What Has Parliament Done For Half a Year?

Viktor MUSIYAKA, European Choice group:

“I think the parliament has become more professional during this period. Many people got into a previously-unknown political sanctuary: some of them have already got used to it, others are still of two minds. I believe there are now a lot of people in the session room, who are of tremendous benefit for Ukraine precisely in this sense.

“The current session’s trademark was the attempt to rally political forces around the problem of political reform. At the same time, parliament has passed many laws, including those of social nature, which had quite a response in society. Yet, by all accounts, everything was overshadowed by the main leitmotif, political reform.”

Vasyl HAVRYLIUK, People’s Power group:

“The just-finished session can be called one that tried to identify candidates for president. The proof is, for example, the fact that the parliament in fact restructured itself to adjust to the 2004 election campaign. Besides, when certain bills were being passed, some political forces concerned themselves with the political side of the matter rather than the necessity or importance of the decision to be made.

“As to results, I am very pleased, as a member of the majority, that Verkhovna Rada is today really cooperating with the Cabinet of Ministers in the budget realm. The budget is now being fulfilled by over 100%, which means that social programs are also being implemented. This is what I can tell my voters in Kremenchuk.”

Borys ANDRESIUK, SDPU(O) faction”

“In my view, the just-completed session can be called one that tried to find a political mainstream for the development of Ukrainian society. On the whole, I cannot say the session was absolutely successful. I think many of my colleagues remained somewhat unsatisfied. For example, our chief promise about the Tax Code is still on paper. I would say we just tore some provisions from this document by passing a common 13% tax on wages, which, in principle, leaves most of the problems unsolved. In other words, enterprises will in fact shoulder the same burden of 40%. This means we failed to pass all the necessary laws on taxation.

“As we know, what politicized this session somewhat was the question of political reform on which various deputies have different views. Moreover, there are some who reject the political reform altogether. It is quite clear why these politicians think so because they are already favorites the presidential race. Yet, in my opinion, the political reform should be carried out for the benefit of society as a whole, not for the current or future president. If people’s deputies adhere to this principle, all the political aspects of this issue will just disappear. But, unfortunately, this is not yet the case. I think this shows that the next session will be just as hot politically. For, the closer the presidential elections, the more clashes there will be over this point.”

Oleksandr MOROZ, SPU faction:

“Undoubtedly, debating the political reform was the most important event, in terms of politics. On the whole, it was a routine session. What noticeably heightened tension in the parliament was the food crisis. Still, I would not point to any crucial bills really aimed at improving Ukraine’s economic and social situation.”

Borys BEZPALY, Our Ukraine faction:

“Unfortunately, Verkhovna Rada increasingly shows a tilt towards the quantity, rather than quality, of bills. The impression is that every next parliamentary speaker competes with the preceding one over the number of bills introduced. The majority has turned the parliament into a lobbying office. An imperfect lawmaking procedure allows passing low-quality laws. This often forces us to make laws that alter the ones we passed earlier.

“What I consider positive is the minimum wage raise. A very important law was passed on minimum old- age pensions. It also good that there was some progress on the tax and pension reforms. Compensation for local budget losses still remaining a huge problem, Verkhovna Rada is trying to shift responsibility from the central government to local authorities. I welcome the law on non-governmental pension funds, but this should be complemented with effective antitrust legislation.”

Yury KOSTENKO, Our Ukraine faction:

“The main attention was concentrated on reforming the political system and the president’s initiatives. As far the economy is concerned, the session failed to pass some basic laws, which would make possible economic activity based on different principles. All work on the Tax Code has ground to a halt. The land reform has also come to a standstill because, after the Land Code had been adopted, no acts were passed to establish an agricultural bank and a sound system of farm crediting. Moreover, the government’s strategic miscalculations led to the current situation in farming and on the food market. It would be, therefore, wrong to say that the current session managed to solve at least one strategic problem. Yet, it solved a lot of tactical problems raised by the government.”

Anatoly MATVIYENKO, BYuT faction:

“Unfortunately, this session has done nothing essential or important. It voted down the laws on the president and on parliamentary elections, failed to work out a compromise version of Constitutional amendments. I would not single out any crucial points of this session. I was disappointed that the majority supported the cabinet’s program. This majority does not in fact exist, for it is not structured politically. Maybe, the only positive thing is that we are aware that this is an abnormal situation. This session, like no other, exacerbated the parliamentary crisis. On the other hand, the current crisis may be pregnant with some positive changes.”

Stepan HAVRYSH, Democratic Initiatives group:

“We have all written another scenario of working in a situation when political forces are vying for the presidency. Having agreed upon a certain neutrality, we passed a huge number of laws: on taxing the profits of natural persons, on reducing the value-added tax rate, etc. Besides, we were just short of carrying out the pension reform. However, a large number of bills were passed spontaneously, without being seriously discussed in the session hall. This is why the very essence of those laws did not meet the requirements of civil society. Lobbying is on the rise. At the same time, we have learned, in a way, how to cooperate with the government. This might have been a good impetus for economic reforms, but the latter came to a halt due to the grain market crisis: the government was not fully prepared to avert this course of events. Still, constitutional reform is the most high-profile subject.”

Heorhy KRIUCHKOV, KPU faction:

“It was quite a fruitful session. As to the problems my committee — in charge of defense and national security — deals with, we passed such cardinal laws as one on the fundamentals of national security, on civilian control over military and law-enforcement organizations, on counterintelligence, on combating terrorism, on border security, and so on. The session showed that Verkhovna Rada is able to work even in the difficult conditions caused by constitutional changes. Still, the session room very often saw conflicts.”

Leonid KRAVCHUK, SDPU(O) faction:

“Very many useful laws were passed: a supplement to the budget, for example. The now pressing problems of the agrarian sector also found a solution. Was it a satisfactory solution? Time will tell. We made a decision proposed by the cabinet. In other words, this parliament worked fruitfully on the whole, although it encountered problems caused by situations in society and inside the parliament itself.”