• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Viktor MUSIYAKA: "Society now expects moral gestures from politicians"

15 December, 1998 - 00:00

Viktor Musiyaka, Vice Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of the last convocation;
worked as the Presidential Representative to Parliament; was most directly
involved in the enactment of the new Constitution and a number of most
important bills.

Currently, he is Chief Consultant with the parliamentary secretariat's
Expert Research Department; considers himself a pragmatic; does not rule
out the possibility of political compromise, but recognizes no moral ones;
is a devout chess player which, as he puts it, allows one to calculate
the political situation several moves ahead.

Q: Are there any general trends that made themselves felt during
the last parliamentary elections? How do you feel about being left without
Member of Parliament status?

A: I am no longer a People's Deputy, but I can live without it.
Of course, in politics it is very important to have the right levers to
pull, but there are legitimate ways to stay active even without a seat
in Parliament.

As for current trends, those in power used a very cunning technique
to neutralize their opponents, I mean candidates they did not like. Of
course, I was in that number along with many others who stood their ground
and acted contrary to the official scenario.

Q: Didn't they mean to get even with you for quitting the Presidential
Representative's post in the last Parliament?

A: The President has since treated me with respect, but there
is a nuance. You know, whenever they are up to something in the Presidential
Administration they think that no one is noticing anything, especially
the one they are scheming against. Now there are decent people everywhere.
From what I know, the verdict was, "The man is acting wrong." In fact,
I know a lot of things, what happened before and during the elections.
My resignation as presidential representative was a token of protest against
lobbying getting the upper hand in the President's backyard which also
substantially lowered his role in adopting the Constitution.

It is true that the election campaign's association, "Forward, Ukraine",
excited the executive's ire a great deal. I was offered to go with the
NDP roster. I said no and the NDP people put most of the obstacles in my
way during the campaign. However, the National Democrats, being "in power,"
are now in a very difficult position, and they will find it hard even to
show the same results during the next elections.

Q: How would you explain such frequent changes in the Presidential
Administration's leadership?

A: It is not the problem who heads the Administration. The problem
is that there is still no law regulating its activities. Hence the temptation
to get at the head and use practically unlimited powers - I mean except
by being in the President's good or bad books.

Take Dmytro Tabachnyk. I think that he is an extremely talented man,
if only his talent were put to the good use. After he headed the Presidential
Administration he had unlimited opportunities.

Q: The President blames the current Parliament for not being structured
and having no majority. Actually, he told the previous Parliament the same,
and the one before when Mr. Kuchma was Prime Minister. Suppose a new President
is elected in 1999, what do you think his attitude to Parliament will be?

A: We have a limited number of presidential candidates, and much
will depend on the new Chief Executive's moral qualities. If he lives up
to the moral standard, any Parliament, structured or not, with or without
a majority, will think twice before resisting him should he come up with
a clearly formulated program of social development and proceeds to carry
it out consistently. The public will never understand Parliament resisting
such a President.

Yet the Constitution must be observed. There is no other way. It can
be amended and there is every indication that it will be, soon enough.
Perhaps certain functions will be reallocated. Both the President and Parliament
are likely to propose such changes. But this requires great caution, because
when making changes in the Constitution it is very difficult to know just
where and when such changes start changing the constitutional order. Still,
it is highly likely that certain changes will be introduced to reassign
parliamentary and presidential functions. For one thing, Parliament may
want to have the right to appoint the five coercive ministers, thus being
able to share the responsibility for the Cabinet's performance. Most importantly,
I consider that the President must be at the head of the state and the
executive branch. As it is, we actually have two executive centers: the
Administration and Cabinet.

Q: Talking about a limited number of presidential candidates, who
do you think stands the biggest chance?

A: It's too early to make any forecasts, but I must say that
those underestimating Oleksandr Tkachenko may be making a very bad mistake.

Q: What about the opposition?

A: In Ukraine whoever shouts about being in opposition is actually
in the same political range with those in power. How can one seriously
consider Hromada in opposition? Despite all their big talk, these people
use precisely the vehicles operated by the current government.

Q: Are there any real prospects for the Right opposition?

A: You mean the Right one as opposed to the "Left center"? Reforms
and Order could form an effective Right opposition force, capable for forcing
a breaking point in the situation.

Q: We all know that politicians with clean hands who hold to their
own moral stands are considered by those in power as political romantics
or politicians "acting wrong." Those "acting right" keep their noses to
the wind, so they are given important posts and sneak their way into various
"holding companies." Any comment?

A: Our society does not need instructions from upstairs about
what people should do and what lifestyle to adopt. People want to see in
their politicians decent people with a keen sense of honor, dignity, conscience,
and everything good. They do not want to see all that venality, cynicism,
and cunning which we have today. There is no use talking about prospects
until this society matures enough to demand, rather than expect morality
in politics. Our current politicians know this, and it frightens them.
Why do you think they enter every campaign wearing morality masks and shed
them as soon as they take office?

 

Rubric: