What are the pros and cons of the bill providing for elections according to party lists approved by Verkhovna Rada in the first reading?

Uliana KYRIYENKO, Global Strategies Institute:

“The Kliuchkovsky-Rudkivsky Proportional Elections Bill approved in the first reading has finally concretized the current state of compromise in Verkhovna Rada. Despite the multitude of election bills that reflect the interests of the majority, individual parties, and lawmakers, it is obvious that the trend of the elections becoming a party matter can be called stable. This is even more important for coordinating party elections with the parliamentary-presidential model that Ukraine would receive as a result of the political reform.

“Simultaneously, it is essential to evaluate the bill in question from the viewpoint of its effect on the party system. It is obvious that a completely proportional election system suits the already well-established parties. Hence the conclusion that such a model is advantageous to the old-timers such as the CPU, SPU, SDPU(o), and Party of the Regions. I wonder how the blocs, for example, Our Ukraine and the Tymoshenko Bloc, will behave if the threshold for representation is lowered to 3%? In this case much will depend on the leader’s authority and whether a nucleus party, which would be capable of playing independently, should this bloc break up.

“As for those in the centrist range, a low threshold will be an obstacle to forming one or two influential centrist parties. Most probably, the two influential players — the Social Democrats and Party of the Regions — will be joined by two or three renewed centrist parties that will clear the 3% barrier. In general, the 3% threshold will prompt the parties to splinter above all from those with whom they share their electoral niche and compete for the same segment of the electorate instead of competing with their ideological opponents.

“That the two debatable clauses — on closed party lists and a single nationwide constituency — have remained in the bill is more a disadvantage than an advantage. After all, certain schemes of openness and regional affiliation of party tickets could become a compromise with the majority and clear for them the way to party elections.”

Oleksiy KORDUN, editor-in-chief of the journal, Liudyna i polityka [Person and Politics]:

“A common belief is that the adoption of the proportional elections bill would encourage the development of political parties in Ukraine. Obviously, this is true to some extent, since faced with the impossibility to run independently the candidates will have to opt for one party or another. Consequently, party membership would increase when this bill is voted into law. Moreover, political parties would have to actively develop their regional structures, since proportional elections — at least under the scheme proposed by this bill — envision the existence of developed and powerful regional organizations. In fact, the same is envisioned by the law on political parties. Yet, as a rule, if a political party does not participate actively in the election campaign and in political life in its other manifestations, it has only formal regional offices (and it takes only three individuals to create a regional party center) or none at all. If the new election bill passes the parliament, then the parties that wish to participate in political life will not be able to get away with only a formal regional structure. Thus, at least at such a level the new bill could stimulate the development of political parties. Yet thus far it is hard to say how serious this development will be. After all, even under the mixed election system that we have had until now, half of all the deputies have been elected by party lists. Yet this has not led to a serious development of political parties. Moreover, according to opinion polls, the number of Ukrainians who identify themselves with one of the political parties still does not exceed 2% of the nation’s population.

“Another positive aspect of this bill, which its authors point to and which is such in the Constitutional law theory, is the strengthening of the parliamentary structure. At least the mixed elections have shown that the structuring of the parliament and especially the formation of the so-called parliamentary majority have been made possible more thanks to the deputies who have been elected to the parliament on party lists. Meanwhile, the completely proportional system would accelerate the formation of structures such as the majority and opposition and the appointment of cabinet members, as envisioned by the political reform.

“Yet there are downsides to this bill connected with regional representation, which was repeatedly stressed by opposition representatives and majority representatives in particular during the consideration of the bill. Again, as the experience of the previous parliamentary elections, especially of the 2002 elections, has shown, absence of the regional affiliation of lawmakers does not encourage contacts with the voters. There is an obvious separation of the deputies from the people. While formerly a deputy was elected in a certain constituency, where he had certain business interests, he would meet often with the voters. Meanwhile, party functionaries who live in Kyiv, as a rule, do not maintain any ties with the voters. This is a very negative aspect.”

Serhiy TELESHUN, Ph.D. in political science, president of the Spivdruzhnist [Commonwealth] Fund:

“It is relevant to speak of the election system only in terms of the democratization of society and creation of what we call a civil society. If we speak of the election system for the sake of the structuring of the parties only, we will end up in the Procrustean bed of party dictatorship, thereby eliminating the citizens from party life. Thus, the proportional elections bill should be viewed above all as a bill that would stimulate political participation by the citizens as well as a bill that would structure not only parties but also society at large. Put simply, the parties should eventually become one of the segments of the citizens’ influence on the country’s political life.

“Meanwhile, the disagreement over the threshold for representation is of secondary importance, since the minimum threshold — even if one is to agree to the demands of the majority — does not solve the problem of the stability of the government and thus the stability of the relationship between the parliament and government.”

Viktor NEBOZHENKO, director of the sociological service of the National Institute of Strategic Research:

“As the experience of the parliament has shown, the adoption of a certain parliamentary elections bill does not affect the parliament’s structure directly. If the proportional elections bill with a 3% threshold passes, majority factions will have to address a major problem of political technology: how to remain in the majority coalition and simultaneously learn to stand out against its background so that in the next parliamentary elections they could be identified by the voters. Incidentally, there is not a single faction in Verkhovna Rada that would benefit greatly from the passing of the proportional elections bill with a 3% threshold for representation.”

Leonid KRAVCHUK, People’s Deputy, SDPU(o) faction:

“In my view, the Kliuchkovsky-Rudkivsky Bill meets the requirements of a civilized structuring of society and all the requirements of a democratic state. The nation elects the parties, which are accountable to the nation for the organization of power.” ForUm (www.for-ua.com).

Ihor KOLIUSHKO, director of the Center for Political and Legal Reforms:

“The results of this vote mean that now the Constitution could in fact be amended. The vote has shown that, first, the arrangement of the majority with the Communists works and, second, that even those in the majority who repeatedly voiced their opposition to the proportional elections bill have been forced to support it. This is the main result today, which provides a foretaste of the upcoming vote on the Constitutional amendments.

“As for the bill itself, of course, I consider a transition to the proportional elections system a positive thing. Yet the bill in its current wording is too simplified and advantageous to the party bureaucracy and leadership. Thus, on the one hand it is positive, since it would stabilize party structures. But on the other hand, the prospects for regional and professional representation in the parliament look bad.

“Another obvious downside is the introduction of a 3% threshold for representation. This means party fragmentation in the parliament and a growing number of blocs and factions, which is a step backward for our parliament.” ForUm (www.for-ua.com)