Was this a demonstration of his "anti-corruption effort" meant for Ms. Madeline Albright? The way he had addressed a televised message to the nation, informing on the economic accords with Russia, which was actually an oath of allegiance to President Yeltsin? Hardly likely, because the United States and Russia are busy discussing economic problems relating to the Middle East (Iran included) behind Ukraine's back. Be it as it may, the Ukrainian people, along with international observers already arriving to monitor the elections, were shown with utmost clarity a domestic version of the witch hunt. In this context, Mykhailo Brodsky's arrest was just another illustration.
The latter, being a powerful business figure, may have refused to take part in certain arrangements that would take effect in the aftermath of the torpedoed elections of the mayor and appointment of yet another presidential "governor-general." And such arrangements had to be made, as the President returned the bill not just with his veto message, but also with a proposal to set up a consensus committee. And nor was it coincidental that Yevhen Kushnariov, commenting on the presidential veto, made no big deal of the legal aspect (correctly so, because by inferring Article 133 of the Constitution one might set Kyiv equal not only to an administrative region, oblast, but even to an autonomous republic, and the same would apply to Sevastopol as a military city). Instead, he capitalized on the President's rights and a possible conflict of interests unless the executive stepped in. In a roundabout way Mr. Kushnariov invited (as though in the President's behalf) all those with "conflicting interests" to solve their problems with the Presidential Administration, rather than in the course of direct elections. In return, the ones with the biggest interests might just see Mr. Omelchenko quietly transferred to City Hall (where he is aiming now a nominee), while Mr. Whosit would then become the President's "governor-general." Hence, probably, Mr. Anatoly Kovalenko's decision to step down, despite his recent spectacular campaigning, seeing himself as No. 1 City Father before long.
The last time such a pseudo-constitutional agreement took place was in July 1997, after an attempt to prolong the original one failed. Then truce was proposed by Parliament. Today, the President has the initiative. It boils down to a simple proposition: Come on over, guys, let's talk. We'll sort it out. We'll find experts, maybe people from just the parties that will be kicked out of the campaign by the 4% barrier, and then we'll drag today's legislators from one court to the next. And what do you know, Parliament might tumble down by itself. And to make sure that the parties to the "agreement" get to the President's office quickly, there will be "coverage detachments" in the rear, made up of tax inspectors and other power structures.
This scheme could have worked, had it not been for a Parliament session scheduled for March 24. Yet if the President fails to sign even a small law amending the elections rules by then, to have party lists "pushed through" as a result of elections, there is a strong likelihood that quite a number of candidates from various parties will be willing to demand impeachment be placed on the agenda.
Actually, this is what the final bidding will be all about. Surprisingly, all political forces in Ukraine, except the Guarantor, seem to have recognized the fact that acting under the Constitution there is not only a correct but also advantageous course to take. Hence, the stronger side will be the one seeking an amicable way out of a most destructive adventure.
Sketch by Anatoly Kazansky, The Day






