Leonid Kuchma wants to weaken Parliament, not just make it bicameral

On Sunday's popular “Epicenter” television program, Leonid Kuchma was quite frank about his plans if and when reelected. The key idea is to have a showdown with Parliament, which is a thorn in his side. And he means not only the opposition, let alone parties, but Verkhovna Rada as such, because Mr. Kuchma seems to have had problems with all Ukrainian lawmakers since 1992. He proposes a cardinal solution: a referendum and changes to the Constitution. Indeed, any attempt to weaken Parliament now would be futile, and the Constitution does not allow him to order it dissolved. Even if he decided to bypass the Fundamental Law he would not get the desired result, because the next convocation would have even more opposition members. Thus the sages in the Presidential Administration came up with the bicameral idea, with an Upper House supposedly balancing the Lower one. There is nothing wrong with the idea as such, for most countries do have such parliaments. The point is how the domestic “reformers” understand it, and precisely at this point one is confronted with such chaos of ideas (as was demonstrated by the President on television) as to make it perfectly clear what the exponents of Ukrainian bicameralism are really after: have the Upper House as a puppet on strings that would tone down whatever decisions the “radical” Lower House might make. Theoretically, the threat of this “reform” becomes a clear and present danger if and when Leonid Kuchma continues in office after the elections. Considering his answer to a journalist's remark that Ukraine does not have legislation allowing a referendum on the people's initiative (which would take 3 million signatures), it becomes evident that such a referendum could always be “organized” if need be. What makes it dangerous is not so much that a reelected Kuchma would get more power (experience shows that he would know how to make the best of it anyway), as — most importantly — that he would finally destroy Ukraine's political system to vent his personal and absolutely unjustifiable ambitions. At worst, the Upper House would be haphazardly and clumsily adjusted to our confusing and controversial Constitution, and the vehicle of state power, creaking and limping along, will lumber to a final stop. Leonid Kuchma cannot make a dictator and a real dictatorship is based on the principle that the FЯhrer is responsible for everything. Mr. Kuchma needs enemies and scapegoats. Hence, if reelected and having his Upper House, President Kuchma will launch a period of complete lawlessness and unrestrained arbitrariness. After such a presidency the masses will have an even stronger desire to be ruled by an iron hand. All the political snake oil peddlers will then stand an even bigger chance, and so on. Ukraine will find itself in a vicious circle, not unlike an alcoholic who has two ways to stop suffering physically: quit the bottle or keep drinking to dull his senses. In this context quitting would mean embarking on a truly democratic path; keeping on the bottle would mean trusting one's fate to an “iron hand.” And the longer one drinks, the harder it is to quit. This is especially true of elections where the crucial decision is made collectively. It is generally known that a mob has poorer judgment than any given individual. This time we offer two features dealing with the bicameral concept.

A skilled builder will erect a structure with solid foundations. Children build castles in the sand. Daydreamers use their imagination. The less than skilled performance our President shows in ruling this great country, the dearer is the image of the ideal one he has in his mind, bicameral Parliament included. And he tries to convince his poor and downtrodden people that there is nothing more important now than having two Houses.

That the bicameral idea is a red herring is quite obvious, but there is more to it. Leonid Kuchma does not so much needs a bicameral Parliament as he does an obedient one. And so he wants the Upper House to fill with governors appointed by him. And he calls this “expanding the rights of the regions.”

Great, if there were something left to expand. Power in all those regions is wielded not by popularly elected officials but by state administrations appointed from above. In other words, if the rights of the regions were really expanded it would mean that the people would be able to elect their local authorities. Mr. Kuchma plans to appoint not only the heads of administrations, but also regional representatives to sit in Parliament, meaning that he wants to reduce the rights of the regions twice as much.

In Orwell's dysutopia 1984, the war-making branch is called the Ministry of Peace; the one spreading lies, the Ministry of Truth, and so on. And the language people use is “newspeak.” Using Mr. Kuchma's newspeak, there should be a Ministry of Doublethink.

The current President plans to appoint imaginary lawmakers and fire the existing ones. No, not any of those ministers and governors who, spiteful of the law, are in no hurry to surrender their parliamentary IDs (which, by the way, is the best evidence of what they really think of the number one candidate's chances in this campaign, in spite of all declarations and assurances to the contrary), but those of the People's Deputies who refuse to serve as his puppets. The obstinate Solons are the majority, fortunately for Ukraine, so disbanding Parliament is quite a problem for the officially designated guarantor of the Constitution.

Feelers are out concerning the possibility of bringing down the government, and every time the matter is brought up in Parliament threats are heard from Bankova Street (watch out, for the government crisis might well turn into a parliamentary one!).

True enough, the Cabinet has been in troubled waters: four replacements in five years (Masol, Marchuk, Lazarenko, and now Pustovoitenko). And they have not had a break even between the “seasons.” The current Cabinet, for example, has a record of four dismissals with four Vice Premiers on payroll. And to think that all this helter-skelter is the work of one man, the President! After all has been said and done, he should have fired himself first.

We all know how the unwanted are disposed of; if the law says they cannot be fired, there is always a reorganization. A new, obedient Parliament is to be created following the dissolution of the old, independent one. Without independent legislators the problem would be solved, once and for all.

This seems like a good reason for promoting the bicameral idea. Indeed, there are even other reasons. Seeking the governors' support, the President led them to understand that if he wins they will become senators.

If and when they become senators, they will be sure to have a very unpredictable and variable boss. He has fired so many appointees as head of oblasts and rayons it would perhaps make a nice entry in the Guinness Book of Records.

Another reason is his indefatigable experimenting. Edicts, directives, cadre reshuffles: in a word, as long as Mr. Kuchma stays in office everyone and everything will feel unstable, in a state of feverish restructuring and reshaping. And this is not his whim but his character, a tireless experimenter, he.

Hence the hue and cry, and bicameral is now a household word. We read it in newspapers, hear it on the radio and television; it is everywhere! And mind you: now that Ukraine is reliving its postwar devastation at the turn of the millennium, considering the current living standard, there are no topics more important than a bicameral Parliament!

It remains to be added that the obviously inappropriate timing of the bicameral idea is comparable only to its sheer impracticality.

First, this stunt would cost the budget a heap of hryvnias. As any reorganization does, especially one aimed at featherbedding. But this could be put up with if expected to benefit in the end. As it is, the whole thing means further heavy spending. A federalist bicameral pattern in a unitary country — and a heterogeneous one at that — makes sense only if somebody wants to destroy this country.

Secondly, Leonid Kuchma's planners must believe that Ukraine has enough money and to spare, along with all the time in the world. Their plan is not only too expensive and destructive, but also long-term. Suffice it to picture the first stage, changing the Constitution.

The current Fundamental Law has its shortcomings, but certain advantages as well. Thus, it is rather well protected against rash, amateurish amendments.

Even before a bill on such changes is submitted for referendum or Verkhovna Rada approval, it must be thoroughly examined by the Constitutional Court and then approved by Parliament in principle — in a word, there are many procedural hurdles to jump, making the whole process easier said than done.

But maybe Bankova Street hopes to stage a referendum quickly and easily, using mottoes like do you want a bicameral Parliament or kiss your pay goodbye? And then the smart ones at the Palace would issue detailed instructions on what that Parliament had to do and who would sit in that Parliament.

But it is also true that there is no cloud without a silver lining. The chimerical bicameral idea has given the electorate a good idea of what these elections are all about.

Those dreaming of a life in a castle in the sky are sure now about who they must cast their ballots for. Those sick and tired of amateurish experimenting and empty promises, and wishing to live better on this sinful earth are sure to have struck one name off their mental ballots even before casting the real ones.