The Reinvention of Local Government in Ukraine’s Liberated Territories
- Matthew Parish
- Jun 19
- 5 min read
Since the Russian invasion of February 2022, thousands of square kilometres of Ukrainian territory have changed hands — some more than once. The brutal realities of occupation, followed by liberation through Ukrainian counteroffensives, have left a trail of destruction not only in infrastructure and communities, but also in the basic architecture of local governance. In the wake of liberation, Kyiv has faced the monumental task of re-establishing civilian administration in territories long cut off from the central state, in which trust, capacity and resources had often been deliberately degraded. The reinvention of local government in these areas is not merely an exercise in bureaucratic rebuilding — it is a cornerstone of national resilience, democratic legitimacy and future peace.
Occupation and Institutional Erosion
During occupation Russian authorities imposed their own administrative structures, often coercing or replacing local officials, seizing registries, and severing digital and physical links with Ukrainian institutions. School curricula were rewritten. Local police forces were replaced with proxies. Currency and tax systems were altered. In some areas, residents were issued Russian passports, and collaboration — whether voluntary or under duress — became a daily moral quandary.
This hollowing out of local authority posed severe challenges after liberation. Ukraine’s military victories in regions such as Kherson, Kharkiv and parts of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia left behind administrative vacuums. Many experienced public servants had fled, been detained, or had collaborated and were thus disqualified. Records had been destroyed or looted. And perhaps most crucially, populations had been traumatised by violence, displacement and occupation.
The State Steps In
Kyiv’s immediate response was practical and security-oriented. Military-civilian administrations (MCAs) were deployed in newly liberated zones. These interim structures, rooted in Ukraine’s martial law provisions, centralised authority under appointed officials drawn from the Ministry of Defence, the President’s Office, or trusted regional networks. Their primary task was to stabilise: to restore order, coordinate humanitarian assistance, re-establish communications and banking, and screen for collaborators or threats.
But even in the earliest stages, there was recognition that MCAs could not be permanent. Ukraine’s decentralisation reforms of the 2010s, which had empowered local governments through amalgamated territorial communities (hromadas), had been amongst the country’s most celebrated administrative achievements. There was broad consensus, among international donors and Ukrainian civil society alike, that any reinvention of governance in liberated areas should build upon this model — not undermine it.
The New Localism
The challenge, then, became how to rebuild local government from the ground up, while navigating security, legitimacy and the trauma of war. Across multiple liberated regions, three key innovations have emerged:
Provisional Hromadas: In areas where elected councils were defunct, Kyiv supported the establishment of provisional local councils composed of vetted community leaders, returnees and pre-war officials. These structures focused on service delivery, reconstruction and community trust-building, while preparing for eventual elections.
Digital Governance: The Diia platform — Ukraine’s flagship e-governance system — was leveraged to facilitate remote access to documents, benefits and applications. In many areas where physical infrastructure was destroyed, digital tools became the primary interface between citizens and the state.
Community Councils and Oversight Mechanisms: Civil society organisations were encouraged to form local oversight groups to monitor the reconstitution of governance and reduce the risk of corruption or abuse. In areas such as Balakliia and Izium, these groups played an essential role in restoring civic trust.
Elections and Legitimacy
One of the most difficult questions remains the timing and structure of local elections in liberated areas. Martial law has postponed all elections nationwide, but the issue is particularly acute in de-occupied regions. Holding elections too soon — before security and transparency can be guaranteed — risks empowering opportunists or former collaborators. Yet indefinite postponement undermines democratic legitimacy.
Proposals currently under discussion include:
Staggered elections, beginning in the most stable liberated regions.
Expanded use of electronic voting through Diia.
Vetting of candidates by an independent judicial or anti-corruption body.
Interim mandates for provisional councils with firm sunset clauses.
International Support and Future Models
The international community has played a vital role. The European Union, USAID and UNDP have all provided funding and technical support for local governance revival, including training, rebuilding municipal buildings and restoring public registries. Some donor agencies have even paired Ukrainian hromadas with sister municipalities in Europe, fostering partnerships in reconstruction and democratic renewal.
Ukraine’s experience may become a model for post-occupation governance in other conflict zones. The balance between state authority, local empowerment, security and democracy is delicate — but Ukraine’s approach shows that even amidst war, it is possible to defend not only borders but institutions.
The Front Line of Democracy
The reinvention of local government in Ukraine’s liberated territories is a story of both trauma and tenacity. It reflects the country’s broader struggle to uphold her democratic identity under existential threat. As Ukraine prepares for eventual peace, the strength of her hromadas — their capacity, legitimacy, and resilience — will be amongst her most powerful defences against future aggression. For it is in town halls, not just trenches, that victory is secured.
---
Policy Annex: Rebuilding Local Government in Liberated Areas of Ukraine
1. Institutional Framework
Legal Basis: Martial law (first imposed February 2022) allows for the appointment of Military-Civilian Administrations (MCAs) by Presidential decree.
Decentralisation Law: Ukraine’s ongoing decentralisation reform (2014–present) creates amalgamated territorial communities (hromadas) with elected councils and budgetary autonomy.
Law on Local Self-Governance and Law on State Administration form the legal backbone for reconstituting civil authority post-occupation.
2. Phased Transition Model
Phase | Key Components | Timeline |
Stabilisation Phase | Security vetting, humanitarian aid, reestablishment of law enforcement, registry restoration | 0–3 months post-liberation |
Transitional Phase | Appointment of provisional councils, partial reintroduction of hromada functions, digital governance | 3–12 months |
Consolidation Phase | Return of elected councils, local elections, full fiscal autonomy, audit and reconciliation process | 12–24+ months |
3. Transitional Governance Instruments
Provisional Hromada Councils: Temporarily composed of vetted pre-war officials, civil society leaders, and returnees.
Community Oversight Mechanisms: Local NGOs and CSOs act as independent monitors, ensuring transparency and human rights compliance.
Judicial Vetting of Officials: Candidates for public office undergo screening for collaboration or abuse, typically via the State Bureau of Investigations (DBR) and Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).
4. Use of Digital Tools
Diia Platform: Reconnects residents to state services, including ID, social payments, legal aid and document access.
E-voting Feasibility Study: Commissioned for pilot testing in low-risk de-occupied zones by the Central Election Commission with support from USAID.
5. Electoral Framework (Draft Proposals)
Staggered Local Elections: Begin with regions assessed as secure and administratively prepared.
Voter Re-registration: Required to update residency records, especially for displaced persons.
Candidate Vetting: Central Election Commission empowered to disqualify candidates under investigation for wartime collaboration.
6. International Support Mechanisms
Key Partners:
USAID: Institutional capacity building, election infrastructure, governance training.
EU/UNDP: Registry modernisation, municipal infrastructure repair.
Council of Europe: Legal advisory and human rights integration into local governance.
Municipal Twinning Programmes: Partnerships between liberated Ukrainian municipalities and EU towns to exchange expertise and attract reconstruction funds.
7. Recommendations for Implementation
Prioritise human resource development: Fast-track local governance education for new civil servants.
Institutionalise collaboration screening and reconciliation commissions: to fairly assess and reintegrate former local officials where appropriate.
Create a National Taskforce for Post-Occupation Governance: To centralise policy coherence and implementation monitoring.
Encourage gradual fiscal autonomy based on transparent budgeting benchmarks and anti-corruption compliance.
