Politicians and economists are interested not in Zelensky’s election slogans, but in specific economic policy issues.

A politician is not only a participant in intellectual play, it is personally responsible for the socio-economic situation of the country.

Defeating your opponent is just the beginning.

Politicians will have to negotiate in order to avoid a fragile balance and to prevent negative economic consequences.

Macroeconomic consequences in the absence of agreement
Without reaching agreement between the political forces of one camp of like-minded people, we will see the continuation of the National Bank’s rigid monetary policy, which through transmission mechanisms will try to keep the rate and inflation at bay, putting an end to aggregate demand throughout 2019.

The NBU’s holy grail – inflation targeting – will be one of the main instruments for influencing monetary stability. However, it has long been necessary to focus on intensifying lending to the real economy and aggregate demand for GDP growth. However, this is not timely, it does not allow for electoral uncertainty.

We run the risk of freezing cooperation with the IMF. In the absence of an investment boom, this will not lead to good. We have insufficient level of gold and foreign exchange reserves and significant current liabilities on public and private debt. Without cooperation with foreign financial partners, this will result in a devaluation above the current budget level of UAH 29.4 per USD.

Ukraine’s demonstrative political procrastination bed with opponents and their teams will lead to a delay in reforms and a waste of time. In such circumstances, non-residents will withdraw from the government bonds portfolio by the end of the year, which will lead to short-term rapid devaluation, accelerated inflation and stagnant economy.

Game theory and election battles
If we observe an ultimatum in the process of negotiating debates between presidential candidates, then we will start from the analysis of game theory that examines such processes. It is game theory that examines the conflicts between several or many participants when winning one leads to losing another.

However, a voter is not rational in his beliefs, he does not always pragmatically evaluate the facts, as victory is influenced by social, cultural factors and age-related changes. In this case, the voter does not maximize his self-interest, but demands justice through some protest.

He is not interested in rational facts about the current social and economic situation, such as gold and foreign currency reserves, which have almost tripled from December 2014 to February 2019, real wages, which increased by 45.6% from 2015 to 2019, or inflation, which slowed to less than 10%.

The voter also ignores the stability of the hryvnia exchange rate, the reduction of the national debt to GDP, the increase of defense capacity, decentralization, successes in reforms, tomos.

According to game theory, negotiating from a dictator’s position will not bring more benefits. On the contrary, this type of negotiation can sometimes hurt the dictator himself.

The theory of games through the prisoners’ dilemma clearly models the strategy of two-player behavior, in which an inexperienced player leads two opposing games against an opponent: too liberal or too aggressive. In both cases, he is played by a more experienced player who can simulate and predict the consequences of two types of game.

This applies not only to the format of the debate, but to all the types of negotiations that a possible election winner, Vladimir Zelensky, may face.

The problem with negotiating over an ultimatum or dictation is that they do not always work to strike a balance. However, the very form of debate, analysis, war is the PR-fiction of a political campaign to build a show.

What’s next
In Ukraine, long-standing disrespect for the top officials of the state after being elected or appointed, and often deserved. By categories of game theory, this can be formulated as a Ukrainian political tug-of-war. After six months, it will be difficult to retain the current level of supporters, and therefore to form a majority in parliament.

It would be extremely difficult to influence parliamentary elections in such a coordinate matrix to govern the country without informal and public agreements with 226 MPs. This is a delicate question that bothers everyone when winning Zelensky: who he will negotiate with and who his shadow negotiators will be.

In narrow circles, they should already be known and their surnames can tell a lot about commitment to political and business beneficiaries.

It is known that all the significant reforms in Ukraine over the last five years, and not only eHealth, Transparent, NABU, IMF programs, and judicial reform, have come about with the support of Washington, so it will have to be negotiated in the first place.

On the painful topic of relations with Russia, it is better to put three points. The new president must answer this question.

Politicians and economic analysts are not interested in slogans but in specific issues.

What will be the “new economic policy”? What are its macroeconomic goals? What will be the NBU’s policy? Are there any risks of repeating the Kryvorizhstal and Centrenergo re-privatization case? Will there be a final legitimization of the property?

Will cooperation with the IMF continue? Will fiscal justice be achieved? Will land reform happen? How will foreign private investment be attracted?

Zelensky, if he wins, can lose six to nine months without a majority in parliament. To rely on domestic practice of cooperation with political defectors is a short-term benefit. Much more is at stake – statehood, because the country is at war.

Political and economic populism must be replaced by a construct in order to maintain its success. For the sake of the welfare of the nation, one should sit at the negotiating table on April 22. A meeting to reduce the emotional color of communication can take place in only two formats: “transfer of power” or “work on mistakes”.

It is always difficult to cooperate and negotiate through trust, but it is also a policy. Ladies and Gentlemen, in order to preserve statehood and macroeconomic stability, you will have to negotiate. The sooner the better.