Oleksandr YELIASHKEVYCH: “In December 2004 politicians of all stripes cast a collective slur on the Constitution”

We often get the impression that people not only have a poor knowledge of ancient history but are quickly forgetting even recent events.

Oleksandr Yeliashkevych, a member of the Verkhovna Rada of the second and third convocations, has been a longtime observer of Ukrainian events from his home in the US, where he was granted political refugee status. He visits his homeland often and is involved in politics. Yeliashkevych believes that parliamentarianism in Ukraine has not simply degraded: the “good” intentions of all branches of power have fatally shaken its very foundations. This damage occurred precisely at the moment when Ukraine switched to the parliamentary-presidential system of government. Mr. Yeliashkevych talked to The Day about who is responsible for parliament’s current plight and offered some advice on how to heal the country’s highest legislative body.

The last time you granted an interview to our newspaper was in 1999. That was quite a while ago, so we would like to remind our readers about Oleksandr Yeliashkevych. How would you answer this question yourself?

“That’s an interesting question and, frankly, I have never thought about it.

“I am the way I am. I have always done the things I like and tried to do them in a professional manner.”

Can you name the bills that are especially dear to you?

“There were quite a few bills, but there were also counteractions aimed at thwarting the top leadership’s efforts to build monopoly capitalism in this country. My colleagues and I worked actively. Unfortunately, our efforts were not enough to obstruct this process, but we still managed to do something. For example, in 1995 I authored the veto against the presidential decree on financial-industrial groups. Why do I consider this important? Because there was an attempt at the time to absolutely monopolize all the financial flows and allow just a few families in Ukraine to appropriate the state’s revenue. We managed to prevent this. If I am not mistaken, this was March 1995, and it was the first veto of a decree issued by President Kuchma. There was nothing of the kind before. This was unexpected for the president, and I think this prompted him to seek more serious powers. This triggered a struggle for constitutional powers by way of signing the Constitutional Agreement and then by trying to railroad the Constitution by hook or by crook — in the version that personally suited Kuchma as president. This is why I consider this a positive thing, because if the oligarchs had owned in 1995 the resources they amassed by 2000, there would have been no chances left for a competitive environment. In general, one of my crucial tasks was to create a competitive environment in all spheres of Ukraine’s public life, especially in the economy and finances.”

Based on your own experience, can you say that the middle class could exist (or not) in those years? What was the result of your own banking activity?

“Far-reaching processes were unfolding in the country at the time, which formally required a sharp increase of authorized capital because large financial-industrial groups were swallowing up small and medium businesses. Therefore, after another increase of authorized capital, the bank I was managing became a branch of another bank. But when I abandoned the banking sphere, I, unlike all my colleagues, really left it, not ostensibly. I no longer wielded any influence on the business I had run before I was elected to parliament because one thing was very important to me: if I am a full-time MP, I should stop lobbying or representing any commercial entities.”

One can well imagine the way today’s MPs would react to your words, which may sound funny to them because the main reason why business went to parliament was the opportunity to lobby and protect private business interests.

“This may sound funny to them, but for me it has always been an axiom that parliament should consist of professional lawmakers and that their interests should not be linked, directly or indirectly, with specific business entities. Why? Because otherwise it is difficult even for the most conscientious lawmaker because he will see legislation through the prism of his own interests, which he a priori places above those of society.”

At the time, did Ukraine have a chance to chart a different course — not monopoly capitalism?

“Certainly. The point is that my colleagues and I were working actively to establish a reforming force in parliament, and, much to the surprise of many, we did it. This was the Reforms faction. It was a unique faction that represented all the regions of Ukraine without exception. It included a lot of brilliant self-sufficient politicians, who were illustrious personalities.”

What path did you choose in 1997?

“We’ve skipped 1996, and that was a very important year, when the Constitution was adopted. The Reforms faction took a very active part in this process.”

Since those days, enduring stereotypes have been created around the the father of the Constitution. It is rumored that Kuchma was the main force. We would like to look at it through your eyes: how was the Constitution passed in reality?

“Many years ago I insisted that parliament should declassify the verbatim report of the session that took place on the morning of June 27, 1996. It was a closed-door session and unfortunately not everyone, including media people, know what happened on June 27, when the Verkhovna Rada began adopting the Constitution. So I must say now and, in a way, repent (it was still a breach of the time limit, not of the Constitution) that if I had not taken the absent deputy cards, there would have been nothing. The point is that there was a bare minimum of registered parliamentarians. If there had been no proper registration, the session would not have opened, and we would have had a totally draconian text of the Constitution that would have been submitted to and undoubtedly approved by a referendum, all the more so as there was the Russian experience of adopting its Constitution in 1993. But Kuchma not only disliked the Constitution, he actively tried to thwart its adoption by parliament.

“And the fact that Kuchma, his so-called biographers, and some political scientists are now trying, after such a long time, to praise him for his efforts to encourage the adoption of the Constitution is nothing but lies and an attempt to falsify history.

“I am absolutely certain that speculations about this matter will not cease until we put an end to this story and tell people the truth. The participants in the constitutional process should not only tell the truth but also react resolutely to deceitful and manipulative comments on the adoption of the Constitution. First of all, it was not passed overnight: it was a very lengthy process, and a huge number of experts scrutinized its text. Second, Kuchma was conducting a special campaign to prevent MPs from being present in the session room on June 27. This applies, unfortunately, to many representatives of the national democratic wing and government officials, who were also MPs. Incidentally, the Cabinet of Ministers held an away session in Cherkasy for the first in history. The authorities also triggered some events in the regions, which forced certain MPs to travel to the provinces and speak to their voters there. I clearly remember going — for the first time — to Moroz’s office on the morning of June 27 to hold separate talks with him.”

You said the Constitution is very unbalanced. What is the way out?

“The situation is very difficult because Ukraine’s government officials are deliberately violating constitutional norms. And if they do it on purpose, then there is no sense in amending the current Constitution or adopting a new one because they are not used to obeying this country’s Fundamental Law, let alone ordinary laws.

“So if we don’t see the arrival of new people, who will show by their own example that you have to be a law-abiding citizen even if you hold a high office, it will be extremely difficult to expect genuine constitutional reform. Politicians will simply twist any constitutional reform and turn it into a tool for achieving their financial goals and, above all, for grabbing power. As for the current Constitution, I think we must demand that everybody comply with everything that is written down even in this downgraded version. In December 2004 all the political forces brutally cast a collective slur on the 1996 Constitution. Moreover, they did it with obvious cynicism by agreeing to extend the MPs’ term of office by linking this to the conditions of conducting an honest stage of the undemocratic presidential elections. Very few people today remember that in December 2004 all of them agreed to extend the parliamentary term, which was one of the bargaining points for Verkhovna Rada seats. I must emphasize that practically no one resented the fact that parliament had just decided to expand its powers without consulting the voters. Now, having forgotten this, Mr. Lytvyn is saying that the term should be reduced, etc.”

Who will demand that the laws and the Constitution be obeyed if everyone committed sins in the past?

“Parliamentarianism has degraded, and the blame should be put on the executive branch, which has been deliberately maligning parliament all these years. Kuchma simply hated it, while others used to turn it to their personal, gainful, advantage.”

This is a terrible trend. What can be done to avert an apocalypse? On whom should we rely?

“It is not an apocalypse. It is just a realistic assessment of a difficult situation. Parliamentarianism has not simply degraded — the very foundations of it have been destroyed.”

What is the difference between the party with which you are running for parliament and the ones that you call private limited companies? Is Mykola Melnychenko running for the Free Democrats? And who suggested your election alliance: you or the Party of Free Democrats?

“I have known a lot of political leaders in Ukraine for quite a long time. The parties represented in parliament are chronically ill, and it is impossible to cure them ‘in house.’ So I have not even considered the question of running on their ticket. I naturally looked at other political forces and chose the Party of Free Democrats. I know its history and the people who stand behind it — special people. But I think that today, like never before, society needs these people and their views. They not only declare that they are ‘white crows’; to some extent they are. I am absolutely convinced that if the Party of Free Democrats really upholds the principles it declares to its voters, it may become a parliamentary irritant that will prevent the representatives of the leading political parties from stealing and will compel politicians to be statesmen.”

Public trust in politicians has fundamentally dwindled in the past few years. The financial world has the concept of credit history. Which member of the party that you have chosen as your partner is prepared to reassure voters that a certain politician, who used to do correct things in the past, will continue to do so in the future?

“What makes the Party of Free Democrats good at this stage is that it does not have a clear-cut leader. In other words, you can really work in this party on a democratic basis because all the decisions are made democratically. I am utterly convinced that this does not occur in the parliamentary factions that represent Ukraine’s largest parties today. Now about ‘credit history’: I think that the credit history of Brodsky, Odarych, Vydrin, Danylov, and many others is quite convincing in that these people are capable of action. They are not only capable of holding an opinion; they express this opinion in various situations, at times very difficult ones. And there are many examples when they have said things that ordinary people might not like, but it was important for society to hear them.”

For example?

“Take Mykhailo Brodsky, the story of ex-interior minister Yurii Kravchrenko, or ex-chief of the Presidential Administration Volodymyr Lytvyn, etc. Believe me, the list is endless. As for the second part of your question, it was the Party of Free Democrats that suggested I take part in the election campaign, although its members know that I have always had my own opinions and defended them. I will never meekly obey strict party discipline if I am convinced that my position is the right one.”