisions were made behind closed doors and without public participation.
Such changes significantly complicate the possibility of protecting cultural heritage and may lead to its destruction. The only way to solve this problem is to ensure the transparency of the process and involve independent experts in assessing the value of cultural heritage objects.
