Adrian SEVERIN: “Parliamentary democracy is important for Ukraine”
Adrian SEVERIN, a member of the European Parliament, is the chairman of the Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. He often visits Ukraine and firmly believes that our country has a European future. He recently took part in the Fourth Yalta European Strategy Summit.
What should Kyiv and Brussels do in order to speed up Ukraine’s European prospects? What advantages could the establishment of a double-chamber parliament bring to Ukraine? These and other questions are raised in The Day ’s exclusive interview with Adrian SEVERIN.
What is your general impression of this event?
“I think this is a very welcome event. I think that Ukraine needs to hold these kinds of debates and to host them. Yesterday we discussed Ukraine’s European future. But we also discussed the European future itself, and Europe’s need not only to reform inside, but also to have a global vision and strategy. Therefore, I think that the word “strategy” in the title of this event is extremely important. We have to discuss strategy both from Ukrainian and European perspectives and from a global perspective. And I think this was an excellent opportunity yesterday to do so.
“I was also impressed by the high level of the people involved in the debate. This is for sure a guarantee of the high quality of contributions and ideas. There were a number of important ideas. I think that it is becoming clearer and clearer that Ukraine has a European perspective. I am not speaking about identity because the identity is there already. And this perspective is important both from the Ukrainian and European points of view. I think it is quite clear that European membership, European integration will bring a lot of new assets to Ukraine. And it will also bring much profit to the European Union. So, it is a two-way road; there is mutual interest here. Therefore, it needs mutual cooperation.
“If this is the case, I think, you have to notice that there are a few things to be done, a few conditions to be accomplished. One of these conditions is an integral democratic progress, and this is something that Ukrainians should do first of all, with European assistance, maybe, but this is a task for the Ukrainians. The second condition is much needed democratic progress within the European Union. And, of course, this is a task for the Europeans. And I think, if not a condition, but a sort of facilitating factor is the improvement of relationships between the European Union and the major regional and global player, which is a neighbor of Ukraine, Russia. So, if we want to be realistic and pragmatic, we have to admit that the European integration of Ukraine will be much easier and trusted within the context of good cooperation between Russia and the European Union. Again, I start with yesterday’s discussion in light of three points.
“Of course, Russia should become more interoperable with the European Union. Indeed, economic cooperation and economic interrelations are very important, but we cannot interrelate if our systems, market systems, and political systems related to the market are not compatible, are not similar, or cannot have a controlled economy on one side, and free economy on the other side, and achieve integration or interrelation. Otherwise, this integration is one-sided and very dangerous for the other side.
“On the other hand, I think that Russia should perhaps change its mentality, i.e., understand that the European Union is not an enemy but a friend, or a potential friend at least, or a natural partner. And therefore it should do whatever it can in order to build trust with the European Union. The European Union, to my mind, has a job to do because it is not enough to ask Russia to change its mentality; it is not enough to ask Russia to build trust with the European Union, but the European Union should also build trust. And, you know, all the temptations and inclinations within the European Union should certainly be neutralized. The members of the European Union also have to see a very important partner in Russia, of course, in a democratic Russia. We also should understand that the Russian way towards democracy is different from that of the countries of Central Europe, for example. We should understand the problems of the big country that is trying to reform itself. And these problems are much bigger than the problems of a small country trying to reform. So, Europeans should also do their part of the work in relations with Russia.
“And definitely Ukraine should also try to establish a balanced policy eastwards and westwards, because the better Ukraine’s relations are the faster Ukraine’s integration into the EU will be. So, I tried to sum up some of the ideas of yesterday’s discussion, which I share. Ultimately, Ukraine’s integration into the EU is not against Russia. And Russia and Ukraine should establish a common strategy so that Russia will profit from Ukraine’s integration into the EU.”
Judging by Yatseniuk’s speech or the speeches of any other Ukrainian politicians, have you noticed that they already have such a strategy?
“Well, I think that they are working on this strategy. Unfortunately, I think that many people here are too much trapped by the immediate target of the elections.
“They believe that these elections are all about democracy, moreover, that they are all about finding some kind of a panacea for solving the problems of the country. I do not think that these elections are going to solve any problem. OK, if people feel better if they have these elections, it is up to the Ukrainian leaders to hold these elections. But I don’t particularly think that these elections will answer the main three questions of the country: checking the equilibrium between the institutions -and these debates should be depersonalized, because I have the feeling that it is too personalized; checking equilibrium is not about fighting. Checking equilibrium is about institution, it is an objective way that will make a constitutional settlement which will put in motion a mechanism that will be able to cope with any challenges.
“The second problem is the too intimate link between business and politics. Business media are important everywhere, of course. Businesspeople are resourceful, and therefore influential; there is nothing wrong with this influence if it is transparent and legal. So I think it is also up to the politicians to prove to these business people that business people should take care of their business and let the politicians work because politicians are able to work in such a way that there is a fair game in the competition.
‘And the third point, I think, is to deal with the cultural cleavage between the eastern and western parts of the country. We do not need half a Ukraine integrated into Europe. We all need all of Ukraine to be integrated, and it is up to the political leaders of Ukraine to acknowledge this cultural cleavage, cultural differences, and not neutralize them, but make them part of cohesive policy and not part of the divisive development of Ukraine. I think that these targets are most important for Ukraine, and they are much more important and challenging than the elections. And I think that the Ukrainian leaders could still think seriously about this, because, frankly speaking, until now I did not hear any great ideas that would address this issue.”
What do you think about recent suggestions to adopt a new constitution by voting in a referendum? And another point — two chambers.
“I think that a constitution is too complicated a document to be adopted by referendum. We should ask simple questions of people, clear questions, of course, fundamental ones, to which citizens should be able to respond by the answers “Yes” or “No.” A constitution is a product of the work of several people, it is a complicated compromise, and you cannot have a compromise with people through a referendum. Therefore, I think, it is a bad idea to ask people to adopt a constitution by referendum, be it a European constitution, Armenian, or American one.
“What would be much better is to make a number of very clear principles that would be written on half a page and then to ask people to accept these principles. This is a difference; for instance, presidential republic or federal republic. But even this is too complicated a question to be asked in a referendum, because you cannot oblige every citizen to be an expert on the general theory of state and law. So, they do not simply understand the notions of a parliamentary or presidential republic. They probably think that they do, but you need to know a lot about constitutional theory in order to give answers to these questions. One can reformulate, reword this question in such way as to address the essence of the problem and to ask people if they want perhaps a strong leader who could more or less rule by himself, being under the oversight of parliament or representatives of the people; or they would like a president, who is able to maintain equilibrium among the other state institutions; if they like a peaceful country where the president is the guarantor of equilibrium, who controls or facilitates the mutual control of institutions; or do they want a president who is doing things and then is obliged to report back to other institutions.”
Which is better for Ukraine?
“To make it short, a parliamentary republic would be better for Ukraine. Because you, like many of the countries in the area, have a totalitarian past. So in order to break with this totalitarian past, which would lead to totalitarian temptations here, I think, it is better to go towards a parliamentary republic. On the other hand, most European states are parliamentary states, parliamentary democracies, be they monarchies or republics. They are parliamentary democracies with the very special exception of France, which is not yet a presidential democracy, so it is a semi-presidential democracy.
“So, I think that a parliamentary democracy is important for your country. It is also important because of the internal diversity, structural diversity of your society. You need flexibility here in order to keep the people together. And presidential democracy is less flexible, and it might indeed be more efficient in terms of making decisions, fast decisions, but much more dangerous in terms of keeping people together. And that kind of democracy lacks an internal mechanism to keep institutions and society in equilibrium. And this society needs equilibrium.
“The second question about a double-chamber parliament... Well, I am in favor of a double-chamber parliament. I heard people here saying that a double-chamber parliament is a weaker parliament. That is not so. The double-chamber parliament indeed is more costly in terms of money and in terms of time, but democracy is always costly. However, I think that for the president and the prime minister it would be more difficult to convince two chambers rather than one. So, if we want a weak democracy, we have a country with a few members because, indeed, a few members in a single-chamber parliament could be pressed by the executive power. So, if we want to have more differential parliamentary power, then we have to have a reasonable number of parliamentarians and a two-chamber parliament.
“It is also good for adopting good laws, because in a single-chamber parliament you think once; in a double-chamber parliament you think twice. Of course, it is very important to delimit the competencies of the chambers, the way in which they are elected. You should not just duplicate everything. Some laws should be adopted by two chambers, some other laws, separately; some other laws, by one of the two chambers. Some laws should be adopted by both chambers in a joint session. For instance, the law of confidence in the budget should be adopted by both chambers in a common session. So, it is not obligatory that both chambers adopt all the laws.
“Bearing in mind Ukrainian realities, you can conceive the first chamber as a political chamber formed by representative deputies who are elected by all of Ukraine and who are representing all Ukrainians, and the second chamber will be conceived as a chamber representing mostly people from the regions, of various regions of the country, a kind of Bundesrat, if you like, even if I do not think that Ukraine should become a federal country. You have regions, you have regional problems, and you need territorial cohesion of the country, and this should bring the representatives of the regions together in order to look for ways of cooperating in order to balance the development of various regions. So, maybe you can conceive the second chamber as a congress of local and regional powers, and the first chamber as a general political chamber. This could be an idea that will provide the country with such flexibility, which is absolutely necessary — mainly for new states in order to preserve their unity.”
Is there any danger of federalism? Linder, the German expert, has said that all this may lead to federalism.
“Federalism is not a danger. We have many federations in the world, and the most successful countries of the world are federations. Switzerland and India are federations: of course, they started long ago, but they are doing pretty well, and so on and so forth. Even Spain is a federation, although of course we do not call it a federation because it is a monarchy, but in fact it is more of a federation. I think that a federation is not a danger.
“On the other hand, you should know that there is more than one type of federation. You can have a more integrated federation and a looser federation; there are many kinds of federations. And in the end I want to say that a federation is not a group of states: it is a unitary state with a complex structure. Well, a confederation is a complex of states with a unitary structure. So, you already have a united state, but you should decentralize the power because this is the modern way of thinking, and I think that this would allow you not only to take care of the interests of your citizens in a better way, but also to transfer some powers of your state to the European Union.
“So, you can transfer your duties and some of your rights, decision rights not only to the EU, but you can transfer them down to local communities and regions. In this case, I do not think that you should wait until you are more integrated into the European Union. I think that you should start now, because this would serve only for your state’s consolidation. And as I said, it is not about transforming the state into a federation, but even if this would be an idea, I do not think you should be afraid of a federal solution. It is important to give the right answer to the real problems of your society.”
