Is democracy threatened?

Ukrainians experience high levels of corruption, but are fairly confident about the situation of democratic values. These results can be found in the recently published year-long program of sociological studies “Ukraine’s Self-Portrait – 2010,” conducted by specialists of the Horshenin Kyiv Institute of Management Problems.

As it turned out, almost half of Ukrainians believe that the level of corruption in governmental bodies increased over the past year – the same number as those who stated that the level hadn’t change. There are only 2.9 percent of optimists in Ukraine who noted a decrease in the corruption levels in governmental bodies.

At the same time our compatriots didn’t doubt the government’s democratic credentials. Over 60 percent of Ukrainians believe that precisely this kind of government is necessary for our country, at the current stage of development. Less than 15 percent supported the idea of a “clearly authoritarian” government in Ukraine.

The opposition claims that Ukrainian democracy is at risk. The party that lost the 2010 elections speaks about the monopolization of the government in the hands of one political force, whose candidate won the presidential competition. They say that the executive, legislative and judicial powers are subordinated to the Party of Regions. Moreover, Mykola Tomenko spoke for the opposition when stating that signs of infringing upon freedom of speech and the revival of censorship had appeared. “The government decided that it has an exclusive right to informational presence in television broadcasts. The main test for the new government is a test for democracy. So far it fails this test,” emphasized the vice-speaker.

Are there real reasons to speak about the possible monopolization of governmental power and threats to democracy? How can one prevent anti-democratic transformations? The Day looks at how experts answered these questions.

Kost BONDARENKO, director, Horshenin Kyiv Institute of Management Problems:

“First of all, it should be pointed out that there are a number of stereotypes in society. One of them is that if one political force shapes vertical power structures according to its interests, this automatically implies a threat to democracy. Obviously, the point is in another issue. In Ukraine democracy didn’t became an internal need of citizens. Democracy can exist only when the population will accept democracy as a necessary tool to reach their political (and not only) goals. The middle class can ensure this approach. In Ukraine the middle class constitutes about nine percent of the population.

“Today Ukrainian democracy is a kind of tribute to the West, something like “you wanted it – here it is.” And one more issue: democracy in Ukraine is ensured by competition between two political forces which are far from being democratic. Thus, surprisingly, it is precisely the competition between the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko and the Party of Regions that ensure democracy in Ukraine. But all this is simply an external image.

“The opposition can counterbalance the government only if it is as strong as the government. Only when there is a strong government and a strong opposition, can one really speak about balance. A strong government and a weak opposition? In such cases  you can speak about authoritarian tendencies. A strong opposition and a weak government is a direct way to chaos.”

Volodymyr FESENKO, head of board, Penta Center for Political Analysis:

“I suppose saying that power is concentrated by one political force is an evident exaggeration. Instead, we are dealing with the process of concentration of power in the hands of one person, President Yanukovych. I believe this is a more correct conclusion. By the way, a judicial reform was announced precisely to concentrate power in the hands of president and ensure his determinant influence over the judiciary. He doesn’t have this influence yet. However, observing the logic of the courts’ activities, we’ll see that most courts, including courts of higher instances, demonstrate their loyalty to the government. Yet the Supreme Court is headed by Onopenko, who is close to Yulia Tymoshenko. At the same time, I don’t exclude that the party headed by his son-in-law (ex-deputy minister of justice Yevhen Korniichuk – Author) will change its political orientation. However, the President and the Party of Regions don’t have the possibility to monopolize power, including that of the judiciary.

“I wouldn’t say that the Party of Regions controls the parliament and the parliamentary majority. We repeatedly witnessed spontaneous manifestations of some recalcitrance on the part of the Communist Party. This is evidence that there is no strong control over the coalition on the part of the Party of Regions. Moreover, until the Party of Regions “captures” a few dozens of individual members of the coalition, who will neutralize the influence of the Communists and Lytvyn’s party, there will be no full control over the coalition.

“Regarding the threats to democracy. Indeed, potentially these threats exist. The concentration of power in the same hands can lead to the state of the so-called directed democracy. Where is the limit of overstepping this model? There are a few indicators. Political repressions against the opposition or representatives of big business which is outside the government’s reach or connected to the opposition. This is one sign of passing from competitive democracy to directed democracy. One more sign is a controlled election process. So far there are no direct indicators of non-democratic transformations. What are the preventive measures to these transformations? First and foremost there must be a strong opposition. Second – maintaining pluralism in the informational sphere. Not the freedom of speech per se, since it’s a very abstract notion, but precisely informational pluralism. So far it is preserved, though there are risks.”

Kostiantyn MATVIIENKO, expert, Hardaryka Corporation of Strategic Consulting:

“Democracy in Ukraine demonstrated its lack of self-defense and self-reproduction skills. Those who are supposed to play the role of the opposition merely imitate their period in power. The opposition didn’t suggest any systemic and strategic vision of the country’s development. This is an indication of the weakness of a democracy. In other words, we have an intellectually weak democracy, an intellectually weak opposition and, correspondingly, an intellectually weak government.

“Today the government, actually, is concentrated in the hands of one political force (perhaps even one person). Thus, one can’t say that Ukraine remains a democratic country. This is proven by the cancellation of local elections. The voter, in fact, was deprived of his main civil right – the right to choose government. The recent decision of the Constitutional Court also shows that the supremacy of the Constitution as Fundamental Law, to say the least of it, is doubtful.

“In a sense its paradoxical. The Party of Regions is actually creating an efficient reform mechanism. When they concentrate legislative, executive and judicial power in the same hands, they actually create an efficient mechanism for realization of all the necessary complex reforms – administrative, territorial, judicial, fiscal, etc. And if there were an intellectual constituent in the activity of the Party of Regions, creating an efficient mechanism of reforms could only be welcome. But currently the situation is different. Yes, we have a hammer, but what will the hammer hit? This is a big question. We didn’t hear any ideas on how to modernize our country. The absence of the state budget proves that the level of professionalism of those who created such efficient tools for reforms, to put it mildly, leaves much to be desired.” 

Yurii YAKYMENKO, director of political programs, Razumkov Ukrainian Center for Economic and Political Studies:

“The current situation allows to legally change norms and procedures in order to weaken the constraints of democracy and introduce non-democratic laws. If this tendency continues, then amendments narrowing democracy, in a democratic way, will perhaps be introduced to the Constitution. This is the major threat of power concentration in the hands of one political force.

“The personnel policy of ignoring the public opinion gives reasons to speak about it as well. Moreover, the judiciary remains under considerable influence, and obviously this influence will only grow.

“What are the counterbalances? The opposition can act as a counterbalance to the government, as the opposition has a substantial representation in parliament, considerable public support, and access to mass media. However, the state of the current opposition is a problem. First of all, because different constituents of the opposition compete with their partners. If the situation doesn’t change, the government will benefit from it.”

Volodymyr LUPATSII, executive director, Center of sociological studies “Sofia”:

“I believe it would be a simplification to consider recent trends and the change of political balance in Ukraine through the prism of a transition from a democratic model to an antidemocratic one. Ukraine has little experience with developed forms of democracy. In Ukraine the majority of democratic institutions were nominally created but the political regime actually worked on the basis of political conjuncture.

“Current Ukraine’s model is inherited from the post-Soviet period. During the period of independent Ukraine no really new political institutions were created. The separation of power into legislative, executive and judicial was not completed. This is a challenge for any governmental party. That’s the first point. Second, we don’t have a full-scale model of political democracy. Instead, we have an electoral model with voters being addressed only in the moment of elections. Parliament actually didn’t fulfill the representative function. Thus, today the majority of broad social layers (representatives of local self-government, small and middle business, trade unions, institutions of civil society), don’t have an adequate representation in the Verkhovna Rada. This means that the party model can’t work either, for parties, in their present state, don’t ensure retransmission of interests and representation.

“Dualism in the structure of executive government on the legislative level is not yet solved. It is solved only on the level of political consensus. We have an institutionally programmed dualism in the structure of executive government. Refusal to implement full-fledged, systemic political reforms will reduce both the country’s and the government’s stability.

“However, despite a certain concentration of power, a sufficient number of checks on authoritarian trends exist. I can name three key factors.

“First. Ukraine depends very much on ‘geo-economic’ partners – Russia, the European Union, and international financial structures. Thus, executive power in Ukraine, in one or another way, is limited by requirements and corridors determined by those players.

“Second. While there continues to be a parliamentary opposition in Ukraine, at the same time, there is also an institutional opposition. I’d include structures of local self-government in the latter, since it’s a legitimate, publicly elected government which is responsible for ensuring vital services to considerable masses of people. And if the current political team turns out to be unable to solve the issues of power distribution between the central and local government bodies, we’ll have an opposition outside parliament. 

“Finally, for the new political team to preserve power, they need to realize their declarations about carrying out reforms. This is an objective requirement of time.”