The 2006 Bug

High on the Verkhovna Rada September 11 agenda was a long series of bills on the election of people’s deputies. Parliament members moved a total seven draft laws “On the Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” and one bill on amendments to the existing law. According to Yury Kliuchkovsky, one of the bill authors, member of the Committee for State Development and Local Government, the basic aim of virtually all the drafts is “to enact a purely proportional system.” “However, the authors have differing visions as to how this should be done,” Mr. Kliuchkovsky told The Day . “My bill favors the system already used in Ukraine for electing the party-ticket-based deputies. The fundamental difference is that I suggest the whole parliament be elected this way. This is the same version once debated upon by Verkhovna Rada but vetoed by the President. Now that the head of state has advanced new ideas there is a good reason to believe that precisely this version of the election law will also muster support among the pro-presidential forces.” It should be noted that the lawmakers did a really good job, seeking out the most suitable version of the election law. In any case, looking over the bills, one cannot help noticing a large number of absolutely new ideas the authors incorporated into the documents. For instance, former vice-speaker Stepan Havrysh’s bill proposes a proportional system which some analysts have already dubbed “quasi-first-past-the-post.” This means voting is to be held on a party ticket in 450 one-seat constituencies. Mr. Havrysh believes this option a compromise between the proportional and first- past-the-post systems. “On the one hand, this concept makes it possible to elect a specific candidate from each constituency; on the other, this will keep the so-called ‘pocket parties’ away from parliament,” Mr. Havrysh believes. The people’s deputy also claims similar systems exist in Germany, Finland, Estonia, and Lithuania. Critics of this approach note that voters can take a dim view of it due to an exceedingly complicated procedure of elections. Most drafts suggest that the pass-score be either retained at the existing 4-% level or raised to 5%. Among the proposals are money deposit and collection of signatures. The deputies expect heated debates not only on the essence of a new election model but also on some purely technical matters, such as identifying the permanent residence of a voter in view of the cancellation of domicile registration (propyska), confirming or canceling registration as a candidate, drawing up the rules of electioneering, the procedure of vote counting and summing up the election results. According to political scientist Volodymyr Bondarenko, none of the proposed draft laws has a mechanism to avert doctoring and fixing the election results. As deputy Kliuchkovsky announced, the committee in question suggests that four drafts be shortlisted, then reduced to one, and submitted for the first reading to be held two-three weeks later if the parliamentary session approves the proposal. All the other versions and proposals can be taken into account before the second reading is held. Mr. Kliuchkovsky believes the new law can only be passed at the end of the current session, if not later, — “it looks like some more urgent bills may beat this issue.”

It should be noted, however, that in spite of active involvement in drafting the election bills, almost none of the drafters, as well as the rest of the deputies, is inclined to press for an early vote. The deputies seem to be really far from thinking that parliamentary elections can be held before 2006. Mr. Havrysh is convinced it is necessary first to get down to Constitutional amendments. According to SDPU (o) faction leader Leonid Kravchuk, it is now too early even to moot the draft election laws in the session room. “What should be done first is set up a coordination board, discuss the documents in the factions, and only then moot them.” Whatever the case, work on the new election legislation has been set into motion. The deputies have ideas as well as time to think them over.

On September 12 Verkhovna Rada approved the second session’s agenda by 259 votes. Among the most important bills are the 2003 State Budget of Ukraine, the Civil Code, and the Administrative Procedure and Labor Codes. In addition to the President’s proposals, the deputies will also discuss the Economic Code, the law On the Cabinet of Ministers, the law On the Compliance with European Court Rulings, and the law On Ad Hoc Investigating Commissions.

Is spite of the apparent importance of the number one item on parliament’s afternoon agenda, it was a different issue that aroused the liveliest debate in the session room. What “raised hell” in parliament for an umpteenth time was whether or not to satisfy the Prosecutor General’s request to allow it to prosecute People’s Deputy Yuliya Tymoshenko. The whole story began with Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn saying he decided to turn down the request because the respective parliamentary committee had concluded it was “ill-grounded, contained no concrete facts or sufficient evidence regarding some indictment, and did not meet the procedural rules of Verkhovna Rada.” Mr. Lytvyn cited some procedural clauses that allow the Verkhovna Rada speaker to make a decision in such cases to send the request back to the Prosecutor-General’s Office. Quite unexpectedly, this decision was opposed by... Ms. Tymoshenko herself. In an emotional and — let us admit — artistically convincing speech, Ms. Tymoshenko demanded that her colleagues immediately assume an attitude. “The Prosecutor General’s Office has been harassing me and my family for six years on end. I want Verkhovna Rada to take a clear attitude: if you agree to my arrest, I am ready to walk out of this room right now together with Piskun (Prosecutor-General — Ed.), if not, please let me work in peace,” she said. This touched off a no-nonsense debate with cries, bickering, reciprocal insults, and the “traditional” assault on the podium by the “hottest” people’s deputies. “If Ms. Tymoshenko herself is asking for this, we must immediately discuss her being brought to justice,” claimed Ms. Tymoshenko’s followers, mostly from her own faction, and SPU. “There are certain clearly described regulations about how such a request should be considered,” the other part of the room said in reply. What also contributed to non-discussion of the request was the fact that, as People’s Deputy Valery Asadchev noted, only the court, not the Prosecutor General’s Office, is authorized to apply for the arrest of a people’s deputy. “I want to remind you that when parliament last agreed to bringing Deputy Viktor Zherdytsky to justice in November 2000, it was guided by the Constitution’s interim provisions that allowed prosecutors to decide on pretrial treatment. But now it is the court — and only then Verkhovna Rada — that must make such a decision.”