What points of the political reform could become the basis for a compromise between the different political forces?
Anatoly TOLSTOUKHOV,
NDP fraction:
“What can help the various political forces find a common language is the question of the powers of the cabinet and the president of Ukraine not as chief executive but as guarantor of the Constitution, as well as the question of elections on the basis of party lists. This is precisely what must set the political reform in motion.”
Oleksandr ZADOROZHNY,
permanent representative of the president in Verkhovna Rada:
“Almost all the parties have accepted the necessity of the political reform. I wish the discussion of this point were more constructive. But the Ukrainian parliament is peculiar in that we will only say something meaningful after we hurt each other. If we really want to carry out the reform, we must draft a law that can poll three hundred parliamentary votes. If there is the political will, it is quite possible to carry out the reform during the current and the next sessions. If there is no political will, nothing can be done — even the Tax Code or the pension reform law will not be passed without political will.”
Viktor YUSHCHENKO,
Our Ukraine fraction:
“I am pleased that the different forces are more and more clearly manifesting the desire to discuss those aspects of the political reform it is possible to unite on. Certainly, neither the president nor the other sides have offered an ideal version of the reform. The political reform’s structure calls for three consecutive steps. First, doing our best to boost the democratic level of society and government under the current Constitution. Secondly, if we find understanding in parliament, we will be able, even under the current Constitution, to pass 15-20 political laws aimed at democratizing the current political system. And, thirdly, a point I hold sacred. I would not like to see anybody’s hands itching to change the current Constitution. We must thoroughly analyze every proposal that relates to the very basis of the Constitution. The supreme law of the land can be altered only by three hundred votes. This cannot be achieved by administrative pressure or intimidation. By going through a series of democratic debates and dialogs, we must develop a clear vision of the system Ukraine needs. When we get this vision, we can then begin to form a political coalition that would secure 300 votes and support such changes to the current Constitution as laws on the opposition, on the majority, on the formation of the cabinet by parliament, and on the joint political responsibility of the cabinet and parliament.”
Leonid KRAVCHUK,
SDPU(O) fraction
“A compromise is possible, above all, about the formation of a parliamentary majority, its cabinet-forming functions, and the very procedure of cabinet formation. It will be very difficult, if not utterly impossible, to come to terms on a bicameral parliament. I already see and hear this. The same applies to the formation of local bodies of authority. The presidential proposals say that governors should be appointed, while a parliamentary state envisions the election of and subsequent control over the chiefs of local government.”
Petro SYMONENKO,
KPU fraction:
“To find a common language on the political reform, the differing political forces must first become aware of the need to defend the interests of the toiling people.”
