Constitutional Deadlock
The parliament’s July 10 day sitting saw more fruitless attempts to move out of the doldrums on the question of constitutional reform. Verkhovna Rada did not support a proposal submitted by Anatoly Matviyenko and Kostiantyn Sytnyk (BYuT) that draft amendments to Constitution be sent to the Constitutional Court immediately after being introduced in the parliament. Then representatives of the opposition four tried to block the presidium, but the speaker removed this issue from the voting agenda and turned to the next item.
The deputies also turned down the idea of a secret ballot on the bill to send the proposed constitutional changes to the Constitutional Court. A motion to return to this issue later also failed to collect the needed number of votes.
Voting by ballot, which some of the majority faction leaders and group members did not rule out, was actively opposed by the opposition.
In his interview with journalists member of the SDPU(O) faction Borys Andresiuk spoke of the possibility of voting by collecting signatures or in some other way. Simultaneously, according to Mr. Andresiuk, the Social Democrats stand for voting on all registered bills regarding constitutional reform.
The third session of Ukraine’s fourth Verkhovna Rada came to a spectacular end on July 11: 400 out of the 444 registered deputies voted to approve the procedure of submitting Constitution changes draft laws to the Constitutional Court (CC). The adopted resolution says that those with legislative initiative (the president of Ukraine or 150 people’s deputies) should introduce a bill on Constitutional amendments in Verkhovna Rada and give it to the CC for expert examination. The same applies to the Verkhovna Rada speaker. In addition, the parliamentary committee on legal affairs was given an October 15, 2003, deadline to draft a bill on the procedure of considering draft laws on constitutional amendments.
Judging by the deputies’ mood, the positive result of this vote was a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, the line “400 Yes” that flashed on the display board plunged the audience, including journalists, into shock. Thus, the deputies cleared the way to the Constitutional Court for both the presidential and the parliamentary drafts under discussion. In case the CC returns a positive verdict, the parliament will be handling the drafts in detail in the fall. Yet, there is no guarantee that the majority and the minority will not come to blows again this fall. What has happened looks like a forced — due to the summer recess — cease fire rather than a deliberate compromise between the parties concerned. Moreover, even opposition deputies admit that the procedure might also raise some complaints.
On the last day of its third session, Verkhovna Rada also managed to beget a series of other laws in most diverse fields, such as a ban on alcohol and tobacco advertising on television, the procedure of electing and dismissing full-time judges by Verkhovna Rada, the procedure of revoking local council deputies, and changes in the tax system.
Summing up the session, Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn said that the parliament had taken a crucial step toward the establishment of parliamentary government in this country and become “a true hub of Ukraine’s sociopolitical and economic life.” The parliament is now truly an epicenter. Addressing the deputies, the speaker emphasized that they bore the greatest responsibility for what is happening in the country. “It is the parliament that maintained equilibrium in our political life and contributed to a civilized solution of acute and sensitive problems,” Mr. Lytvyn announced without undue modesty. “The United States, the European Union, and Russia more and more seriously consider Ukraine as an important and independent factor of world and European security,” the speaker also noted. In his words, legislative support for the President’s proposals, “unexpected for many, especially for heavyweights on the world arena, showed that Ukraine follows an independent political line.” However, the speaker failed to say that these decisions, especially one on the involvement in the Iraq crisis, were made contrary to, rather than thanks to, the parliament. Most probably, Mr. Lytvyn was reluctant to recall sad things on the eve of the vacations, such as the shameful hearings on the 1933 manmade famine and some periods of parliamentary paralysis.
Simultaneously the speaker urged his colleagues not to be fully satisfied with the third session’s results. (If there is a “satisfactory” mark in a student’s report card, it testifies to mediocrity. What does then our parliament’s performance testify to?) “Parliament is going through a complicated, contradictory and painful process of development,” Mr. Lytvyn believes. “Not always do we think and act wisely or, even less, independently,” the speaker stressed. Then he made a categorical conclusion, “We are not yet prepared for a parliamentary-presidential republic, nor are we prepared for greater responsibility.” This drew a burst of applause from some deputies. The loudest applause came from Our Ukraine: this faction clearly seemed to be feeling affection for Mr. Lytvyn. We must give the speaker his due: he has obviously improved his technique of balancing between different parts of the session room during the three parliamentary semesters...
Answering a journalist’s question, Mr. Lytvyn emphasized he was not going to run for president in the coming elections. “I never set myself unattainable goals. Moreover, I don’t have any such plans,” he said to explain his view.
