When President Volodymyr Zelensky signed legislation weakening Ukraine’s key anti-corruption agencies on July 22, he appeared to think his people would sit idle. Instead, he unleashed the first major protests in the country since Russia’s invasion began in Feb. 2022. Those protests and Zelensky’s U-turn ultimately demonstrated that Ukrainian democracy remains vibrant even under the most extreme circumstances.
The institution at stake, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), was established in 2014 as one of the requirements set by the European Union and International Monetary Fund for financial support and visa liberalization. After decades of oligarchic influence and systemic corruption that made Ukraine notorious as one of Europe’s most corrupt nations, NABU’s creation was long overdue. If Ukraine had a government consistently willing to investigate corruption on its own, there’d be no need for NABU.
So why did Zelensky push this foolish legislation?
He tried to place NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) under the control of a presidentially appointed Prosecutor General. That would have eliminated their autonomy from political interference. Zelensky tried to frame his action as a national security move and to root out alleged Russian influence within Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies. But critics saw a more political motive: consolidating power and shielding allies from uncomfortable scrutiny. With several investigations reportedly circling figures close to his administration, the timing raised eyebrows.
Moreover, at a time when Ukraine needs Western support more than ever, Zelensky would have handed skeptics in Washington exactly what they wanted: proof that old habits die hard. And who knows, given how Ukrainian politics functions, this silliness could’ve been a targeted attempt to undermine a rival, serve as a bureaucratic power grab, or both.
Fortunately, thousands of protesters quickly poured into the streets of Kyiv after the law’s passage. Demonstrations continued for multiple consecutive days, not just in the capital but in Lviv, Odesa, and even closer to the front, in Dnipro and Kharkiv.
Ukraine has a long and hard-earned tradition of protest against government overreach. From the Orange Revolution in 2004 to the Maidan uprising in 2013–2014, Ukrainians have consistently taken to the streets to defend their rights and resist authoritarian drift. Even in wartime, when public dissent might seem risky or unpatriotic, Ukrainians remain willing to challenge their own leaders, no matter how popular, when they overreach.
ISRAEL’S NEW GAZA OFFENSIVE MUST BE GROUND FOCUSED, NOT RELIANT ON AIR POWER
Zelensky walked back under pressure. Within days, parliament voted unanimously to restore the agencies’ independence, and the president signed the reversal into law.
Domestically, the protests were a clear reminder to Zelensky that even in wartime, there are still important limits to power. For the international audience, this speedy and successful revolt underscored a key distinction: Ukraine is not Russia. And that Ukrainian democracy is alive and kicking.