The Soviet-time reserves are exhausted

Recently they held rallies in Kyiv nearly every day, the Verkhovna Rada and the Ca­bi­net of Ministers were periodically be­sie­ged. Chornobyl disaster fighters, Afghan war veterans and the activists of the All-Ukrainian action “Vpered!” [“Go Ahead!” – Ed.] required not to reduce social payments and dismiss the Parliament. All the protest actions were thoroughly “protected” by the law enforcement agencies and it seemed sometimes that there were more policemen than protesters. Dozens of buses with hundreds “Berkut” soldiers protecting the servants of the people against the people has become an everyday occurrence (a certain symbol) of the current govern­ment. So, before entering the building of the Parliament for the interview with the President’s Re­pre­sen­ta­tive in the Ver­khovna Rada Yurii MIROSH­NY­CHEN­KO we had to go through several po­lice cordons.

“WE ONLY FACE CERTAIN ABUSE AT TIMES...”

People are protesting again. What is the reason for this?

“Two best-organized groups of people entitled to benefits, Chornobyl disaster fighters and Afghan war veterans, express their disagreement. They have the right to voice their opinion through peaceful ga­the­rings. The Cabinet of Ministers has created a working group negotiating with public representatives. So, a range of bills are discussed in the emotional atmosphere. Today, proceeding from the current bud­get, the government does not have a possibility to assure all the social payments. Of course, we are sorry that people go into the streets since it is the evidence of the fact that previous discussions did not result in any mutually acceptable decisions. Personally for me it is important how the government deal with these problems, whether they consi­der the position of certain social categories and individuals.”

The question of benefits has to be settled down but the Chornobyl disaster fighters and Afghan war veterans fairly say: cancel your own benefits, the ones of MPs and officials...

“I agree that there should be no exceptions. That is why we are trying to solve this problem systematically. One category of people (the more that Chornobyl disaster fighters and Afghan war veterans enjoy the benefits they have deserved) does not have to pay for others. Today the benefits and additional payments are not cancelled; they are being systematized and assigned according to the state budget.”

We are speaking about MPs’ benefits.

“I would not say that the MPs have a lot of benefits. This is what assures their work. For example, they have a possibility to use the public transport for free. If a deputy works in a district and in Kyiv, he gets his journeys paid. However, the law does not provide for private free journeys. Most of the deputies do not go to the health resorts since only deputies are paid for from the budget but their families have to do it on their own expense. Besides, the prices in the abovementioned resorts are so high that one can go abroad on holiday with fa­mily for this money. We only face certain abuse at times, I should admit it, but we are solving this problem.”

“THE MPS DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ‘THE OPEN REGIONAL LISTS ARE’”

According to the head of the Electors’ Committee of Ukraine Oleksandr Chernenko, the parliamentary majority presented to the Verkhovna Rada not the bill on the parliamentary elections approved by the Venice Commission (its secretary Thomas Markert confirmed it) but another one. Why?

“The working group headed by the Minister of Justice Oleksandr Lavrynovych after a long work prepared a text that was directed to the Venice Commission. The lo­gic was that after the commission gives its recommendations the text will be amended. At the moment when the majority MPs re­gistered the bill the Venice Commission gave only preliminary conclusions. That is why they amended the text. After that the do­cument was registered. Thus they did not substitute the bill.

“This bill is perceived differently: some think that is has to be supplemented, others think that it violates the Constitution and there are people saying that is unacceptable because of their political motifs. The essential is electors’ desire to influence the parliamentary corps. That is why we have to adopt this law as quickly as possible. Now there are five bills on the parliamentary elections registered in the Ver­khovna Rada. Considering our colleagues’ bills it is difficult to predict the result. The president wants this law to unite the society and the politicians and make the election procedure transparent and objective so that the world considers our elections democratic.”

The world has already mentioned that the mixed system is not the optimal one for Ukraine. The Ukrainian specialists speak about it all the time as well. By the way, during his election campaign Viktor Yanukovych promised to adopt the proportional system with open lists. Moreover, the President’s Counselor Maryna Stavniichuk declared the other day that even if now they adopt the law on the mixed system in future Ukraine will return to the proportional system with open regional lists. You make the parliamentary majo­rity today. What is the problem?

“The problem is that the parliament does not vote for the ‘open regional lists.’ When the working group started its work it aimed at finding a model that, on the one hand, would assure the continuation of the process of political structuring of the society and reinforcing the Ukrainian poli-tical parties and, on the other hand, would allow the electors influencing the deputy corps. They compromised on the mixed system. For example, in Europe there are different electoral systems: proportional, majoritarian and mixed ones with open and closed lists. The countries choose the system that is the best for them. For the democratic world it is essential that the elections reflect people’s will. This is the matter of principle for Ukraine, too. I was among the authors of the bill on the proportional electoral system with open regional lists. Unfortunately, the Verkhovna Rada did not support our arguments in its favor.”

Are the MPs afraid of not being elected to the parliament again?

“They just do not understand what the ‘open regional lists’ are. They say: ‘This is what the majoritarian system is. That is what we are suggesting. It is simpler: this is a person and you vote for him or her.’ It means that our MPs should be explained what it is. I am sure: if they understood what it is there would not be so many problems.”

The Party of Regions unanimously votes for other bills so the question is open: why don’t they vote for the bill the country needs?

“Let’s be sincere when discussing the motivation. Every political force wants to realize their electoral potential through a cer­tain electoral model. ‘Small’ parties are interested in having the pure majoritarian system whereas the large ones are interested in the proportional system with closed lists.”

The bill registered by the parliamentary majority includes the point that parliamentary candidates can simultaneously run for MPs in the party lists and in the majoritarian districts. It is the conservation of power, isn’t it?

“I would not deny the possibility of poli­tical maneuvers. It is the question of compromise. They do their best in the districts but if they are not elected to the parliament they secure themselves with the lists. And vice versa.”

So, the MPs reserve the maximum of possibilities to enter the parliament.

“Yes. However, new candidates’ possibilities are not limited either. If they are stronger they will be elected to the parliament. The bill provides for independent candidates nomination. From the point of elites rotation, the majoritarian system gives more opportunities than the proportional one.

The same goes for the barrier. Small political parties are interested in the lowest barrier possible and the large ones are interested in the highest barrier possible. To put it simple, those who get ten percent are interested in having a ten-percent barrier and those who get three percent are interested in a three-percent barrier. That is why we had to compromise. Now we agreed on five percent. When the working group discussed this question it was not unanimous. According to the authors of the bill from the parliamentary majority, it is essential to continue the political structuring so that a lot of marginal politicians that would incite radical moods are not elected to the parliament. We should focus on the centrists that stick to the more stable development. In this meaning the higher the barrier is the better. On the other hand, we should not block the possibility for new people to be elected to the parliament.”

“THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE IS NOT GOING TO CLOSE GONGADZE CASE”

The recent decision of the Constitutional Court that “the imputation of a crime cannot be based on the information received without Constitution compliance or through law infraction” provokes quite a few questions. For example, a lot of people think that this decision was adopted for Kuchma’s case in which “Melnychenko’s tapes” are the main evidence. What do you think about it?

“I cannot agree with you since this norm exists in the Constitution. This is one of the European standards we are aiming at: people’s rights are protected not only through the material but the legal procedures as well. So, if the law enforcement agencies or any other governmental structures act illegally during the investigation the guilt cannot be proved. Proving a crime by committing another crime is unacceptable. Who is to profit from it? I would like it to be the Ukrainian citizens who have dozens and even hundreds of situations when the arguments are framed-up or when these arguments are collected without respecting the legal procedures.”

It has been 11 years the people require to solve Gongadze case.

“Proceeding from its public declarations, the Prosecutor General’s Office is not going to close this case. There is no political implication in it. They say that the tapes are not the only evidence in this case.”

How should “Melnychenko’s tapes” be considered after the decision made by the Constitutional Court? Do you think they were legally obtained?

“I do not think so. However, the court is to assess the evidence and to answer this question.”

In 2005 Melnychenko’s case was closed because his actions fell under the article “the state of emergency.”

“Firstly, only the court can qualify the state of emergency. Secondly, this state does not concern collection of evidence, it concerns certain actions. For example, one has done something in order to save one’s life or another person’s life. I think that the court will assess ‘Melnychenko’s tapes.’ These tapes might matter if Melnychenko is charged. He will have to answer questions. After that the court will decide whether his arguments are the evidence of the fact that he acted in the state of emergency or not. The Prosecutor General’s Office included the tapes into the material evidence, however, it has to prove it and the court will decide whether it should consi­der these arguments.

“Democracy is first of all based on the procedures. If we ignore the procedures that we consider useless and the ones that impede establishing the truth because of our good intentions it will be the way to nowhere. Such actions create a precedent for law vio­lations. As a result, the society loses. In the civilized world there is the presumption of innocence providing that one is considered innocent until one’s guilt is proved. The democratic society believes that it is better not to punish the guilty than put an innocent person into prison. The accused does not have to prove their innocence, but the investigation has to prove their guilt. Only this way we can build a democratic state.”

As for the procedures, now Pukach is being tried. Why are the sessions of such a resonant case closed?

“Closed sessions exist in the democratic countries, too. In some of the US states it is prohibited to fixe the trials. There are a lot of reasons behind it. For example, the court examines one’s private life and personal information. The guilt might not be proved but one’s reputation is spoilt. The session can also be closed so that one of the interested parties does not influence the participants of the process because of the names and arguments examined in it. That is why one cannot say that the closed session of Pukach’s case is the evidence of the fact that the court wants to hide the truth from the society. The verdict will be recorded in the register of the judicial decisions that is currently in making. I am sure that the public interest towards Gongadze case is so high that there will be a lot of commentaries after the verdict is announced. I do not think that the court counts that the public does not find out what happened.”