Horseman Has New Head, Or On the Rules of Sale
On April 3 Verkhovna Rada made a futile first attempt to replace the State Property Fund (SPF) chief according to the preconceived scenario. Only 216 deputies voted for the resolution to dismiss Oleksandr Bondar. Verkhovna Rada Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn was clearly disappointed with voting results. At his request, the parliamentary display board immediately flashed information on how the fractions voted. Yet, this failed to clarify who exactly withheld the ten votes needed to satisfy the president’s request. In all probability, the hopes on the so-called non-factional deputies were dashed. Moreover, many parliament members had not yet shown up.
Three hours after the first vote, the speaker moved Mr. Bondar’s dismissal for the second time. This time 239 deputies voted yes, thus removing the SPF chairman from office, but it will still take some time for the dust to settle, for the law states that a second vote is only possible after a new presidential request. This happened, for example, when parliament dismissed Volodymyr Stelmakh as National Bank chairman by a majority vote. In theory, a repeat request might have been prepared in time, but the required procedure was not observed then. Actually, flouting the rules has become a parliamentary tradition. Mykhailo Chechetov’s success was marred by dubious voting circumstances, although he gathered 260 votes, including those of some opposition members. The opposition is certain to try to take advantage of this dubious situation to whip up a juicy scandal. Deputy Serhiy Soboliev (Our Ukraine), has said he is challenging the legitimacy of Bondar’s dismissal. On his initiative, the parliamentary committee on procedural rules and ethics has decided to conduct an inquiry into this matter. Meanwhile, Speaker Lytvyn is convinced that he is right and has already wished Mr. Chechetov make good on what he had promised in his parliamentary speech. It will be noted that, given the delicate nature of such thing as state property sales, the wish appeared ambiguous. For no one can actually deny that some deputies may have been given private promises in exchange for their support.
Still, if viewed from a broader perspective, the April 3 events seem likely to have more positive than negative consequences for the SPF. The fund has at last had ample consultations with all Ukraine’s major buyers of state property. For the current lineup of Verkhovna Rada factions and groups is in fact a mirror reflection of the structure of big Ukrainian capital. While discussing his candidacy with the deputies, Mr. Chechetov is certain to have collected priceless information on the interests of one politico-financial group or another. “If I said the factions did not suggest that the fund backpedal on the sale of some facilities in exchange for support of my candidacy, I would be lying,” he said bluntly on Thursday.
On the eve of the voting, almost all the national television channels beamed tendentious programs in favor of Mr. Chechetov, which shows quite a strong support for the new SPU chief on the part of the big buyers. In other words, the point was not only about backing a presidential initiative but also about lobbying certain interests. What these interests are we will perhaps know in the near future.
Moreover, Mr. Chechetov says he felt no open enmity when he held preliminary consultations with opposition fractions. In his view, the existing cool relationship has resulted from purely political factors. In other words, the opposition has nothing against Chechetov personally and the SPF. Yet, when the new fund chief presents the 2003- 2008 privatization program, he is very likely to be reminded about the dubious legitimacy of his confirmation in his office. On the other hand, there was only one instance of voting on the Chechetov appointment. Privatization Institute Director Oleksandr Riabchenko admitted he was sure in the very beginning that Oleksandr Bondar would quit as SPF chair because, even if the parliament had not agreed to this, he would have had to have resigned on his own under the Code of Labor Laws.
Socialist Party Deputy Kateryna Semeniuk, chairperson of the privatization oversight commission, explained the opposition’s stand very simply. In her words, the Four of Our Ukraine, the SPU, Tymoshenko bloc, and KPU so far see no fundamental difference between Bondar and Chechetov. This is why the opposition decided to take a wait-and-see attitude toward what the parliamentary majority was doing. And there really was plenty to see.
The behavior of Messrs. Bondar and Chechetov in the three hours between the votes deserves special attention. Chechetov showed no disappointment and said it was good for the fund to keep both experts employed. On his part, Bondar urged the president to decide if he would continue to work at the SPF. He also recommended that the cabinet and parliament to make a joint decision on this matter. The government telephone (100) has never rung in Bondar’s office over the past month, so the (supposedly, former) SPF chief was expected to seek reconciliation with the government in order to remain employed. It is also curious that Bondar announced after the morning vote that he was not going to alter his vacation plans and agreed that Chechetov should meanwhile be empowered to make important decisions.
