“Parliament and the Cabinet are legs, and the hypothenuse is the President. We must keep this triangle”

Ivan Pliushch, Verkhovna Rada Speaker, a veteran in the Ukrainian political elite, now styles himself as Pliushch II and considers himself chairman of the whole parliament rather than the majority leader, and stresses that he never makes heavy weather of any problem. He thinks the only achievement the state has made in its short history is political stability based on the President— parliament—government triangle. For this reason he employs his diplomatic talent and experience to round off the acute angles of this triangle: he does not deny that they exist. Granting an interview to The Day, Mr. Pliushch was, as usual, at his most aphoristic but simultaneously appeared more diplomatic. Mr. Pliushch has claims against both the government and the President- sponsored draft amendments to the Constitution. Nonetheless, he believes both processes will go smoothly. As before, Mr. Pliushch does not think it necessary to immediately set up a bicameral parliament, but he would like to see the number of lawmakers reduced. Mr. Pliushch thinks, in spite of his benevolence toward the government, that those in charge of the energy sector have turned in unsatisfactory work. The Verkhovna Rada Speaker is convinced that there is no reason to say we are currently in a political, economic, or social crisis. Nor is there a crisis of the parliamentary majority, although Mr. Pliushch admits that the latter has split over its attitude toward the government. But what keeps the majority from a real split is that none of its constituent parts is able to make independent decisions. One can say that Mr. Pliushch suits all sides and he is a past master of backstage politics. One can also say that he, as an old- timer on the Ukrainian political stage, is turning in an inspired performance.

The Day: Let’s start with the budget process, which is the most urgent and painful issue today.

Ivan Pliushch : When you say most pressing issue, I wish everybody — you, me, all the readers — realized that the state budget is indeed the highest priority, because it has a direct impact on social protection. The state is a machine intended to protect the needy, and here I mean those who cannot earn a living on their own or are physically unable to do so. In terms of redistribution the state can take something from those who can earn a living, those earning a lot and those that have moderate earnings, and give this to people no longer or still not able do so. Such is the essence of every budget program as our basic economic law.

As you know, the 1996 Constitution set the date on which the budget bill is to be submitted to Parliament, and the Constitution envisages the enactment of a law according to the Verkhovna Rada’s rules. Regrettably, no such law has been enacted in the four years after Constitution was adopted. We have the Verkhovna Rada rules with numerous changes and amendments introduced in the past four years. The law on rules needs to have a separate provision regulating budget hearing proceedings. There are two parties to the process. The executive, represented by the Cabinet, submits the budget bill and the Verkhovna Rada considers it, making remarks and proposals. The executive either agrees with, objects to, or perhaps agrees in part with such remarks and proposals. Then the bill is submitted again, at which stage parliament passes the bill. We practice these basic procedures, and they allow us to conduct the budget process. Relying on them a schedule has been worked out and agreed to with all factions and committees, and signed by the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada. Under this schedule, we heard the bill in the first reading on October 18. It so happened that we voted on it the following day, because the vote takes place once a week, according to the amendments in the standing orders, and October 19 was the voting date. The day before, we had a meeting, or rather a conference of the President, Verkhovna Rada leadership, and Cabinet. Leaders of the majority factions and lawmakers’ groups also took part. And let me explain here and now why the others did not attend. Because the Communists, Socialists, Progressive Socialists, and the others said they would not vote for the budget bill, that they were backing Deputy Moiseyenko’s proposal to reject the bill. They took a perfectly definite stand, so there was nothing to talk about with them. However, apart from the statement and draft resolution rejecting the bill, there was the Budget Committee’s proposal to pass the bill in the first reading, then other proposals were submitted in the course of debate — in particular, one to send the bill back for a repeated first reading.

When discussing all three projects, I, as Chairman of Verkhovna Rada, arrived at a certain conclusion and shared it with the leaders of the legislative groups and factions as well as with the President and Cabinet. Considering that there were quite a number of remarks and proposals made on October 18, which, of course, could not be entered in the comparative statement prepared by the Budget Committee, also in view of serious gaps in terms of regional budget and regional- state budget interrelationships, I said that voting on the budget in the first reading was impossible. I did not make this an issue, nor did I accuse those proposing to pass the bill in the first reading or fractions moving to return the bill for a repeated first reading. I proposed to adjourn the vote to November 2, considering the legislative schedule providing that members were to go to their respective constituencies the next week and the next vote would be next Thursday.

In the time that has passed since October 19, I have become convinced that I made the right decision and I was pleased to hear from the Budget Committee chairman, my opponent [at the conference], that after the committee summed up the proposals expressed during the debate it realized that it would have to compose a voluminous supplement to the comparative table or draw up a new one.

I have not seen a more transparent or realistic budget in Ukraine. Compare it with this year’s budget. As you know, the parliamentary majority was formed toward the end of January and started operating on February 1. The first task it had to solve was passing the budget bill. I emphasize that at that time we adopted a balanced budget for the first time in our history. It is the first budget that I hope will be implemented in full. The 2001 budget has countless shortcomings, but there are even more in our ailing economy, so it simply cannot produce a flawless budget given our systems of taxation and oversight. All these shortcomings in one way or another explain the budget’s faults.

Finally, today we are caught in a triangle, with two legs and a hypotenuse. One side is Parliament, the other the Cabinet, and the hypotenuse is the President. So our common task is to keep this triangle in one piece. If we fail, this triangle will fall apart, followed by talk about our political, economic, social, and other crises.

The Day: You mean we don’t have any such crises now?

I. P. : Not now. But if we can’t keep this triangle together, there will be talk, and there will be reasons for all these crises. Today we have no reason to talk about political, economic, or some other crises.

The Day: Are there any reasons to speak of a crisis in the parliamentary majority? European Commission. “In case of problems when laying the pipeline across Poland alone,

I. P. : No. I read statements by the Deputies, politicians, and experts predicting two majorities within the parliamentary majority, one backing the President and the other the Cabinet. I have first- hand knowledge about what’s actually going on between the government, Parliament, and President, so I can assure you that there is no cause for a crisis now.

The Day: There have been numerous comments on the budget process being very politicized this year, as it has been in all previous years. Do you agree that this year such politicization could be used as a standard to gauge the alignment of political forces in Verkhovna Rada?

I. P. : Absolutely. This process cannot but be politicized, because everything relating to the budget spells big-time politics. Also, the parliamentary majority formed in January-February began with 249, 254, or 260 deputies. At present, it numbers 282. What is this? Is this crisis or stability? I think it points to stability. It is something else whether these 282 lawmakers represent political forces that blindly back the government and there are forces that attack it without reason.

The Day: If the parliamentary majority approved the Cabinet’s action plan, then that majority also approved of the Cabinet in its current membership. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect a more constructive approach from this majority and a more responsible attitude on the part of the government, as well as closer contacts with Parliament?

I. P.: Honestly, being a participant in this process, I can say that only the voters can make demands on the majority, no one else.

The Day: I have precisely the voters in mind.

I. P. : In that case I agree, and such factors were present when forming the government and approving the Cabinet’s action plan. For this reason I would pose the question like this: What is the trend and dynamic? I am glad the existing differences and evaluations have not reached the point where cooperation and coexistence make no sense. Or coexistence and cooperation. I can testify that there are reasons for such coexistence and cooperation.

The Day: The majority was formed in a revolutionary way. Was the situation unique, logical or the only possibility?

I. P. : You were right to suggest it as a logical situation. It was logical. We made the situation look revolutionary ourselves. We were brought up in the revolutionary spirit, so we described it as revolutionary. I’m against revolutions. I’m for evolution. So when they called the situation revolutionary I didn’t think it the best.

The Day: There is also the difficult matter of implementation.

I. P. : This isn’t a difficult issue. It’s life. There’s no way around it. The more so that the President is developing a new approach to the matter. Implementation is an age-old issue. It appeared not after the referendum but long before. For example, the issue of parliamentary immunity has been brought up during all convocations. The subject was broached during the parliamentary elections and every candidate swore he would sign up. Lists with signatures denouncing such immunity were collected twice and every time I signed. They got from 150 to 170 lawmakers. So what really matters is the number of deputies. Let’s be honest. We passed the bill on the elections of the thirteenth convocation in early 1994 or in December 1993. The vote started at 250. There were 40 or 50 ayes. There were 130 or 140 for a membership of 300, and 314 or 316 for a membership of 450. Verkhovna Rada the way it is will never vote for a membership reduction.

About a bicameral parliament. The idea came from the twelfth convocation. They wanted it in the election law and Constitution. The issue was blown up, it became part of our young democracy’s life. Then another idea arose: to dissolve Verkhovna Rada or authorize the President to do it. The Constitution is clear: the parliament is to be dissolved if it fails to hold a plenary meeting within thirty days. Yet this is not enough. If parliament has the right to impeach the President, the latter should have a similar right. I never supported the referendum and have said so in public. The President knows this. But I state categorically that the questions included in the referendum, except those later deleted, were uppermost on everyone’s mind. Another thing is whether the referendum’s formulations can be put in the Constitution. They cannot, as attested to by the Constitutional Court. And so I received the ruling as a matter of guidance, as both a deputy and Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada. I got in touch with the President and proposed forming a committee of experts to settle the issue, allowing for Constitutional Court directives. In other words, I am wholeheartedly for an unequivocal formulation of the immunity mechanism, proceeding from what the referendum demanded.

Today, the matter of implementation or introduction of changes does not mean when but how. If we complete these projects and they pass in parliament, I am absolutely convinced that we will collect the 300 votes needed to make those changes to the Constitution.

On a bicameral parliament, I don’t think there is a big problem. We have experience accumulated by the developed and developing countries, by established and young democracies. It says we can have a unicameral or bicameral parliament. The main thing is to understand precisely what we need this kind of parliament for. I believe that the current Constitution does not make a bicameral parliament possible. Some lawyers say 38 articles will have to be rewritten, others point to over forty, meaning more than half the Constitution. In my opinion, we should start by rewriting the Constitution and then proceed to institute a bicameral parliament in accordance with it. When will we accomplish this? Time will tell.

The Day: The election campaign starts next year...

I. P. : This is a painful, painful question. When we talk about elections the first question that comes to mind is on what legal framework. I wish the next Verkhovna Rada were elected using a clearly formulated, transparent, and generally understandable election system. Do we have such legislation today? No, and I know what I’m talking about. The existing election system and legislation are criticized as being far from perfect. Changes are being made and specific laws revised the way the authors see them. The current reality is that the existing parliamentary election law uses a system of proportional representation based on party lists. Over 300 voted for it. This is reality. Another reality is that we have 106 parties, they will all vie in the elections according to party lists, which is hard to imagine. On the other hand, most say the majority and party principle have advantages. I mean the candidate’s connection with the electorate. Now they say that only a political force, political party getting the electorate’s support should assume responsibility for what is happening. Or a coalition. And this is true. The law provides for a mixed system.

In connection with the referendum: What about quantity? At this stage I feel sure that the next elections will follow the mixed pattern and that the candidates will be elected to a unicameral parliament to consist of 450 members. This is the law and will remain so unless changed.

The Day: A great deal has changed over the years since you were first elected Chairman of Verkhovna Rada. Has Ivan Pliushch changed? If so, what are the main changes?

I. P. : The Verkhovna Rada of the twelfth convocation was politically structured. There were two political forces and the Presidium acted as a constitutional body. Allowing for our mentality, it gradually assumed the Politburo’s functions and the deputies tolerated this. What I mean is that Ivan Pliushch I could have then get any resolution passed much easier. As for Ivan Pliushch II, he is Speaker now.

The Day: Aren’t you afraid to use the word?

I. P. : No. Pliushch II plays a role defined by the Constitution that has an article, Chairman of Verkhovna Rada. Ivan Pliushch II is in a situation with twelve factions and groups operating within the majority alone, each believing it is the only really effective one. Plus there is a determined opposition.

For this reason, I have said from the outset that I am Chairman of Verkhovna Rada and not the majority leader. Over the nine months since taking office I have become convinced that I took the right stand.

I am grateful to the opposition for consenting to arrangements and compromises, for fostering the work of Verkhovna Rada. Without such a position getting Parliament to work effectively would be much harder.

I am not afraid to use the word Speaker and I want every deputy to have a better understanding of the functions of the legislative organ and its head.