Lytvyn’ s Amendment

OUR POLITICIANS AND PARTY LEADERS STILL THINK PEOPLE LOVE THEM

Mr. Lytvyn, the prediction you gave The Day (that the main objective of these elections – to improve the structure and increase the political responsibility of power – remain unachieved) has come true. How would you assess the structuring of the current parliament, including the split of United Ukraine into several factions? For, earlier the question even was to form a unified party on this bloc’s basis. What really happened?

The idea of forming a unified party on the basis of the For United Ukraine bloc so far remains at the discussion stage, although the required documents have already been drafted. I find it difficult to predict how this process will continue. Our politicians and party leaders are still full of illusions: they still think people love them. This is one of the reasons why political structuring is going slowly.

On the other hand, it was agreed that, after the parliamentary leadership and committees had finally been formed, the united faction would turn into a confederation of groups and factions. Why? Because the main instrument now is the reconciliation council, which deals with coordinating and formulating interests and positions. At the first sessions of the council, the makeup was four plus two: Our Ukraine, the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc, Communists, and Socialists, on the one hand, and United Ukraine and SDPU(O) on the other. In other words, one person could speak on behalf of either 20 or 180 deputies. Meanwhile, legislative work requires a more broadly based discussion, expression of a wider range of views, and comparison of different positions. This is why such a step had to be taken. Frankly, it is extremely difficult to manage such a large faction. You may have noticed that the United Ukraine faction at first learned only one rule, when not to vote. Whenever necessary, it fell short 30 to 40 votes: one misheard, another misunderstood something, and a third pushed the wrong button...

In other words, United Ukraine turned into a confederation out of purely pragmatic considerations. The corresponding signatures exist that confirm the existence of such a structure. Later, some groups could become stronger. In my opinion, a group of not more than thirty members is the most capable, mobile, and at the same time influential formation. If there are over forty members in a group, it becomes hard to manage.

I am more than convinced that the same development is also in store for Our Ukraine. This has already happened de facto . In my opinion, the request to furnish separate premises to Our Ukraine subgroups only confirms this. This means they will also sooner or later break up while still coordinating their activities.

TRADITIONAL CONTENDERS MIGHT NOT BE ABLE MAKE IT TO THE FINISH

Our Ukraine members assert that they will never break up, for they have a common strategic goal, a candidate for president in 2004. They apparently hope to gain all benefits at once in this package. United Ukraine does not have a common candidate, so it is much better to gain piecemeal benefits than to wait for something leading no one knows where. These considerations are not advertised, but they still exist, don’t they?

They exist. When an individual is in a state of permanent struggle, he eventually gets used to it. This becomes the norm of his existence, and it is extremely difficult to switch to doing something else. The deputies also find it psychologically very difficult to reorient themselves to practical work after public clashes and rallies. This has crystallized some “eternal revolutionaries,” who have already begun to get on one’s nerves. The presidential campaign has already started virtually without a pause. Some have even begun to expect an early election, but this won’t happen. I’ll put my money on it. The campaign staffs have not been disbanded but mobilized. Businesses in search of the guarantees of existence are also being pulled into this. Some representatives of this group have already made their choice, that is, they have already made what they think is a good investment. Others are secretly putting their eggs in all the baskets. Today this is to some extent a constraint on Our Ukraine. They seem to be thinking basically like this: we’ll still bide our time, but everyone must be in place for 2004. It’s no secret that some are nostalgically yearning for a certain office and will work fruitfully for this. It seems to me that they are already imagining what decisions they will be making once in that office and who they will place in certain posts.

If you take the factions of Tymoshenko (BYuT) and Moroz, the role of a leader seems to fit Yuliya Tymoshenko more. Quite obviously, she will contest the elections on behalf of precisely this group of political forces. Our Ukraine and these two forces are in the same electoral field. They can predict them coming into conflict to remove a certain rival from the political arena by, say, recommending that individual to the executive branch and such. Our Ukraine has a broader electorate than BYuT has, for its electoral field overlaps that of the Communists. As to the forces formed on the basis of United Ukraine and the United Social Democrats, they have not yet fully crystallized and are now pondering who to bet on.

Yet, the traditional contenders, upon whom, so to speak, the bets have already been made, might not be able make it to the finish. Incidentally, the parliamentary elections showed this. First we seek a messiah, then extol him, and then don’t know how to get rid of him. Once we’ve got rid of him, we begin to look for a new one. This is the Ukrainian psychological genotype.

Regional elites will also have their say in the future presidential elections: the process of regionalization in Ukraine is progressing rapidly. The regional elites are rising fast and demanding they be reckoned with: they will either offer their support or contest the key offices themselves. I think we can expect to see an interesting political process unfold.

You once said that Viktor Yushchenko lacks the administrative resource and in general it was necessary to help him. Many came to the conclusion that you did help him a little. Today, some media allege that the Our Ukraine leader and the president have been discussing the topic of Yushchenko as vice president. But we strongly doubt that our legislation provides for this kind of office... Did you have a hand in this?”

No. In general, I never have a finger in such culinary creations. I don’t want to; it’s uninteresting. As to Yushchenko, he still has charisma, to judge by the polling results. He has the gained the political experience he lacked and has people who can solve his organizational problems. It seems to me he is torn by ambivalence: he wants to be in politics and simultaneously doesn’t want to.

Incidentally, this is your common feature: you also say you seek for no office, but the facts speak differently.

Political scientists confirm that the people must be attracted to politics did not want to be in politics and feel politics are a burden. If one feels like this, he is certain to become a good politician because he will be supported by the principles he has worked out for himself. These moral criteria may not always be consistent with public sentiments, but they will be the pivot on which the individual’s activity turns.

Frankly, the role of vice president in this country is played by the head of the Presidential Administration. We have never said it publicly, but it’s true. Additional confirmation of this is the recent heated discussion that erupted when this office was vacant. The administration head can wield considerable influence if he manages to take advantage of the leverage this office implies. I can tell you this because I have had a taste of work in the parliament and know the functional mechanisms of the government and Presidential Administration.

I do not think Yushchenko would ever accept this proposition, nor would he even be given the chance. It will not be before 2004 that Constitutional amendments go through parliament. Who wants to waste time? And, in general, the level of influence is determined not by the name of the office but by the leverage one can really apply. An individual does not need to hold an office to influence decision-making, especially in cadre matters.

Could you say who is such an informal leader in this country?

Informal leaders have now acquired the status of formal ones, and our policies are becoming more and more transparent and predictable.

OUR ECONOMY STILL WORKS IN THE HANDS-ON MODE. AND MANY SEEM TO LIKE IT

But there is also a nuance: if, God forbid, something happens to the head of state, his duties will be carried out by the premier, not the Administration head under our law.

First, knowing the state of health of the chief executive, I can state that there is no reason why we should worry and no need to appoint an acting president before the elections. This is beyond any doubt. But the office of premier is indeed a good steppingstone for presidential aspirants. In particular, all the economic strings are precisely in the premier’s hands. Let’s be honest: this means huge funds, especially under our conditions. The premier’s office makes it possible to accumulate these things because our economy still works in the hands-on mode. And many seem to like it. Instead of passing system-forming laws, they propose to alter and fix something, to rob somebody of something, so that the economy functions in the same style of hands-on management, where an individual, not a system, does the work. If this individual does not sign a document tomorrow, it just means that nothing will be decided. Then Verkhovna Rada will be accused of doing nothing to improve budget revenues. But the point is that the parliament could not possibly have done anything from the way the question was proposed! People’s deputies must be persuaded that the most effective decision is the one proposed by the government, and there is no other option. Moreover, the parliament is sufficiently competent: every fourth deputy is a lawyer or an economist – this is a basic education for parliamentary work – and very fourth is a candidate or doctor of sciences.

So where is the way out? If no fundamental laws are adopted, particularly the Tax Code, because those able to bypass such laws have long since found their own way without this code, can there be any changes?

You are asking lot of the right questions to which there are no answers. Ideally, the cabinet, the executive branch, is supposed to be the main source of bills. We have now formed a parliamentary task force of about thirty people’s deputies and government officials, which has begun to work on tax legislation. We have agreed that they will work all summer and by fall will have something worked out. The same will have to be done with respect to other problems. The parliament must take the initiative in its own hands. I have signed the appropriate instructions. This task force is co-chaired by Verkhovna Rada First Deputy Speaker Hennady Vasyliev and the prime minister.

But there also are parliamentary lobbyists who in pursuit of their own goals either support or blackmail the government. What is at stake is the office of premier. You yourself said that this is a very good starting point for the presidential campaign. As a result, the government is paralyzed.

We should not try to pass ideal laws intended for decades. Ukraine is a country with a transition economy. Taking into account our society’s situation, political structure, main objectives, and the appearance of an anti- system opposition, we must make decisions that will lead to a consensus in society.

You received, let’s say, a far from simple legacy in the form of the current parliament. From the first to the fourth convocation the reputation of Verkhovna Rada has evolved not for the better: Nardep (P. D.) and Knopkodav (Button Pusher). This newspaper studied the problem recently. How do you explain such a devaluation of the image of those elected by the people?

I am now probably the biggest patriot of our current parliament; there isn’t any other in Ukraine.

Which parliament exactly?

The parliament as a symbol of Ukraine. And this makes it is hard to answer your question. I think if you keep telling someone he is bad he will finally truly become bad. But I proceed from the assumption that the Ukrainian parliament is qualified and able to work. It all depends on argumentation; every decision voted must be well-argumented. Otherwise it will be voted on off the cuff and parliament will be seen as an association of button pushers.

In the previous parliament there was much talk about money circulating in exchange for votes. In any case, the theme of internal parliamentary corruption has in one way or another arisen in society and the mass media. People assume that if politicians want to get into Verkhovna Rada and be re-elected, it means the job pays well. Do you think this has any effect on the parliament’s reputation? What should change in order to give us the civilized parliamentary government we expect and when?

I would be insincere to categorically deny all this. If voices like that are heard it means that something is wrong somewhere, although I have no incriminating facts.

What steps do we need to take toward civilized parliamentary government? First of all, we must complete the elections bill. We must proceed from the assumption that we will have a proportionate or at least mixed electoral system. Under the current system, people actually have no idea who they’re voting for. And the top five on the list drag the rest with them like a locomotive. I know this from my own experience. After the turnout is officially adopted and seats allocated, approaching some of those on the roster becomes a problem. Obviously, the legislation needs to be formulated so the electorate can assess every candidate.

Also, a deputy must work only in the parliament and receive decent remuneration, lest he be tempted to add something on the side.

However, it’s also true that some deputies always want more.

We shouldn’t judge everybody by the same standard. Most of them work normally and are content with what they have. And this is probably bad. Once, in discussing this subject, I said no one could find any faults with me because I owned no factories or other businesses. Now I wish I had some, for then I would feel protected from cynical accusations and attacks. This means there are also problems here.

IT MADE QUITE AN IMPRESSION ON ME TO WATCH THE DEPUTIES GIVE THEIR BALLOTS TO THEIR BRIGADE LEADERS

The Socialists, Tymoshenko Bloc, and some Our Ukrainians say they lost everything they could after the elections – obviously referring to posts. It would be interesting to hear what you have to say about this. Did they really lose strategically and if so, why?

In Verkhovna Rada, as in any other collective, it’s not worthwhile to use words like somebody won or lost even if he really did. The root of the problem is in the mechanism of accommodation. Let’s say the opposition absolutely refused to accept me as a candidate for speaker at first, saying nothing personal, it’s just that he embodies the system that obstructed our way in the elections. In other words, their dissatisfaction with the election turnout was automatically transferred onto me personally and this immediately complicated the negotiating process.

Then, as you know, Our Ukraine proposed a coalition. In principle this was a normal idea, but it was necessary to clearly formulate what we all wanted to accomplish, what decisions we have to make in order to do so, and how all this would alter the life of Ukrainian society. And if something needs to be changed it is above all the implements. One such implement could be a coalition that would take part in forming the cabinet and thus be a tied to it.

Our talks went like this: we would embrace one another, kiss, seem to agree on something, then part company, and the next morning we would face new demands. Each side negotiated thinking only of how to get the better of the other side.

For example, the leaders of six fractions agreed on voting on the presidium using cards and by name. The next morning the Four submitted a draft resolution saying the vote had to be by casting ballots, otherwise, they claimed, deputies would be pressured the authorities. Well, we all know the outcome of voting by ballots. It made quite an impression on me personally to watch the deputies give their ballots to their brigade leaders and be graded by them. And even before the results were announced everybody knew them, because they knew precisely how many ballots they had. In other words, the ballots were a means of pressuring their opponent. It was a game of nerves: who would fold first, even though the problem could have been solved quicker and more effectively. I think that Our Ukraine, being numerically the strongest faction, did have a right to put forth their own candidate, although, honestly, I proposed more of a compromise.

How would you describe the characteristics of that, if not systematic, then let’s say quasi-opposition during the campaign?

I am hard put to define in general what we are calling the opposition. What we have isn’t opposition but simple dissatisfaction with the election results and their place in political life. What kind of opposition can Our Ukraine offer, considering that some of them helped staged the so-called velvet revolution (when the Left was ousted from the leadership of the previous parliament —Ed .)? Besides, they are actively oriented toward the market and European integration, which tallies with the presidential message to the parliament. In other word, this faction’s approach corresponds to what the president declared. This means that the issue can be only one of opposition to a certain individual.

The same is true of the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc. What’s the difference? I don’t see any. This is not an opposition to the system but to the head of state. The Communists could be called an opposition because they refuse to accept the existing political order. But the point is that we don’t have a definition of opposition. If we had an opposition formed in accordance with the election outcome and if it were responsible for the formation of the cabinet, the forces behind it could criticize the its actions and call themselves the opposition.

By the way, what do you think will happen to the cabinet this fall?

Everything depends on the cabinet itself. If it merely calls for cooperation, without actually doing anything to achieve it, there will be very sharp discussions concerning its fate. On the other hand, the government should not respond so sharply to criticism in the parliament. Rather than take offense, we should come to certain conclusions and act accordingly. And we need come to terms on the level of bills.

What did you have in mind when you mentioned at the press conference summing up the first session a broad coalition, stressing that such a coalition should unite rather than divide the parliament and form a coalition government? Afterward everybody said that the entire parliament should be a majority. What is this? How would you define majority and what kind of powers should it have?

I categorically oppose rash statements concerning the majority, because then the majority is then regarded as an alliance against somebody. This approach is not productive. I think that we need a majority for something. In other words, a majority or coalition should be formed not for the sake of majority as such, for it would be a purely floating one, but to cooperate closely with the cabinet. The cabinet is the only thing that can unite the parliament. Only then would we have no problems with the relations between the branches of government, and the president will have more levers of influence, like the right to dismiss the parliament.

As the greatest patriot of the parliament, how do you feel about the chances of implementing the decisions of the all-Ukrainian referendum?

It’s simply unrealistic. It’s not the time to implement it and raising the matter would simply irritate lawmakers. It wouldn’t add responsibility or any constructive attitude toward the parliament’s work.

The impression is that the deputies took the responsibility thesis literally when electing the prosecutor general.

This was such a case when I was 100% sure that they would make a positive decision. There were 347 ayes and six stated their buttons didn’t work. And 353 deputies make a majority, also considering the political objectives and affiliation of most people’s deputies. In view of all this, I do believe that the whole parliament can be a majority. We just have to learn how to work. We live according to the principle of looking for enemies, and we don’t know how to set a middle course. We haven’t learned how to respect each other’s opinion. We constantly generate some kind of confrontation and thus don’t see the golden mean. Personally, I believe that a middle course is most correct.

Granted, but where were those same 350 deputies with their common views when Verkhovna Rada struggled to adopt its session agenda?

You see, there was a certain stereotype. They thought something like we’ll have to work anyway, so we could do without this formality. Take, say, the last vote to place on the agenda the procedure for impeachment of the president, the supporters of which were considerably fewer than at the beginning. Although I must say quite frankly that, in particular, the legal policy committee is turning into a political implement rather than an essentially legal structure that should serve as an example of a responsible approach to the constitution. To initiate the impeachment procedure, we need 226 votes, yet every meeting of the conciliation council shows that the initiators lack the required number of votes, and the same is true of those opposing it. If so, why break lances at all, I told the council members. Suppose we put the issue aside for the time being and concentrate on problems that are in no doubt by anyone. But they said they wouldn’t and kept accusing me of transgressing the parliamentary rules. I asked one esteemed deputy who had sat in the speaker’s seat if he would kindly explain precisely what norms of the rules or Constitution I had violated. He said you haven’t violated any, but this is a political issue. There you are.

OPENNESS IS VERY EXPENSIVE, BUT ITS ABSENCE COSTS FAR MORE

You obviously support the idea of broadcasting parliamentary hearings on two television channels, but there are many against it.

Everyone I’ve recently met, including the president of Slovenia as well as the UN and NATO secretaries general said that as a public tribune parliament plays a great role in all countries. It is in there that ideas, trends, and positions accumulate. Since we are only now structuring ourselves politically, I think we must make our parliament heard and seen on a wider scale. If people can see and hear the way those they elect – I emphasize, elect, not appointees – defend their stand, they will elect others more consciously. Let our people know what’s going on in the parliament, I don’t see anything bad in it. The televised Verkhovna Rada diaries can’t present the whole picture, and there would be no editing if we had a special channel.

Yes, of course, but the issue is financing such a channel.

I know that openness is very expensive, but its absence costs far more. This is basic.

What do you think is the most important result of the first session of this Verkhovna Rada, and what is the main task of the next?

Political temperature should be turned into the temperature of practical activity. It’s better if deliberating bills raises a high temperature than its being connected with the relations among political forces, fractions, their leaders, and so on. I think that the main task will of course be to pass the budget and the new tax legislation. True, the budget for next year will obviously have the old tax basis, but if the Verkhovna Rada quickly adopts the new norms, we’ll be able to amend the budget in the second half of 2003. I also think it’s time to pass bills to carry out pension reform.. We should also concentrate on a number of humanitarian bills (social programs in American parlance —Ed .), for, except complaining and lamenting, practically nothing is being done in that sphere. Life itself compels us to address the coal industry. Every time I read reports on what’s happening at the coal mines it’s like reading about the front line of a war. We’ll have to pass a law on money laundering. We see the tensions rising over the staggering sum allegedly exported from Ukraine. We never had so much money in Ukraine! Yet we must provide conditions for true transparency and openness. At the same time I don’t think we can pass the bill the cabinet proposes in the first reading, for it subordinates everything to our oversight authorities – under the motto of “coordination” with international institutions – and empowers them to monitor everything and decide which transactions are “dubious.” In reality, it is a return to the days when every individual was under surveillance. It is necessary to define what sums are subject to monitoring, who can do it, and in accordance with what procedures. Otherwise this law will become a very convenient means of fighting dissenters. I have spoke out categorically against this approach. People’s Deputy Yury Karmazin’s bill contains more concrete positions. It would be worthwhile to combine both legislative initiatives into one at the initial stage.

Don’t you think that passing this bill should be preceded by the legalization of shadow capital or, say, tax amnesty?

I agree with you. A year ago the president submitted a bill legalizing capital. We should have set a deadline.

But there might be another aspect. Many believe that the legalization of shadow capital is not in the regime’s interest, because it would take away to ability to touch the owners’ sore spots at the right time.

If we keep our budget duly replenished and maintain economic growth, confidence in the political system will grow, and there will be no need to touch any sore spots. Another thing is that those in power must also discard such shadow methods of influencing the situation. This is without doubt.

IT IS ONLY NATURAL FOR PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION ALSO TO BE A POLITICAL INSTITUTION, WHETHER SOMEONE LIKES IT OR NOT

What do you think of the changes, in particular cadre ones, in the Presidential Administration, and of the statements made by the head of state concerning an enhanced political role for it?

I have never commented on the president’s statements and will not do so now. The issue is that the Presidential Administration has always been a political institution. I think all those working there and heading it ought to be given credit for doing their best. As the cadre changes, time will tell. I believe that everything being done there is meant to improve the situation. God grant them success.

The fact is that the Presidential Administration has always been the center of political influence used as a trump by those accusing the president of allowing it to assume powers not stipulated by the Constitution, and so forth. Now it appears, first, that the president is to blame for everything, second, this is all quite good, and for this we can thank everybody, starting with Dmytro Tabachnyk.

I said that’s the way it was. Maybe this is not so good, yet the vacuum formed by the absence of an institution capable of discharging political functions had to be filled. That’s a reality that has to be reckoned with. From the standpoint of its legitimacy or illegitimacy, under the conditions of our presidential-parliamentary form of government and considering the powers vested in the president, such an institution had to exist and have a certain status like in the Russian Federation. Since the president discharges political functions, it is only natural for Presidential administration also to be a political institution, whether someone likes it or not.

Certainly, one’s post determines one’s way of thinking. At one time, the former speaker may have disliked your following a certain course as head of the Presidential Administration. Now that you’re speaker, how do you visualize cooperation with the new head of the Presidential Administration?

You know, I am a person who tries to avoid conflict and has no special ambitions, so I am prepared to cooperate and try to cooperate with everybody. Yet I have and will carry out the line I am supposed to as speaker, regardless of anything else.