Ukrainian lawmakers have two weeks to come to terms

January 15, Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn made good his promise to close the fourth Verkhovna Rada session. All his attempts to call the meeting to order after the morning round of talks by the leaders of factions and groups were drowned in the ruckus raised by the opposition. Our Ukraine people had besieged the rostrum, as usual, so Volodymyr Lytvyn announced the session closed and walked out of the audience.

Thus the session is ingloriously over, having succeeded only in timely passing the 2004 budget (although even this leaves a number of questions unanswered) and the constitutional amendments bills (pushed through by the majority’s 276 ayes and supported by the Communists) in the first reading. The Speaker, however, does not consider the fourth session a total fiasco. At a news conference summing up its results, he reminded the media people that 102 bills had been passed, and that “all events inside and Ukraine and out have been adequately responded to.” As for preventive measures, Mr. Lytvyn believes that the next, fifth, legislative session (scheduled to begin February 3) will have bailiffs present who will “escort overexcited deputies out of the audience and reason with them.” In addition, misbehaving lawmakers may be temporarily “disqualified” — by temporarily banning their admittance to plenary sittings.

Speaker Lytvyn made it clear that the President of Ukraine should also assume responsibility for stabilizing the situation in the parliament and for the outcome of the political reform: “If the president calls for reaching a compromise and understanding, it would be good,” he said, adding that the lawmakers would, of course, have to learn to solve their problems relying on their own resources.

The Day asked Majority Coordinator Stepan HAVRYSH and Verkhovna Rada Legal Policy Committee Chairman Viktor MUSIYAKA to comment on the results of the session and prospects of the political reform and presidential elections. Viktor MUSIYAKA: Bringing the matter to PACE: another political stunt

Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn described what happened in Verkhovna Rada as a parliamentary crisis. What signs of crisis are apparent now?

Musiyaka: I would approach the current situation on a much larger scope, as a political crisis. It has a constitutional aspect, since the fundamental law requires changes. Yet the process of amending the Constitution has come to a standstill, although some believe this is normal. On the other hand, we have a parliamentary crisis. The parliament must have an atmosphere encouraging rather than disorganizing normal lawmaking work. In this sense we have a crisis on our hands, of course. Some in the lobby agree on something, and then we learn it from the media... We have a crisis in Verkhovna Rada, but it may well reach beyond its walls and become a social disaster. In the end a message could be addressed to the nation, or worse still, early parliamentary elections might be appointed.

Do you think our parliament could be dissolved?

Musiyaka: I do not rule out the possibility. One must bear this option in mind and every effort must be made to prevent this. A way out must be found. After all, a week of plenary sittings passed without a single sitting being opened. What is this? Is it normal?

Do you agree with those saying this crisis was planned?

Musiyaka: Absolutely. There are many factors involved, including the majority’s overstated straightforward approach and the opposition’s hysterical aggressiveness; also, the absence of initiative in seeking solutions to the problem. Worst of all, in this deadlocked situation everyone is trying to gain something for himself. Why not consider the objective factors? For example, this session could be extended for another week so they would try to steer a middle course and somehow come to terms. Yet no one even proposed it.

How do you think they could steer a middle course?

Musiyaka: They could if they decided to start from scratch, weighing the arguments on both sides, trying to figure out what could be made mutually acceptable, and so on. But this implies being prepared to make reciprocal concessions, something we don’t see these days. The conflict flared up when it came to voting on that bill — by the way, its illegitimacy remains to be proven... Some had the turnout up their sleeve and others wanted that turnout revised, so they would have different results. It all depends on whether the next session makes a final decision on that bill in keeping with the rules.

How do you feel about the constitutional crisis being considered by PACE? Is this approach correct?

Musiyaka: The Constitution of Ukraine is effective and there is no doubt that it is one of the best in Europe. Yet there is nothing wrong about the desire to make amendments, so as to balance the political system. But bringing the matter to PACE! I see this as another political stunt helping someone in producing a definite situation. That’s a totally absurd stand. And an absolutely unacceptable one. We must not incite unhealthy moods in our public, even less so in the international community. We must conduct a healthy dialogue with our opponents.

Are there any prospects of reaching understanding between the majority and opposition forces?

Havrysh: The opposition appears almost prepared to agree to Bill No. 4105 previously adopted by the parliamentary majority, but they insist on changing the presidential election method, demanding nationwide elections. In fact, this issue could be further discussed.

How do you feel about holding a referendum to elect the head of state?

Havrysh: The majority will not support any kind of referendum. This is our principled stand at the moment. Several days ago we were prepared to agree to precisely this formula, but then it became clear that we were being led into a political game, so we had to discard the idea.

What do you think will happen to the political reform?

Havrysh: The opposition needs time to realize that this reform is inevitable. After Our Ukraine, the Tymoshenko Bloc, and Socialists finally accept the fact that the majority and the Communists have 300 votes (meaning that they can adopt changes to the Constitution), they will have no alternative but sit down at the negotiating table. Otherwise they will get lost in the political process.

What do you think could be described as accomplishments of the fourth session?

Havrysh: The main attainment is political delimitation. We have parted ways, hopefully, to get together again, assuming responsibility for the future of Ukraine. Another accomplishment, I believe, is the strengthening of coalition relationships between the government and the parliamentary majority, as well as transition to a parliament-cabinet coalition as a new institutional kind of political power. Among other things, this made possible the timely passage of the budget bill. Verkhovna Rada quickly responded to domestic and foreign challenges, and made strategic decisions relating to the food and oil crises. And, of course, the vote on the constitutional amendments bill that took place under rather complicated circumstances, in a state of political confrontation.

Do you think President Kuchma will exercise his right to run for a third term?

Havrysh: Given the current conflicting political environment, his candidacy appears the most predictable and mutually acceptable one. Unless we succeed in coming to terms among ourselves, this candidacy may well be the most desirable one for the economic and political elite of Ukraine in the transition period to 2006. This is not only my personal assumption. This is an expert inference which is close to if not on the surface, and experts studying the process are aware of it.

Do you know how the president feels about it?

Havrysh: We have discussed it on more than one occasion and he said he wouldn’t run for a third term. The Constitutional Court’s findings make it possible to describe this term not as his third but as the second. I can’t say at the moment how the president will respond.

Suppose the current head of state runs for presidency again and wins. How would the West react?

Havrysh: Elections in Ukraine are a Ukrainian domestic matter. I don’t think that we should allow anyone abroad to tell us what to do, be it in Europe or on a different continent. Ukrainians must themselves determine what they will do tomorrow and who they will be with [as president]. If it’s Leonid Kuchma, it will be an expression of Ukrainians’ will and desire.

What do you think about the proposal to have the president elected in 2004 retain his office for five years?

Havrysh: We voted for the president to be elected in 2004 for a transition period, and that in 2006, after proportional representation elections, he will be five years in office. The question is whether he will be elected by the parliament, as we propose in the constitutional amendments passed by parliament, or by the entire nation, as insisted by the opposition. Why do they want it that way? Because a president elected by the people comes with his program and team, and he can once again change the Constitution, introducing new, even broader presidential powers. We now have a liberal-minded president, but we could have a real Ukrainian monarch tomorrow, and no one knows what the outcome will be like. We in the majority are well aware of the opposition’s reasoning, but we believe that it is possible to adopt a stand that will best secure democratic progress in Ukraine. I am personally not overenthused by the president being elected by the parliament, especially if the [next] Verkhovna Rada is elected using closed rosters and binding mandates. The party leaders would then surely have great influence. Nationwide presidential elections are also the balance of a system in which power can be usurped by a single party.

Is it possible to say that the issue of presidential elections in the parliament in 2004 has been removed from the agenda?

Havrysh: Presidential elections must be held on a nationwide basis in 2004, such is the stand of the parliamentary majority and the Communist faction.