Government braced for budget hearings

The July 5 parliamentary debate on the government’s program could well be compared to a dissertation preliminary defense. There were all the things needed: the cabinet’s concept of our Fatherland’s further development, methodologically following the president’s message to parliament; a rather critically-minded “board” consisting of 447 deputies (a little fewer were present in the session room); a “thesis reviewer” Volodymyr Demiokhin, first deputy chairman of the economic policy committee; and, of course, a degree candidate, Prime Minister Anatoly Kinakh. The latter, incidentally, looked self-confident, as any good student would. Within thirty minutes, he clearly and consistently outlined the main guidelines of the future market-oriented transformation, explaining to the people’s deputies the ups and downs of the Ukrainian economy, and illustrating this with macroeconomic indices... Then, quite in keeping with academic procedure, he confidently answered questions for as long as forty minutes. He accepted (or, on the contrary, dismissed as economically unfounded) the deputies’ remarks, patiently repeat what he had already said, and then returned to his seat accompanied by the applause of his cabinet colleagues.

There is no need to dwell in detail on the program, the questions to, and complaints about the government. The document, like any other program, for that matter, is of a rather general nature and is unlikely to play any important role in the life of Ukrainian citizens. Yet, it is very important for the government: parliamentary corridors have long been rife with rumors about Mr. Kinakh’s dismissal (for more detail see page 4).

Mr. Demiokhin concluded, “The government’s proposals should be taken note of and returned for revision until the autumn.” This motion was supported by all the fractions and groups, except for Our Ukraine, which insisted that the governmental program be turned down. This is not an accidental attitude. The Day has repeatedly noted that portfolio redistribution in the Cabinet of Ministers will occur only in the fall. Then, while discussing next year’s budget, the deputies will be able to raise more specific claims against the government. If Verkhovna Rada approved the program during the current session, this would give Mr. Kinakh a new lease on life for at least a year, which would fundamentally strengthen his political will.

Yet, many factions would not like the program to collapse too soon. First, this would enable the ambitious Our Ukraine to contend more successfully for the prime minister’s office (moreover, the office of the budget committee chairman is an excellent steppingstone before the coming presidential elections). But even the most credible candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, has a rather slim chance to reoccupy in the premier’s chair. The accusations leveled against him on July 4 by the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc and the Socialist Party are additional confirmation of this. There is so far nobody in parliament who can poll 226 votes to lead the government. This is why even the Party of the Regions was in no hurry to turn down the government program now in order to avoid a showdown immediately after the parliamentary recess.

Secondly, it has become known to The Day that practically all the leaders of what is left of United Ukraine hope that Mr. Kinakh will understand their “budgetary” problems. Hence, these deputies are in no rush to deprive themselves of the second most powerful instrument of influencing the Cabinet of Ministers, criticizing its action program (with budget remaining the first, whatever the case). Moreover, the budget committee lineup allows only a few to have the weight to throw around.

Now Mr. Kinakh’s job future is in his own hands. He received the first official hints from the parliamentary rostrum last Friday. Agrarian leader Ivan Kyrylenko said he agreed in principle to support the government’s program, repeatedly emphasizing that the countryside (especially in certain regions) badly needs investments and that “the situation could get out of control.” NDP leader Valery Pustovoitenko wished Mr. Kinakh all the best (“to survive after five debates on his dismissal”) and dropped a broad hint about “transportation corridors.” Vadym Hurov, a leader of People’s Power, and Stepan Havrysh from Democratic Initiative, said nothing concrete at all (the district deputies must have too many problems) but still suggested that Mr. Kinakh “modify” the program. Mr. Turmanov, Party of the Regions, quite vigorously pointed out the interests of miners and problems of the coal industry, especially the “eleven holding companies.” Even Mr. Pavlovsky from the Tymoshenko faction suggested that Mr. Kinakh rely on the opposition (the premier and First Vice Premier Oleh Dubyna smiled and laughed respectively). And, on top of all this, Serhiy Buriak (Labor Ukraine) divided his speech into two parts: “emotions” and “to the point.” He referred the government program’s positive sides to the former and its drawbacks to the latter.

Will Mr. Kinakh be able to hold on? Will Ukraine’s rank-and-file entrepreneurs and other individuals be satisfied with the future budget? These questions will be answered in the fall. The only thing now clear is that Mr. Kinakh will have to make deals. Many believe the premier will not conduct a dialogue on his own because he is too principled and direct. To crown it all, as an informed deputy told The Day, “He will just be torn apart: no budget can satisfy everybody.” Nor is he likely to seek support in the budget committee, for it too obviously represents the interests of Our Ukrainian Petro Poroshenko and Donetsk region’s Valery Konovalov. What looks like the most realistic version is the premier’s dialogue with parliament via the ministers officially under him.