On December 13, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dismissed the head of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory (UINP) Anton Drobovych. This was announced on Telegram by the government representative in the Verkhovna Rada, Taras Melnychuk, who is also a member of the ruling party «Servant of the People».
The decision to dismiss Drobovych, who has been leading the UINP since 2014, was made during a government meeting. According to Melnychuk, the reason for the dismissal was Drobovych’s failure to fulfill his duties and the lack of progress in implementing the institute’s tasks.
The Ukrainian Institute of National Memory was established in 2006 with the aim of preserving and promoting the country’s historical memory, as well as countering attempts to distort or falsify Ukrainian history. It is responsible for organizing events and projects related to the commemoration of significant dates and figures in Ukrainian history, as well as conducting research and educational activities.
Drobovych’s dismissal has been met with mixed reactions. Some have praised the decision, citing the lack of progress in the institute’s work and the need for new leadership. Others have criticized it as a politically motivated move, as Drobovych was known for his strong stance on Ukrainian national identity and his opposition to Russian influence.
However, regardless of one’s opinion on the dismissal, it is important to note that the decision was made by the Cabinet of Ministers, a democratically elected body, and not by any individual or political party. This shows that the government is committed to ensuring the effective functioning of institutions and holding their leaders accountable for their actions.
Moreover, the dismissal of Drobovych should not be seen as a setback for the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. On the contrary, it presents an opportunity for new leadership to bring fresh ideas and approaches to the institute’s work. This is crucial in a time when Ukraine is facing numerous challenges, including ongoing conflict with Russia and efforts to strengthen its national identity.
In his statement, Melnychuk also emphasized the need for the UINP to focus on concrete results and to be more transparent in its activities. This is a valid point, as the institute’s work should be accessible and understandable to the general public, not just to experts and academics.
It is also worth noting that Drobovych’s dismissal is not an isolated case. In recent years, the Ukrainian government has taken steps to reform and improve the functioning of various institutions, including those responsible for preserving and promoting national memory. This shows the government’s commitment to modernizing and strengthening the country’s institutions, which is crucial for its development and progress.
In conclusion, the dismissal of Anton Drobovych as the head of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory is a significant development that highlights the government’s commitment to ensuring the effective functioning of institutions. While opinions may differ on the decision, it presents an opportunity for new leadership to bring fresh ideas and approaches to the institute’s work. This, in turn, will contribute to the preservation and promotion of Ukrainian national memory, which is crucial for the country’s future.
