Viktor MEDVEDCHUK: “There can only be one majority”
“THE BUDGET WILL BE APPROVED, BUT ONLY AFTER AN APPROPRIATE REACTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT”
“Parliament has formally launched the budget adoption process. What kind of political conflict do you think lies in the government’s version of 2000-2001 budget?”
“I don’t think there are any special political conflicts over the budget bill. There are a number of quite specific controversial items in the government’s draft; for example, it estimates receiving UAH 9.1 billion as a result of privatization. We know the example of this year: UAH 2.51 billion was anticipated, but now that the year is coming to an end, we have only 1.3-1.5 billion. Having approved the privatization program, parliament enabled the government and the State Property Fund to secure maximum privatization revenues. We can see the government’s and the fund’s pace and capacities in this respect: of course, we can say there are many entities that can be sold at a good price. But, taking into account the practice of utilizing the opportunities set out in legislation, we think the government’s projected figure for privatization revenues is unrealistic.
“Besides, the government says public-sector wages are going to rise by 25% next year. But most Deputies are now emphasizing the necessity of indexing people’s incomes. Inflation is running at 21.6% now, after nine months of this year, and is estimated by the Economy Ministry to increase to 25-28% by year-end. Even if inflation comes to 25% (as Minister of the Economy Vasyl Rohovy recently pointed out), which is hard to believe in view of rising prices for oil products and wheat, and the anticipated one-time increase of public utility rates. So if the government says it will raise wages and salaries, this means we must discuss figures that exceed the inflation rate. As a whole, parliament takes a critical view of the draft budget’s social programs, despite all the rehashing we see that this is the most socially minded budget. When we heard this last time, we refused to believe it, and we proved right: although back pensions have been paid off, arrears on benefits for large families, postnatal allowances, army and police pay, and student stipends are rising.
“This year, the budget was carried out in terms of planned expenditures for January-August, by a total 89.1%, a shortfall a little over UAH 2 billion). In addition, public administration expenses received 91.9% of what was planned; fundamental research and fostering scientific progress 76.7%, education 94.6%, public health 72.1%, social security 98.1%, housing and public utilities 82.2%, culture and the arts 70%, and environmental protection 72.7%. Thus many vital social and humanitarian items were seriously underfunded in comparison with the planned amounts. Conversely, expenditure targets were exceeded in the case of industry and energy (101.42%) and the fuel and energy complex (102.23%). This doesn’t quite support claims about the social orientation of how the budget was carried out.
“There is no doubt that these circumstances should be reflected in the 2001 budget. And, of course, what arouses our scathing criticism is comparison of this year’s budget and the next year’s draft in matters of social protection and security. While about 6 billion were planned for this year, it is projected to raise the amount to 8.5 billion, which many Deputies think inadequate, as is the UAH 7.7 billion planned for education next year. The same applies to public health. Here, the increase was not too significant against the high inflation rate: it was 4.5 billion this year and 5.4 billion next.
“Of course, lawmakers are always critical of the budget, and there has never been a budget that did not raise questions in parliament. So the government has no option but seek a compromise with the parliamentary majority because the Left factions are unlikely to vote for the budget in principle, while the majority will do its best to confirm it, but only after it has been modified and the government has reacted appropriately to the Deputies’ observations.
“And, in my opinion, the main issue is the tax base of the 2001 budget. Parliament has only passed the tax code in the first reading. Of course, under the legislation in force, the government should submit a draft budget based on the existing tax system. But one should not forget the President’s repeatedly expressed opinion that the budget for 2001 should be based on a new tax system. We should recall here the spring and summer of this year, when parliament constantly insisted that the Cabinet put forward a version of a new tax code. Only under pressure of the parliamentary majority and the President’s repeated reminders did the government submit its draft (parliament had registered five drafts, but we did not begin hearings, waiting for the government’s version). But the Cabinet of Ministers did this too late. All parliament could do in this situation was to approve the new Tax Code in the first reading. We should keep this situation in mind. Had the Cabinet submitted its draft at least in February or March, we would be now on the eve of implementing new tax laws.
“Yet, we can’t rule out changes in the tax laws, on which next year’s budget will be based. At a meeting with the President of Ukraine, attended by the leadership of parliament, its fractions, and top Cabinet officials, both the President and Verkhovna Rada Speaker supported the idea of easing the tax burden next year. This means in turn that the Tax Code should be passed this year. And if we fail to do so, we must alter the tax rates.”
“To what extent is the majority unanimous in its attitude toward the government’s 2001 budget bill?”
“The factions and deputies’ groups have not yet expressed their official views. It is too early to speak about majority unanimity over the budget. The situation be more definite by October 19 at its first reading. The process of coordinating views will be complicated.”
“What complications?”
“The point is that People’s Deputies elected by proportional representation and in winner-take- all districts know only too well that if they cast a vote in favor, they will assume responsibility for the Cabinet of Ministers. No matter how much we talk about a reform oriented budget, parliament bears a greater responsibility than the government does. In addition, we must not forget that this budget will come into force next year, when the March 2002 election campaign will begin. Every legislator is perfectly well aware that he will have to explain to his constituency why he voted for the budget.”
“A PRO-GOVERNMENT MAJORITY IS ONLY POSSIBLE IF THERE IS A COALITION GOVERNMENT”
“Would you comment on the viewpoint that there are two — pro-President and pro-premier — centers of influence in the parliamentary majority?”
“The current parliamentary majority was formed last January to meet the Reform Strategy Program for 2000-2004, set out in the President’s message to Verkhovna Rada. It is this program that laid the groundwork for further activities of the majority. So if somebody thinks the majority was set up to please the Cabinet of Ministers or its program, then I, as a representative of the majority, categorically oppose this view. Yes, some lawmakers and fractions are making attempts to form a pro-government coalition. I think these actions are wrong because there can only be one majority in parliament, which serves a strategic goal. And a government program cannot be such a goal. Attempts are being and perhaps will be made to split the majority, although Viktor Yushchenko said at the meeting I mentioned that he was taking no actions to this end because he doesn’t need it. He even cautioned against splitting the parliamentary majority by forming pro-government groups. Moreover, if some majority groups support the President and others the Premier, this will mean there are differences between the head of government and head of state. There is no political or ideological logic in this, for there is a publicly-elected President and a prime minister appointed by him and confirmed by parliament. I don’t think these attempts will have any visible consequences. A pro- governmental majority is possible only if a coalition government is formed and if there are legal grounds for the parliamentary majority to form a government. And since there are no such grounds, a majority can only be formed on the basis of the President’s reform program set out in his message.”
“You mentioned the attempts ‘of some deputies and fractions.’ Can you name them?”
“If we go by the mass media, they are Batkivshchyna (Fatherland), Ukrainian Popular Movement (Rukh-Kostenko) factions, and the Reforms-Congress group. I don’t know if they have achieved any organizational progress, but there is some talk about it. Incidentally, I think the opinion expressed by Mr. Yushchenko at the meeting with the President is quite sensible and correct. But, regrettably, I never heard a public statement. Leonid Kravchuk, parliamentary majority coordinator during the fifth session, also spoke at the time and said Mr. Yushchenko would do well to make this kind of statement. This was also supported by the new coordinator, Oleksandr Karpov. One should say plainly that instead of listening to rumors here we have the parliamentary majority and the government should work with it. In this respect, I was pleased to hear the President’s opinion expressed the week before last after seeing the Prime Minister that the government and Verkhovna Rada committees should develop a common attitude toward the budget.”
“Is it likely that the behavior of the majority pro-governmental factions will be connected with the process of implementing the referendum results?”
“You know, I do not believe that the Yushchenko government and the premier personally are against amendments to the Constitution. So I do not think the factions that favor the government more than others will have a special attitude toward Constitutional amendments. One shouldn’t forget about political responsibility, for we will be having the 2002 elections and will have to answer questions about this. Why has the people’s will not been fulfilled? One can speak about percentage, turnout, and so on. But there is the undeniable opinion of Ukrainian voters. This is why the pro-governmental factions are unlikely to take a different stand. Should they do so, it will not be because they favor the government.
“As you know, the majority has some members who do not support amendments to the Constitution. We remember that 251 deputies voted in favor. So there is more than one option to achieve a positive result in amending the Constitution. I mean a number of laws now being drawn up, which will be submitted for consideration to the Constitutional Commission headed by Volodymyr Lytvyn, chief of the presidential staff, and me. Among these drafts is a law on creating a parliamentary majority and the formation of a government by it. I think this will have a positive effect on Deputies still dubious about the necessity to amend the Constitution. This does not mean diminishing the President’s powers in forming a government, for they are enshrined in the Constitution. Yet, we will try to find a way in our bill for the parliamentary majority to influence government formation. The other draft envisions altering the law on the status of People’s Deputies, namely, the parliamentary immunity clause. We will have to find here a formula to reduce the immunity of lawmakers to reasonable limits acceptable to members of parliament. These two bills, likely to be followed by others, are quite capable of creating conditions for a positive solution of the implementation problem and of securing the support of 300 parliamentary votes.
“I am firmly convinced that the question of Constitutional amendments is the question of an effective relationship between the branches of power in Ukraine. Just as I supported holding the referendum, I now support amendments to the Constitution. There have been several parliaments in the history of this country, but there was no effective cooperation along the parliament-President-Cabinet line. The effectiveness of such cooperation should be set out in the fundamental law. I believe the most important changes in the Constitution are those vesting the President with additional powers to dissolve parliament in case of a failure to form a parliamentary majority within a month and pass the budget within three months.”
“Then maybe we should take the next step, party-ticket elections?”
“This is not necessary today. But as soon as the level of society’s political structure allows us to switch over to party-ticket elections, we can do so. I am sure we will come to this, the more so that this model does not contravene the existing Constitution. We cannot opt for this today not only because there are so many parties. We have only tried to elect half of parliament on the basis of party lists. Let us move a step forward down the road of democratizing society. At the same time, parliament has passed in the first reading a law on the election of People’s Deputies precisely on the basis of proportional representation. The Deputies will decide.”
“Can the next parliamentary elections be held under the new law?”
“This is possible in practice, though I think many members lean toward the mixed electoral system. Suffice it to recall the existing election law: it was passed after the 1998 parliamentary election campaign had started. This parliament considered a host of proposals to change the election law immediately after being sworn in. But they went nowhere, and we are again putting this problem off to the campaign season. And the closer the elections, the more difficult it will be to alter the election law. I don’t want to believe this, but there are more and more signs that we will go to the next parliamentary elections with the law now in force.”
“WE DON’T HAVE ENEMIES”
“Some people see the signs of early parliamentary elections. For example, Zynovy Kulyk, speaking to The Day, admitted the possibility that parliamentary elections be held a year ahead of time. Do you see any such signs?”
“Categorically no. Because currently the President has no reasons or powers to dissolve parliament. This can only happen if parliament fails to convene and begin plenary meetings within thirty days during a session. I have said repeatedly this premise is purely theoretical and completely impracticable. I can also prove this as a lawyer. But if the President gets such grounds and, God forbid, the parliamentary majority crumbles, then it is possible. But only a year earlier, in the spring of 2001, when the new election campaign should begin under the existing law (180 days before the election).”
“Speaking of parties, political scientists analyze their economic base, administrative resources, and the attractiveness of their leaders’ images. Which of these components of party potential do not suit you as SDPU(o) leader?”
“Everything suits me. I only want to remind you that a party works on a strictly ideological basis. I understand that our opponents, for we don’t have any enemies, do not like the power of our party. What I mean is our organizational strength, financial basis, and the image of our party leaders not only in the center but also in the provinces. Today, we have achieved certain successes in drawing representatives of the political elite into our party. In addition, we orient ourselves toward Social Democratic ideology in the Western mold. This ideology is acceptable for Europe, the Europe we want to pattern our own life on. We don’t just beat our breasts about this; we are taking a number of concrete steps. For example, I can mention the foundation of Basic Values, Ukraine’s first party-based publisher. Moreover, we have already presented the concrete results of its activities: five books propagating Social Democratic ideology in this country. Another four monographs are to come out before yearend. Their main purpose is to tell and remind what the Social Democratic ideology is. We believe a European-style Social Democratic choice is the best way of development for Ukraine. And we will do our best to prove this.”
“Do you think this is realistic? Surveys show that over half of those polled cannot find their bearings and don’t seem to want to hear about any ideologies, 15- 20% are communist-oriented, while Social Democratic, Green, and other preferences account for a mere 5-6%.”
“Party leaders are pragmatic people who never set unrealistic goals. It is clear whence the Communist sentiments come. But it is simpler for us, for we are not going to ‘build’ a society for seventy years. We have Europe as our example. For nobody has thought up an idea better than this: human interests lie in decent living standards and civil rights. These interests can be satisfied by means of the election of a president, parliament, and local authorities. But only parties that express the interests of our citizens can be the catalyst of elections. For it is crystal clear that no Deputy can do anything on his own. So our citizens, for all their apolitical attitudes, are certain to embrace the idea that there have to be responsible political forces, that is, parties, in our state.”
“Is your confidence based on faith in political technologies? For there are no signs of nor grounds for expecting either the left-leaning electorate or mass political passivity to diminish.”
“My confidence is based on what has already been done. A parliamentary majority has been formed. Several dozen laws have been passed, which would have been impossible without the parliamentary majority. In other words, political reforms in this country are no longer a mere declaration: they are a reality. The real results of the parliamentary majority’s work makes it possible for us to tell our voters about further improvements in state-building and in the socioeconomic situation. These are: the new Land Code to be passed before the year’s end; the Civil Code, so important for the legal coverage of a viable European-type society; new tax laws; and so on. And when we make amendments to the Constitution, we will improve the nature of the relations among the President, Verkhovna Rada, and the Cabinet of Ministers, which will undoubtedly lead to positive changes in the economy and the social sphere.
“Will the next parliament have a non-leftist majority?”
“I am certain that it will.”
