What I learned from ‘Servant of the People’

By Daniel W. Drezner, Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University

I watched the television show that led Ukraine’s president into politics. Here’s what I learned.

Last month, the hard-working staff here at Spoiler Alerts weighed in on whether various American TV shows about politics were accurate or not. As I noted then, “I wish American politics operated like inspiring drama. As I get older, however, it has become impossible to ignore the abundance of farce.”

But what if a farcical TV show becomes the pathway through which someone enters the actual political arena? Obviously, Donald Trump transitioned from hosting his moderately popular show “The Apprentice” to running for president to being a very immature president. It is interesting to note, however, that Trump’s prior experience in show business did not enable him to develop good relations with the other global leader who transitioned from a TV program to actual political power: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Perhaps this is because Trump’s TV show, while farcical, was a reality show that tried to make it seem like the drama was real. Zelensky’s show, “Servant of the People,” was intended from the outset as a political satire.

As Zelensky’s stature has grown during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Netflix brought back the first season of his show for its U.S. subscribers. Paste Magazine’s Kenneth Lowe is not wrong when he characterizes the absurdity of this situation: “ … if you have Netflix, you can now watch the first season of the Ukrainian sitcom where Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky, who is the president of Ukraine, portrayed the president of Ukraine before becoming the president of Ukraine.”

I watched the show, and like Lowe, I agree that it’s pretty good! Its premise is that a poor, honest high school history teacher called Vasily Petrovych Holoborodko, played by Zelensky, gets elected president of Ukraine after a student surreptitiously records him ranting about corruption and the video goes viral. Holoborodko tries to govern as a man without airs, tackling corruption in the government and adopting small-p populist tactics, such as eliminating the presidency’s massive staff as an unnecessary waste of money.

As political satires go, “Servant of the People” is not quite as good as, say, “Yes, Minister” or “Veep.” That is a very high bar, however, and Zelensky’s show has some very clever touches. Holoborodko keeps hallucinating historical figures, from Plutarch to Lincoln to Che Guevara, who act as his conscience while trying to govern. One of the show’s first arcs, in which Holoborodko’s middle-class family shamelessly tries to profit from their successful relative, is amusing. The show has some shrewd things to say about how people treat you differently once you have a modicum of power. Most importantly, “Servant of the People” is keenly aware that Belarusian ruler Alexander Lukashenko is the perfect punchline for any joke.

Perhaps the most important revelation from watching it, however, is its direct refutation of the idea that Ukraine is not a liberal democracy. Weirdly, it does that by highlighting how it’s not a great liberal democracy. The overarching theme of “Servant of the People” is the corruption that plagues the country and the government. Holoborodko and his plucky band of reformers hit wall after wall trying to run the government in an ethical and efficient manner. (One of the show’s clever touches is to show Ukrainian oligarchs constantly playing Ukrainian “Monopoly” — without ever showing their faces — as they cope with Holoborodko’s unpredictability.) There is no deep state in “Servant of the People,” just deep-pocketed billionaires.

How “Servant of the People” acknowledges and comments on the corruption question is what makes it so interesting. A Russian version of this show would have been more deeply cynical. It would have simply accepted it as a given and suggested that nothing could be done. In contrast, this show, like “Parks and Recreation” or “Schitt’s Creek,” suggests that improvement is possible even if it take effort. Competent civil servants are also highlighted.

Perhaps the most interesting element of the show is that even the more corrupt politicians accept the idea that Ukraine is and should be a democracy. When Holoborodko wins a surprise victory, the incumbent president, like others I know, tried to stay in power. Even his corrupt subordinate, however, tells him it’s time to go.

The underlying message of “Servant of the People” is that Ukraine has been a dysfunctional democracy but it could be a great democracy. As political platforms go, that one has more than a little appeal.

This piece is republished from The Washington Post.