The people is not a political scientist

No popular consensus on the political reform has taken shape as yet. The people is inspired neither by reducing the president’s powers nor changing the parliamentary elections system to proportional representation. This conclusion was announced by sociologists at the Ukrainian Institute for Social Research and Social Monitoring Center, analyzing the data from their February poll (of 2009 persons aged 18 and over). In the language of statistics, the picture looks like this: only 18% of those surveyed support broadening Verkhovna Rada powers at the expense of curtailing the president’s, with 45% against and 37% hesitating or failing to answer. Expanding the parliament’s power such that the Cabinet of Ministers would be appointed by and accountable to Verkhovna Rada only is also disapproved by a plurality of Ukraine’s population (39% against and 20% for such changes in the political system with 41% still undecided). Only 17% of Ukrainians believe it necessary to reform the electoral system by switching to electing people’s deputies by party lists only, with 35% not supporting this idea and 48% failing to give an answer. However, the opposite solution, the majority system, was more congenial to Ukrainians: 29% for, 26% against, and 45% unable to answer. Less support was garnered by the transition to a parliamentary-presidential republic: 16% for, 39% against, and 45% failing to answer.

The Social Monitoring Center director believes that, since the most of the president’s initiatives mentioned above are aimed primarily on increasing the influence of political parties, such a range of opinions could be explained by the low level of people’s trust in the parliament and political parties. The latter as a social institution in the regular monitoring surveys by leading polling firms permanently occupy last place in trust ratings. According to the data of the poll in question, 18% of the country’s population “completely trust or trust more than distrust” them. Compare this same index for youth public organizations (29%), Verkhovna Rada (21%), the government (23%), law enforcement bodies (40%), and the Armed Forces (60%). In turn, the reasons for the low level of trust in the parties are the party deputies’ alienation from what the voters need (the latter, as a rule, turn with their questions and problems to majority district deputies) and small scale of most of the existing party structures, believes Olha Balakireva.

However, there is one more, probably most important, factor. What arrests one’s attention first in these figures is not the balance between positive and negative answers but the number of people who could or would not answer. Thus, it would be more relevant to speak not about support or lack of support for political reform but about public opinion not being formed on virtually all possible options of changing the Constitution and Ukrainian legislation. In other words, those polled simply didn’t understand the essence of the proposed changes or, as Ms. Balakireva put it, “the question proved to be beyond society’s competence.” In practice, this means that it makes no sense to speak about Ukrainians’ real preferences at least until the number of those who have not defined their position yet decreases to 10-12%. Sociologists claim that the shares of supporters and opponents of one project or another can change radically if the problem becomes more urgent in the public mind after the people is informed about the essence and consequences of the political reform.

Of course, elevating the people’s political culture is an important and necessary thing (incidentally, The Day does a great deal here, constantly turning for comment to leading political scientists, sociologists, political professionals, etc). Still, a campaign against political illiteracy is an issue of not one day or even one month, while the process of reform, in the opinion of most experts and representatives of the political elite, should have started long ago and be partially completed even before the presidential elections of 2004. The question arises of what to do with the vox populi. Is the elite to listen to it when choosing the the country’s path of development?

The Day asked this of Director of the Penta Center for Applied Political Research Volodymyr FESENKO:

“Most ordinary people can’t understand the complicated issues connected with changing the structure of the country’s political system, at least for now. Only experts and representatives of the political elite is able to discuss these questions. Therefore, public opinion represents various viewpoints on the political reform, while most Ukrainians don’t have any opinion on this subject. Coming from this, the elite has to choose for itself after considering all pros and cons, since the people have granted it the authority to take such decisions. This is the essence of the representative model of government democracy is based upon.

“Another question is whether it is possible to raise for public discussion issues that the public isn’t prepared to discuss. For instance, the Constitution forbids putting the budget issue to a referendum, since it requires competence. With the political reform the situation is roughly the same. The issue concerns a complicated balance of powers, not simply changing the name from presidential-parliamentary to parliamentary-presidential [republic]. There are many important details an ordinary citizen can’t evaluate since he or she has never dealt with them. Thus it would be more logical if the question of changing the system of governance was solved by those whom the people have entrusted to make such decisions. To sum it all up, the main thing here is consensus. In other words, the Constitution should be adopted on the basis of a compromise decision made by the majority of this country’s political elite. It shouldn’t become a weapon of political infighting.”