Democracy for chosen few

The parliamentary campaign of 2006 is certainly of historical importance, namely that its results will either confirm that this society has turned toward modernization after the Orange Revolution, or, on the contrary, that there is a barrier blocking the road of reformatory projects. There are more than enough reasons for worrying about this election campaign that serves conservative trends, and few reasons for hopes that the 2006 elections will lay the foundations of a dynamic political system capable of securing stable economic progress and stability.

Who is electing members of the Ukrainian parliament? We are, the people, it would seem. In reality, however, according to set electoral model, the deputies are electing themselves and the population merely grants the self-electing process a legitimate status.

The currently effective electoral system is most defective in relation to the democratic norms. Without a doubt, this society will eventually realize the need to cancel the existing electoral system. The big question is when it will happen and what price will be paid for this understanding.

The development of political corruption is the next threat stemming from the coming elections. Trading in slate entries can be described using different terms, like buying insurance policies to protect oneself against political risks; investments made in a promising political project, etc. Personally I prefer the following formula: “Political corruption is when slate entries are paid for with money.” The chosen model of closed rosters is ideal for this kind of corruption.

No less topical is the issue of the Ukrainian political class and its ability to function given a parliamentary-presidential model. Parliament voting for the dismissal of the cabinet is always an extraordinary measure. In our case it was a “technological” move made for the sake of the election campaign. On Jan. 10, factions in parliament claiming opposition status discredited the amended constitution that expanded their powers. Where is logic? This question appears meaningless as group egotism turned out stronger than any rational arguments.

To sum it up, the high degree of uncertainty and dubious political and legal consequences are among the most vivid characteristics of this parliamentary campaign. The latter is unique in terms of risks and political process being kept closed the corporate way. This campaign may have devastating consequences for both the stability of the political system and the entire system of public administration.