A new turn of events marks the parliamentary epopee: crisis in the Counting Commission during the Speaker elections. Another obstacle, as the factions cannot come to terms not only in the hall but even when counting the votes.
President Kuchma is not likely to have expected such lasting legislative paralysis; this would have seemed far too complicated a strategy for the Administration. He must be credited, however, with turning the situation to best advantage. First, he tells everyone who cares to listen that he could order Parliament disbanded but so far refrains from doing so. Now one can count on a certain growth in the President's popularity and the working masses' complete disappointment with the Verkhovna Rada. There is little doubt that if Mr. Kuchma dissolved Parliament, most Ukrainians would heartily approve. The President will not do it, no so much because the Constitution forbids it, as because in the absence of Parliament he will have no one to accuse of throwing a monkey wrench into his reform works.
Secondly, Mr. Kuchma used this crisis to indulge in lawmaking, aimed, among other things, at getting IMF loans. The history of Ukrainian-IMF relations shows that the Fund's recommendations are invariably distorted, with only several measures being picked from each package and "implemented," yielding lamentable results. Now, too, it is quite evident that the Cabinet, by force of habit, is doing what can be best described as putting one foot on the gas and the other on the brake at the same time. Thus, official registration procedures for new enterprises are simplified on the one hand, and on the other tax authorities are given the right to poke around in every businessman's pocket. Needless to say, the bureaucrats will be eager to carry out "bad" edicts and will find adequate pretexts to bypass the "good" ones. And the Ukrainian market is as enigmatic as a woman. In other words, the best to be hoped for is that things stay the same.
Take for example, how voices were heard late last week that the Ukrainian collective farms lacked fuel to bring in their harvests, and the campaign could stop any moment now. Personally, I am used to hearing this every year, and every time I am surprised to learn that the harvest continues nevertheless. So, where do they get the fuel? A mystery. But the reasons are common knowledge: gasoline is sold by commercial structures which are only too well aware of the kolkhozes' insolvency. They use barter deals, particularly demanding meat in return. But there is no meat; because of soaring meat costs all the cattle is slaughtered by the summer. Here's an encounter of old and new for you, and a nonstandard response to the stimuli. Every textbook reads that by increasing prices the producer is prompted to expand output. Not in Ukraine. Here they first slaughter their cattle and the complain to the state that they are flat broke. Mind you: this has been going on for eight years running.






