Stay Silent or Spin It? How Lawmakers Framed Their Support for Bill No

In the public arena, the move is already being compared to governance tactics seen in the early 2010s. The decision was adopted with minimal debate, little involvement from specialized committees, and no clear explanation from legislators or the government—highlighting a broader trend: a drift toward pushing through sensitive measures without procedural transparency or public justification.

Most of the lawmakers who supported the bill did not publicly express their position on the vote. A review of their personal social media pages revealed that over 200 MPs—many of whom regularly report on their activities—either failed to mention the events of July 22 altogether or posted only formal updates without clarifying their role in the vote or their personal stance on the decision (e.g., Perebyinis, Vatras). Notably, posts celebrating Oleksandr Usyk’s victory appeared far more frequently than any mention of the July 22 vote. In the comments under these posts, voters asked questions regarding support for the bill, expressed criticism, or requested an explanation of motives—MPs’ responses were rare. In their replies, some lawmakers referred to the Constitution (see, for example, comments on D. Maslov’s post) without specifying how the legal status of NABU and SAPO allegedly conflicted with constitutional provisions.

In this context, the silence is telling—it may indicate an unwillingness to publicly defend a politically sensitive decision and suggests the vote was rushed, lacking both full parliamentary debate and prior communication with constituents.

What interests us more, however, is the public messaging from those who genuinely viewed the adoption of Bill No. 12414 as a victory—and brought their enthusiasm to the public sphere. Surprisingly, there were very few such voices. We examined the main narratives that MPs used in their extended commentary on why they supported Bill No. 12414 and identified several ideological patterns that underpin their positions.

The most commonly used narrative is the denial of any threat to the independence of anti-corruption institutions, framing the adopted changes as purely technical or procedural updates. A typical framing of such statements emphasizes that NABU and SAPO remain fully functional, and that the modifications pertain solely to procedural regulation of institutional accountability. This argument appears in nearly identical posts by MPs Ihor Fris and Ihor Marchuk. Both stress that “NABU and SAPO remain fully operational and independent in their work,” and that the law “does not revoke their powers, but merely sets clear procedures for interaction with the Prosecutor General’s Office.” Both lawmakers avoid mentioning the rehaul of the model of subordination or the institutional power balance, instead focusing on the procedural neutrality of the decision. Similar arguments were voiced by MP Larysa Bilozir, who directly referred to her colleagues’ posts. On her Facebook page, she noted: “NABU and SAPO have not been dissolved. The independence of the SAPO head—in place since January 1, 2024—has been removed, and he’s now subordinated to the Prosecutor General. But that’s how it was before, too […].” In doing so, she frames the situation as a “restoration of normalcy” rather than a restructuring of the institutional framework—thereby sidestepping any discussion about whether the change aligns with anti-corruption commitments.

The next narrative is the assertion of the low effectiveness of anti-corruption agencies. It serves as a background justification for the need to change the system of accountability and oversight and is most often presented as a self-evident premise for legislative intervention. The argument centers on claims that the anti-corruption infrastructure has operated for a long time without tangible results, that it consumes excessive budget resources, and that there is a lack of accountability for failed or prolonged investigations.

In their posts, Ihor Marchuk and Ihor Fris frame this as an assessment of the entire system since 2015: “Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure has been operating since 2015, but its effectiveness in combating high-level corruption remains extremely low. […] The actual result is nearly zero.” They add that “neither high-profile arrests nor media scandals translate into real convictions or systemic change.” This framing shifts the focus away from institutional changes and toward public disappointment with unmet expectations—implicitly legitimizing the attempt to dismantle the independence of these institutions.

MP Larysa Bilozir reinforces this theme by emphasizing the budgetary inefficiency of NABU and SAPO. In her post, she states that “billions of hryvnias have been invested in anti-corruption agencies, but the amount of corrupt funds returned to the budget is several times smaller.” In this way, the argument shifts to a rationale of cost-efficiency: the justification for reform is presented as an attempt to optimize public spending rather than a political decision.

The most emotionally charged version of this rhetoric appears in Oleksii Kucherenko‘s posts. He not only questions the effectiveness of the anti-corruption agencies but also directly accuses them of simulating activity. He refers to the “Rotterdam+” case and the investigation into Koboliev as a “soap bubble” and a “dud,” adding, “Nine years of pretending to investigate, and not a single result.”

Some MPs went even further, congratulating the Ukrainian people on overthrowing one of the “pillars of colonial influence.” Yuliia Tymoshenko’s speech in the parliament was backed by MP Maksym Buzhanskyi, with similar themes echoed in posts by Maryana Bezuhla. Tymoshenko emphasized the “transfer of the constitutional rights of the Ukrainian people to foreigners,” referring to the involvement of foreign nationals in supervisory boards. Her line—“the colonization of Ukraine is no panacea”— echoed Bezuhla’s rhetoric, when she claimed that Ukraine had been “playing too long in the sandbox of ‘partner demands,’” and contrasted an “independent state” with the influence of “random Americans,” who, she argued, are in a position to question NABU staff. Buzhanskyi—who can hardly be described as anything but a controversial figure—did not bother explaining his position at all. His constituents got little more than jokes: some about Yuliia Tymoshenko’s weight class, others about MPs who voted against the bill.

The MPs who dared to resist in what was clearly a losing battle were rewarded with labels like “grant patriots” and other terms linking them to participation in various support initiatives from Western organizations—despite no clear evidence that any of them had ever actually received grants or assistance from Western partners. Such labels were used by Tymoshenko and Buzhanskyi, as well as Bezuhla and MP Ihor Marchuk. In a lengthy Facebook post, Marchuk mentioned “grant-eaters,” yet just a few paragraphs later expressed high hopes for civil society. In the comments under his post, he was unable to explain the difference between these terms.

It is also worth noting that in their initial public communications, none of the MPs mentioned the infamous “Russian trace” in NABU, which had been brought up following searches conducted by the SBU.

Thus, the true reasons behind the decision remain unknown. A situation in which each MP cites their own arguments is functionally equivalent to a lack of any clear, rational justification that could be presented collectively by all those who pressed the green button.

The results of our analysis of parliamentary communications indicate a lack of comprehensive public justification for the adoption of Bill No. 12414 and a tendency among MPs to avoid clearly articulating their positions. This creates the impression that lawmakers are unwilling to engage in open discussion of sensitive decisions, which undermines public trust in parliamentarians and threatens the legitimacy of the decisions made. Those MPs who did comment publicly on their vote often used neutral rhetoric, presenting the changes as minor and purely technical. This suggests an effort to deflect public criticism by downplaying and oversimplifying the consequences of the adopted changes. Some public statements were marked by manipulative tactics, including vague references to “ineffectiveness,” “grant dependency,” and “foreign influence,” without supporting evidence or analytical substantiation. This signals an attempt to divert public attention from the substance of the decision to emotionally charged narratives. The use of labels such as “grant patriots” and rhetoric about “foreign influence” contributes to deeper political polarization in society, degrading the quality of public debate and impeding constructive discussion on reforms and anti-corruption policy.

MPs must regularly and clearly communicate their positions to voters on significant legislative changes—particularly when these involve sensitive reforms. It is not a novel recommendation to adopt the common democratic practice of publicly discussing key bills, with the involvement of relevant experts and the public, prior to their adoption. In both deliberations and subsequent public communication, manipulative tactics, unsubstantiated accusations, and emotionally charged labels should be avoided. Instead, the focus should be on facts, data analysis, and well-founded arguments. Lawmakers should be prepared to engage in open dialogue with the public and the expert community, respond constructively to criticism, and be ready to explain the decisions they make. This approach will help reduce the risk of a political crisis.