Political Reform: A Resuscitation Attempt?
The parliamentary majority coordinator Stepan Havrysh told journalists last Thursday that it was quite possible that he and the Socialist leader Oleksandr Moroz would propose in the nearest future Bill No. 4,180 on making amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine. Mr. Havrysh also said this bill would stand “very low” chances to be passed unless Verkhovna Rada Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn made efforts to move it.
“If we fail to carry out the political reform before the presidential elections, we can forget about it thereafter.” It is President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine, the chief initiator of the political reform, i.e., making constitutional amendments, who has more than once said approximately these words. Most of this country’s political forces have agreed with the head of state except for the Right opposition, namely, Our Ukraine and BYuT. Many suspect that the latter are overtly hostile to political reforming.
It is more than two years since Pres. Kuchma announced his initiative on August 24, 2002. Throughout this time, the political reform has been one of the key issues of Ukrainian politics. Although some elements of political reformation (for example, the law on proportional elections) have been implemented, it never came to amending the Fundamental Law. Will it ever come? With the presidential elections just a month away, this becomes a really burning question that requires a definite answer.
Under the Constitution of Ukraine, the bill on constitutional amendments is considered passed if it has been approved by the majority of Verkhovna Rada votes and then, at the next session, supported by not less than two thirds of the aggregate parliamentary corps, i.e., 300 people’s deputies. As is known, the past 5th session preliminarily passed Bill No. 4,180 by a majority vote. The main provision of this bill is transition to a parliamentary-presidential republic by transferring the right to form a Cabinet from the president to the parliament, while the president acquires more opportunities to dissolve Verkhovna Rada. One of the problems is that Bill No. 4180 is still being scrutinized by the Constitutional Court which must rule whether or not it meets the Fundamental Law’s requirements. Although almost none of the politicians and experts have any doubt that the court will hand down a positive ruling, the delay narrows the field of maneuvering. As is the practice of similar actions shows, although the Constitutional Court may approve the bill in general, it may still raise some objections, which will take additional efforts to comply with them. Meanwhile, the first round of the presidential elections is only two plenary sessions away, and the same number of sessions will be held between the first and the second (if necessary) rounds.
Another problem is that Verkhovna Rada’s schedule has no slot during this time to consider the bill on constitutional amendments.
And what is the ratio of the parliamentary advocates and opponents of approving Bill No. 4180 before electing the new president of Ukraine?
Experience shows that the Communists and Socialists are the staunchest advocates of instituting a parliamentary-presidential republic. The Left have often said that they consider themselves, not Pres. Kuchma, as the author of this idea — they keep recalling the so-called Moroz- Symonenko bill drafted in the previous-convocation parliament. When Bill No. 4105 (which closely resembles Bill No. 4108 and was previously rejected, having gained 294 votes) was put to the final vote on April 8, 2004, the KPU and SPU factions unanimously voted for it.
Judging by their leaders’ statements, the Left are going to take the same attitude when voting on Bill No. 4180. “We have been and are favoring the reform. Do you think we want to give power to Yushchenko and his company?” Communist deputy Heorhy Kriuchkov told The Day’s correspondent. His slogan “Let’s keep Yushchenko from power!” all too clearly shows: seeing that their leader is unable to win in the presidential elections, the Left have thrown their weight to weaken presidential authority. The more so that they received a handsome gift from their constitutional coalition partners in the shape of a law on proportional elections to parliament and local government bodies.
Yet, the Communists, even in league with the Socialists, are able to glean about a mere fourth of the votes they need. When Bill No. 4105 was being voted upon, the rest of the votes came from parliamentary majority factions and just a few from independent deputies.
The analysis shows that there are not so many ideologically committed advocates of the parliamentary-presidential form of government in the parliamentary majority’s camp. Way before the president showed initiative, the People’s Democratic Party (NDP) suggested carrying out a political reform similar to the one now under discussion. This party’s leader Valery Pustovoitenko came up again the other day with the idea of convening a constitutional assembly. Among the strong advocates of amending the Constitution are the United Social Democrats [SDPU (O)] whose leader Viktor Medvedchuk, the President’s chief of staff, was one of those who mooted Bill No. 4105.
However, while SPDU (O) faction members clearly told The Day’s correspondent that they are ready to vote for Bill No. 4180, NDP deputies expressed a bit different opinion. According to People’s Deputy Serhiy Shevchuk, many NDP deputies are not happy with such provisions as imperative mandate, enhanced role of the public prosecution service, additional levers for parliament dissolution, and the fact that the draft law “does not reflect the need to reorganize regional government, i.e., introduce electivity of top regional administrators.” In a word, the NDP faction could only support Bill No. 4180 if the Constitutional Commission “cleared up the ambiguous provisions” and the document itself were put to an article-by-article vote.
As for the rest of the majority factions and groups, it is easy to see that they all became advocates of a more powerful parliament only after Pres. Kuchma had initiated the political reform — none of them can boast of a serious ideological basis for favoring a parliamentary-presidential republic. Accordingly, their voting on this item will apparently depend on the current political considerations rather than their ideological attitudes. Can these considerations swing the vote in favor of Bill No. 4180?
The parliamentary majority has been in the grip of another crisis over the past few weeks. The faction of Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn’s People’s Agrarian Party, as well as that of the Center group and three members of the NDP faction, have quitted the majority. Among the factors that caused these moves is disagreement, in one way or another, with governmental policies. So is the government strong enough to turn the people’s deputies over to a certain position over the key political issue? According to People’s Deputy S. Shevchuk, Bill No. 4180 could be voted into law if pressure were exerted on parliament members. “But the government is no longer prepared to exert pressure, nor are the deputies prepared to bow to this kind of pressure,” he said.
SDPU (O) faction leader Leonid Kravchuk thinks that “with this political lineup, when factions have already begun to seriously fluctuate in their standpoints and views, it is very difficult to expect any strong support for the political reform.” Moreover, “it is just out of place to raise the question of constitutional amendments, the most important of all questions in Verkhovna Rada’s competence” under these conditions. “We can just do stupid things and then get down to correcting them, as is often the case. We should not raise this matter in the session room until we are sure that Verkhovna Rada has calmed down, dropped the political PR campaign, and serves the interests of society and an effective government,” Mr. Kravchuk said.
Communist Georgy Kriuchkov also doubts that the political reform can be effected before the elections because of parliamentary majority problems. “Those who ruined the majority are oriented towards Viktor Yushchenko, an implacable opponent of this reform,” Mr. Kriuchkov notes.
People’s Deputy Oleh Zarubinsky, NDP faction, is convinced it is absolutely unrealistic to gather 300 votes today. “Most deputies believe that constitutional amendments are only good for a certain political grouping. But the deputies are mature enough and don’t want to be just ‘button-pushers’ and implementers of the interests of a grouping,” he said.
Conversely, Volodymyr Rybak, representative of the Cabinet in parliament and member of the Regions of Ukraine faction, is sure that the overwhelming majority of his faction’s deputies will cast a positive vote. Yet, the people’s deputy thinks that, taking into account the oncoming presidential elections, “one should not raise this question now so that the parliament continues constructive work.”
Another champion of the idea of political reform, Socialist Yosyp Vinsky, estimated the chances of carrying out this reform before the presidential elections as 20% against 80%, pointing out that these chances are dwindling every day. Mr. Vinsky considers Democratic Initiatives, Union, and People’s Agrarian Party factions as weak points in the parliamentary constitutional process.
Union faction leader Mykola Hapochka denied rumors about vacillation, while Kateryna Vashchuk, an Agrarian faction leader, assured the interviewer that she and her colleagues would be voting for the political reform even if the faction quits the majority. Yet, Ms. Vashchuk was doubtful that it was advisable to put this item on the agenda. “The months that precede the elections are always unsuitable for launching fateful reforms,” she stressed.
The conclusion is that the politicians who are considered champions of the political reform doubt that the latter can be successfully effected on the eve of the elections. What mainly caused this doubt is not only the overall situation in the majority but also the position of Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn. According to parliamentary majority coordinator Stepan Havrysh, the speaker “holds the golden key to carrying out the political reform, but the head of parliament has in fact supported Our Ukraine’s idea not to effect the reform by pushing the Agrarians out of the majority.” L. Kravchuk is taking a similar viewpoint: commenting on the prospects of the political reform, he noted that “the presidium plays on the majority side.” At the same time, Mr. Kravchuk ruled out any possibility of early raising the question of changes in the presidium.
However, the Speaker rejected these accusations, in particular, through the statement of Serhiy Kasianov, a NAPU faction top member, that “Volodymyr Lytvyn often emphasized from the Verkhovna Rada podium that he advocates the political reform and it is Verkhovna Rada that will cash in on being the center of political decision-making.”
The only fervent advocate of constitutional amendments before the presidential elections that The Day’s correspondent managed to find was Viktor Musiyaka, member of the parliament’s constitutional commission and the Center faction. In his view, although the political reform has been put on hold, “there is a shimmer of hope.” He thinks active actions will begin as soon as Draft Law No. 4180 comes to parliament from the Constitutional Court. “There will be renewed attempts to adopt the political reform, and I think it is realistic even before the first round of the elections,” Mr. Musiyaka said. He believes Verkhovna Rada is now more capable of adopting the reform that it was when Bill No. 4180 was being considered in the first reading. “The ongoing presidential campaign is sure to convince the deputies that it is very dangerous to invest the future winner with the powers that the current president enjoys. Should the campaign go on the way it does, many will be forced to vote ‘for’ in spite of dissatisfaction with the draft law’s conceptual provisions. All will depend on how effectively the work will be done just on the eve of the voting,” Mr. Musiyaka says.
Vadym Karasiov, director of the Institute of Global Strategies (IGLS), is of a different viewpoint: the political reform, as described in Bill No. 4180, will not be effected before the presidential elections — in other words, it will never be effected at all. “Most of the political elites are not interested in it, for they suspect, consciously and subconsciously, scheming from a number of pressure centers.” Besides, Mr. Karasiov is sure that each of the presidential race favorites thinks that he will soon assume the powers laid down by the current Constitution and thus has no stimuli to complete the political reform in the No. 4180 version.
Asked why the almost two- year-long tense constitutional process has yielded no results, Mr. Karasiov noted, “The idea of a political reform was considered in the context of the future presidential campaign, not from the angle of improving the administrative structure. Accordingly, election-campaign considerations and some phobias linked with the authors of Bills Nos. 4105 and 4180 were brought into play. Among them was the phobia that the political reform was allegedly prepared for President Kuchma who will use it for trying to serve a third term in office. What also played a great role was the way Our Ukraine handled the hesitating deputies. As a result, the political reform, although urgently needed by the current political elite, came into stiff resistance in connection with the presidential elections.” Commenting on Speaker Lytvyn’s attitude to the reform, the political scientist shared the opinion that the Speaker played against for the following reasons. Firstly, the reform was authored by another center of authority. Secondly, Mr. Lytvyn usually sticks to the formula “old political regime — new political elites.” Thirdly, Mr. Lytvyn is aware “that under a new system, the prime minister, the parliamentary majority and parliamentary parties will come to the fore, thus diminishing the role of the speaker.”
Still, the IGLS is sure that the political reform is not confined to Bill No. 4180 alone. A somewhat different version, which our political system really needs, stands a fair chance of implementation after the presidential elections. “The much- publicized readiness of presidential candidates to effect the political reform after the elections means that this reform is not an accidental theme of the current political game. Even if the winning candidate tries to put the political reform on hold, he will incur the wrath of th political elite. For the latter’s inner structure and overabundance in all kinds of diverse groups creates conditions for a more dispersed and decentralized system of power in this country. So the political reform is to be a strategy of the Ukrainian political elite no matter what positions the new president and his pressure group will take, Mr. Karasiov says.
This expert opinion was in fact supported by People’s Deputy Oleh Zarubinsky who noted that “whoever becomes the new president, he will find it difficult to remain ‘the only helmsman’ in an increasingly pluralized Ukrainian society.” “This means the numerous and ever-strengthening political forces will not allow pulling the plug on this matter,” Mr. Zarubinsky said.
Some additional facts also confirm that nobody will try to alter the Fundamental Law in the nearest one or two months. Firstly, it is Pres. Kuchma’s month-old promise to let the parliament decide on the political reform issue. Secondly, it is the majority coordinator’s initiative that Verkhovna Rada work in an out-of-session mode. Thirdly, it is the frequent reminders of political reform advocates that the promise to effect this reform runs through the campaign speeches of the two key candidates for president. At the same time, the fact that representatives of various political forces are aware (even though in a different way) of the necessity to reform this country’s political system provides ample grounds to forecast that the current debate will continue and will bring, sooner or later, a result in the shape of institutional changes that the state and society need so much.
