• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Oleksandr LAVRYNOVYCH: We began thinking about open politics eight years late

15 June, 1999 - 00:00

Oleksandr Lavrynovych, as probably no other People's Deputy, deserves the
title of lawmaker. A member of Parliament from 1994, he has authored many
pivotal bills and always been engaged in party activities. In short, he
is a man with solid political experience. Mr. Lavrynovych told our correspondent
about some conclusions his experience suggests.

"Mr. Lavrynovych, what are the prospects for a court action about
the legitimacy of your wing of Rukh?"

"The first stage of proceedings is over. We will appeal to the Supreme
Court."

"Imagine the Supreme Court rules against you. What will you do?"

"The court ruling will not in the least affect our principles, views,
program, and the rest."

"In other words, with due account of judicial prospects, you miss
the presidential elections."

"I do not think a political party has the right to miss any kind of
elections. On the other hand, if you are a good soccer player, you still
don't try to beat the whole opposing team all by yourself. It is better
to be part of a team with objectives and on conditions that suit you. I
think our Rukh branch will do just this."

"What kind of team is this? You don't have a lot of choice in the
Right Center. In case your candidate does not gather a million signatures,
are you ready to negotiate and join forces with Udovenko's branch?"

"I hope we will gather the signatures. But what then? Then I think we
should assume the role of a player who will participate in the team of
a candidate who has a real chance. The price of these elections is very
high. If we don't want to be a plaything in the hands of candidates who
will have no obligations to our organization, we have to join a select
team."

"The team seems so far to be forming without you. The Reforms and
Order congress is being put forward as a Center-Right association, but
you are not there."

"In formal terms, nothing extraordinary happened at that congress. The
parties did not unite. One can speak only of Reforms and Order being reinforced
by some NDP members, Liberals, and Democratic Party members. On the other
hand, we now face a great problem: will our party compete for leadership
in its own camp or will it choose further unification? In addition, a new
problem has arisen: there are serious political figures so far remaining
outside parties like, for example, Anatoly Matviyenko who formed the Open
Politics Association.

"It is paradoxical that an organization with this name was being formed
in Ukraine only in our ninth year of independence. If there is no openness
and transparency in politics, what can one say about the state's prospects?
If people still do not know what steps one political force or another is
going to take, how can it propose solutions for one issue or another when
it is senseless to talk about the transparency of state administrative
structures? Today, the formation of an organization which proclaims and
calls upon others to act openly seems something out of the ordinary, but
political openness is an absolutely natural state of affairs for any civilized
country."

"Does this mean that the formation of Open Politics is a recognition
of the fact that politics have been closed up to now?

"Yes. Opaque and untrue. Some words are said from the rostrum, others
written in a newspaper, others declaimed at party meetings, while still
others are uttered behind closed doors and in conversation with official
decision-makers."

"The tactical ideology of our parties has been, from their very inception,
to get close to those with power in the hopes of influencing them. This
behavior was couched in various excuses: from a threat to independence,
as was the case of Rukh, to carrying out economic reforms, as with New
Ukraine. As a result, as Mr. Filenko nicely put it, 'the party did not
take power, but those in power took the party.' Rukh seems to have followed
the footsteps of NDP."

"No."

"No?"

"The regime did not take Rukh. Rukh gave up by itself. Yet, I agree
Rukh is also to blame for close politics. Participation in state structures
is the main objective for a political party. This is the only reason why
people create parties, to put into practice their societal philosophy through
the state, but in this case it was complicity in some of the functions
determined by the state, but not participation in making official decisions.
Rukh has never been member of a ruling team; it played the role that the
regime required of it in compliance Rukh ideology, for example, in the
questions of national security."

"Can we say it took a staggering eight years to understand this fact?
Or would this be too skeptical?"

"It is too optimistic an assessment."

"Party politics look like business. Both parties and businessmen
offer certain goods. The former Soviet people who went into business understood
immediately that the goods should be as transparent for the buyer as possible:
they always stress that certain goods were produced by precisely this firm,
they strive for a steady quality, etc. Why then do the same former Soviet
people who took up politics refuse to understand elementary rules that
lead to success?"

"I have already said that to sell the commodity called a political party
people have to try it and tell the others that it's good or, on the contrary,
bad, and next time they will vote for a different party. Without doubt
Ukraine does not have one single party with clear and predictable policies.
I think most party members are aware of the principles on which party activities
are based. These activities do not yield immediate fruits, while life goes
on right now... A dilemma arises: either to express oneself via the political
structure as a whole, with all its political principles, or via small groupings
in the middle of it, with concrete interests. Unfortunately, the latter
path is easier."

"You are one of the authors of the law on presidential elections.
Do you think it also conserves the closed character of politics? For instance,
a million signatures only testify to two qualities of the candidate: either
his close ties with the administration or his access to funds that allow
him to rapidly form a structure to solve this specific problem. Are these
the most important qualities for a future President? Besides, it is in
fact unrealistic (judging by my own experience) to collect a million signatures
over such a short time span. Now all candidates depend on the authorities,
who can tell each of them that he/she collected the signatures wrongly,
and this will almost always be the truth."

"In 1991, when I worked at the Central Electoral Commission during the
presidential elections, registration of a candidate required 100,000 signatures.
A situation cropped up then when not a single candidate might have been
registered because of this limit. Just imagine: Ukraine's first free elections
and not a single candidate! So the commission had to take urgent measures.
Still, signatures reflect the organizational capabilities of parties that
support a candidate. Although I myself am against signatures, we had to
create a system to ward off the nomination of accidental or inadequate
persons. Had it not been for the ill-considered position of the Communists,
who preserved in the law the possibility of nomination by public assemblies
and not only political parties, the situation would now be different: it
would contribute to openness, forcing even the President to choose which
political party to represent."

 

Rubric: