Did Roman Bezsmertny Leave in Order To Stay?

The brief official announcements advising on the President's edict relieving Roman Bezsmertny of his post as Leonid Kuchma's permanent representative in Parliament are interesting primarily because no explanations or reasons were offered, although one and all in this country have long stopped expecting any transparency in government decisions or openness of political measures. Thus lawmakers offered their own versions as best they could.

Leonid Kravchuk told The Day: “I think this could be explained in a variety of ways. Personally, I believe that on the eve of the presidential elections the relationships between the Verkhovna Rada and the executive, particularly the President, have peaked. Hence, the President may have recalled his representative — in other words, fired him — to show that there is no presidential representation in Parliament and that there will be none, not until after the elections. This means that constructive possibilities for cooperation have been further reduced.” If so, could perhaps the President's move be considered a formal declaration of war on Parliament? To this Mr. Kravchuk replied, “I don't think so. Parliament declared this war long ago.” One can call this the President's demarche.

Version No. 2 attributes Roman Berzsmertny's dismissal to his performance best described as uninspired. Oleksandr Lavrynovych pointed out philosophically, “I think that there are no immortals [Bezsmertny literally means immortal —Ed. ]. Especially in Ukraine and especially given the current personae at the upper echelons of state power. Roman Bezsmertny must not have been active enough for his bosses to say look at his work; every day he adds his share to a certain basket. Or maybe his contribution to that basket wasn't convincing enough.”

Viktor Omelich also believes the cadre change has to do with Parliament's voting down the President's edits and overriding his vetoes, including the one on the presidential elections law with the latest amendments. “It was a very heavy blow,” says Mr. Omelich. “Besides, he failed to wreck our work in Parliament. And the momentum gained by Verkhovna Rada could be explained by the absence of ‘adequate' actions by the Presidential representative. Roman is a clever man and he must have realized that all that wheeling and dealing in Parliament wasn't for him, that he did not measure up to the Bankova Street standard. He is a man of conscience and understands that he can't simultaneously act against and sit in Parliament.”

There is also a third version, which could be described as outsmarting oneself. Artur Bilous says: “I appreciate Roman as one of the intellectuals in Parliament, but one can't have a foot in both camps for long. He had it coming and I am surprised that it didn't happen earlier.”

Taras Stetskiv reminds us that there is a struggle going on within the President's entourage and that the Chief Executive must have “made his decision relying on information which he is the last to receive, as usual... Mr. Bezsmertny served the President faithfully and long enough in 1997 and 1998. But in 1999 I haven't practically heard him in Parliament and I think that he made a political blunder that he didn't quit the NDP when we did. He would've lost his job but made a very good political name instead. As it was, he found himself bringing up the President's political rear and with our President dumping used people is common practice. They dump it where and whenever they think expedient. A politician in that environment places himself in a situation where it is eventually necessary to get back his name made in the constitutional process. This will be a very difficult task, because no one will have forgotten that he pulled out on a crucial curve in the road.” Mr. Stetskiv jokingly points out that that Mr. Havrysh from Volkov's Rebirth of the Regions might be a good replacement: “Mr. Havrysh is an excellent serviceman. He would be of service to everybody. If Symonenko became President, he would serve him also. An ideal candidacy for this period, he is! And I mean ideal! I suggest that the President appoint him in Bezsmertny's place.”

All these versions, asserting their relevance, became intertwined in Mykhailo Syrota's philosophizing (Pinchuk-Derkach's Trudova Ukrayina). Among other things, he told The Day's Iryna HAVRYLOVA that Roman Bezsmertny could have been hostage to a political intrigue in Leonid Kuchma's entourage and that Rebirth of the Regions and SDPU(u) could have been interested in toppling him, because they saw his independent stand as an obstacle. In fact, Mr. Syrota pointing a finger at that entourage was characteristic, since he believes that Oleksandr Volkov or Yuliya Tymoshenko could replace Roman Bezsmertny after the elections. For some reason he even mentioned Socialist Ivan Chyzh. Mr. Syrota also thinks that Bezsmertny's removal could well be a tactical move made in view of the court proceedings initiated by Speaker Tkachenko, accusing Mr. Bezsmertny of illegally holding two jobs. Well, this sounds closer to the truth.

The Day could not get in touch with Mr. Bezsmertny for comment. He was said to have taken ill. His diplomatic illness could be regarded only one way: time-out to avoid contact with the press and very likely having to do with a fourth version received from sources close to Bankova Street. In short, it has it that the man asked the President to relieve him of his representative post before his case was heard in the Kyiv Court, so he could avoid unwelcome publicity and retain his parliamentary seat. At present, this version continues, and he awaits an appointment on Leonid Kuchma's team, even though as a part-timer, something like an aide, consultant, assistant, etc., and that once he is through composing a presidential edict on his new appointment, he will get it and reappear in full public view. Unlike those about getting rid of a decent man or keeping a foot in two camps, this version sounds more interesting and seems more likely.