The Morning After the Revolution
Many found last week’s consensus in Ukrainian parliament astonishing. An overwhelming constitutional majority of 402 lawmakers backed a package of electoral and constitutional amendments. On the opposition side, 78 ayes came from Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine faction and one more from Anatoly Matviyenko of the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc, with the remaining factions and groups voting unanimously, except for several abstentions. This has been the first successful attempt to amend the Constitution since it was passed on June 28, 1996.
The voting was followed by a ceremony in which Parliamentary Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn and President Leonid Kuchma inked the amendments. Such enthusiasm was last observed in parliament eight and a half years ago, on the morning after the sleepless night when the Constitution was passed, of which President Kuchma was quick to remind the lawmakers. Congratulations are in order for Mr. Kuchma. His long-time dream of political reform has at last been fulfilled. Much of the credit for this goes to the president and his supporters, both declared and hidden, who “stimulated” the process in every possible way and did their utmost to have the reform passed.
According to the constitutional amendments, the powers of the head of state and parliament have been redistributed in favor of the latter. In particular, the president reserves the right to reject parliamentary nominees for the prime minister, foreign minister, and defense minister, while parliament earns the right to appoint all other cabinet ministers, the SBU chief, National Bank chairman, and Central Electoral Committee members nominated by the prime minister without presidential approval. Should the president leave office before his term expires, the parliamentary speaker, and not the prime minister, will fill in for him until a new head of state is elected. On the other hand, the amendments give the president wider authority to disband parliament. The amendments also introduce the so-called imperative mandate, whereby individual lawmakers can be expelled from parliament for breaking ranks.
This bill will become law on September 1, 2005, if additional constitutional amendments designed to reform the system of local self-governance are adopted by then. Should parliament fail to do so, the amendments will take effect on January 1, 2006.
Under the amendments to electoral legislation passed by parliament as part of the package ahead of the rerun of the runoff elections in this December, the number of absentee ballots has been reduced from 4% to 0.5% of the total number of voters. The amendments also introduce tighter controls over the procedure of issuing absentee ballots and absentee voting. Under the amended law, only persons in the first disability group, who are unable to move unassisted, are allowed to vote at home. The Central Electoral Committee will announce the election results only after the appeals period has expired and all territorial electoral committees and courts have considered all appeals.
The dismissal of the general prosecutor, electoral law amendments, and the Central Electoral Committee membership revamped by a fourth member is all Our Ukraine received in exchange for its support for the political reform, or curtailment of the future president’s powers. In this way Our Ukraine lawmakers used the unprecedented public support accorded them, not seen perhaps since 1991. On the other hand, the package would have received a constitutional majority of 300 votes even without the 78 ayes from Our Ukraine, owing to the votes of the Communists and Socialists. Socialist Leader Oleksandr Moroz, who had long been urging Our Ukraine into supporting the political reform, can also be considered a big winner in this parliamentary saga, given his 6% constituency. But this is a topic for a separate discussion. After all, who says that Viktor Yushchenko’s victory in the repeat runoff is a fait accompli? Those who are so sure about it should recall the televised debate, during which Viktor Yanukovych undermined the facile optimism of his opponents.
People’s Deputy and first president of independent Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk called parliament’s decision last week “a victory for everyone without exception” and a “signal for reconciliation for all of Ukraine.” Let’s hope so. There’s only one problem. The parliamentary-presidential system of governance, to which Ukraine is one step closer since last week, is not bad in theory. However, how this model will work in our reality, given our parliament’s sizeable “commercial” appetite, is anyone’s guess. The events of the past few weeks have shown that the quality and reliability of the medium through which the popular will is realized, i.e., the political elite, leaves much to be desired.
No matter what Viktor Yushchenko and his closest allies may have told the people on Independence Square after last week’s momentous decision, I’m left wondering about the feelings of the participants of the orange revolution, who have left for home, many of them to help ensure a fair runoff on December 26. So far, the unprecedented public enthusiasm is the main result of the past three weeks.
COMMENTARY
Volodymyr MALYNKOVYCH, director of the Ukrainian division of the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Research:
“I believe that today’s decision in parliament is a major step toward for democracy in Ukraine. Unfortunately, this decision took tremendous efforts and came at the cost of significant mutual concessions. In my view, the political reform is the only child of the orange revolution, even if it was born out of wedlock. Because political reform alone can guarantee a real makeover of the system of governance. No replacement of one leader for another can change the system, but this reform can.
“The essence of these changes is that we have finally received what the State Duma was demanding from the autocracy in 1917, i.e., a government accountable to parliament. Until today our government was not accountable to parliament and by inference to the constituents who voted for the parties or independent deputies. Now it will answer to parliament. Before the reform, the prime minister had to please the president alone. He didn’t care how the parties felt about his actions. As long as the country was doing fine, the president would reap the laurels. Should something go wrong, the buck would stop at the premier’s table, and the president would fire him without consulting the lawmakers, as prescribed by the Constitution. As a result, we saw governments come and go every half year. Now the prime minister will be practically independent of the president. He will be accountable to the parties that have won the elections. This will significantly increase his responsibility to society.
“Moreover, it is very important that the vertical of the nomenklatura and oligarchical regime will be destroyed. Until today, everybody sought to win the good graces of the president, everybody tried to revolve around this presidential axle, which stretched from the very center to the periphery. Only in this way could they secure certain economic benefits for their business, Kryvorizhstal being the graphic example. After the reform, the president will no longer be able to interfere with the government’s economic policy. Therefore, it will no longer make any sense for our oligarchs to butter up to the president. Instead, they will have to join ranks with a party of their choice. As a result, competition among businesses will transform into political competition among various parties.
“Furthermore, today we don’t have a viable multiparty system. It is only formal one, since parties don’t have long-term programs or the possibility to form a government. Therefore, the reform will facilitate a transition to a real multiparty system and competition among different parties. We will be the first among CIS member states to embrace the European system of governance.
“Of course, problems are imminent, primarily due to possible government reshuffles. But in this respect the imperative mandate is a plus, even though it runs counter to European democratic principles. It is a plus because it is common knowledge how easy it is for our deputies to break camp. If a government is formed by a narrow majority, in the absence of the imperative mandate such a government would be in grave danger, dependent on two or three deputies who could easily break rank. Therefore, in the early stages the imperative mandate is not bad, but in the future we will have to abandon it and work in line with European standards.
“The president hasn’t lost all of his powers either. He reserves the possibility to man the uniformed services, influence the country’s foreign policy, and act as a guarantor of human rights. Thus, he has more powers than a formal head of state in an essentially parliamentarian republic.
“The fact that the bill on constitutional amendments will become effective only in 2006 means that the new president — most probably Yushchenko — will have the possibility to rule in a more or less authoritarian way for a whole year and make good on most of his [election campaign] promises.”
Andriy YERMOLAYEV, director of the Sofia Social Research Center:
“The voting on the political reform was not so much connected with the presidential elections (even though much has been said about the direct link between the political reform and these elections) as with the planning and vision of the post-electoral situation. Now supporters of both Viktor Yanukovych and Viktor Yushchenko, as well as forces that took a neutral stance after the first round of the elections, have become convinced that the ‘victory at any cost’ and the ‘winner takes all’ scenarios are impossible. Moreover, the tension has spread beyond the rivalry and political struggle among different camps and has translated into social tensions and separatist sentiments of the regional elites. Therefore, the price of the presidential elections has shot up abruptly. I think that Our Ukraine and its partners and those who remain in Viktor Yanukovych’s camp have simply approved a rational, pragmatic decision. The thing is that should he win, Viktor Yushchenko will have the possibility to use for some time the mechanisms envisioned by the current Constitution. After all, the bill will not become law tomorrow. Second, the victor will have significant leeway for a dialog with the regional elites not only in terms of a rigid policy of appointments, but also in terms of negotiating the stance of local authorities and holding consultations about possible appointments to future executive bodies. After all, half a year from now we will have a more powerful vertical of executive power that will be controlled by bodies of local self-governance. Thus, both the future president and Cabinet of Ministers will have to heed the position of the local elites and their nominees. In effect, this compromise is rational, and there is leeway to realize at least one’s primary political ambitions.
“There is one other thing I’d like to point out. No matter when the constitutional amendments become effective, tomorrow we will already have a new political space. New motivations for conduct have been laid down. Now the key item on the agenda is the future makeup of the government. Even though it will be formed in keeping with the old constitutional mechanisms, it will nonetheless be a coalition- based executive structure. This means that a new platform for dialog will appear, which will not be directly connected with the presidential elections, but will instead be founded on the relationships in parliament and in the vertical of executive power in general. The dialog will center on the makeup of the Cabinet of Ministers and the policy of appointments in the public and corporate sector. All parties will probably coordinate their positions on regional executive structures in the most conflicting cases. Put simply, owing to this decision we have obtained a new field for a dialog, which will be joined by all participants of the political process, their positions notwithstanding.
“This decision also has a serious sociopolitical dimension. The politicians have shown that they are in fact ready to prevent those catastrophic and apocalyptic scenarios that were painted during the rallies and which figured in various experts’ opinions.
“I believe it is also a major step toward the stabilization of the economic situation. After all, the economy is composed not only of hardware and money, but also of motives, sentiments, and expectations. In this respect, such a decision is a signal that can allay the economic concerns of the population.”
Heorhiy KRIUCHKOV, Communist Party of Ukraine:
“A fundamental issue has been resolved, i.e., a transition to a parliamentary-presidential republic, a more just, civilized, and democratic system of governance. The issue of the balance of powers between the [two] branches of power has been resolved. Of course, this is a result of a compromise, which always requires concessions. But given the dangerously explosive situation in the country, it was a commendable solution that, I believe, will defuse the crisis in the country. I’m not inclined to think that the president will lose significant powers with the implementation of the political reform. This will not happen given our traditions and mentality. The president reserves numerous levers to influence the situation.
“At the same time, I have more than enough reservations about the resolutions that were passed. Take, for example, the amendments to the law on the presidential elections. By passing this bill, we in fact saved the face of the Supreme Court because we have resolved issues that the Supreme Court decided before us without any legitimate right to do so. We have only now passed amendments authorizing a rerun of the runoff elections. We have in fact eliminated absentee ballots, thus depriving hundreds of thousands of the most disadvantaged citizens of their voting rights. Yet we have resolved the most painful problems by passing this package. Why Our Ukraine, which didn’t support the political reform for a long time, finally agreed to make concessions is an interesting question. I think they were not certain they would win. I think there must have also been some backstage deals between Our Ukraine and President Kuchma.”
Volodymyr FILENKO, Our Ukraine faction:
“I view the decisions passed by parliament as a victory for Viktor Yushchenko, primarily because the political reform was approved on our terms: we made a number of changes to it. We also made concessions, however. Second, the political reform can happen only after fair elections. For the price we paid, we have received an opportunity to hold fair elections.”
Oleh TIAHNYBOK, independent deputy:
“Supporting the package was a major mistake of the opposition. It bought into Kuchma’s plan, which has totally worked. I think they had no right to give up on the people in the streets just like that. After their euphoria, now these people might feel disappointment. Very soon the people of Ukraine will experience the consequences of the resolution just passed. I can’t say for sure what the motives of Our Ukraine were, but I can assume that they were far from idealistic. Rather, they were pragmatic. It is obvious that some deals were made in the sphere relating to power. I don’t rule out that the December 26 elections might be nullified or might not happen altogether.”
Yury KOSTENKO, Our Ukraine faction:
“Today’s package voting in parliament is the price of a compromise that will make it possible to finish the election campaign and elect a president, and will also open the way to democratic changes in our country. The decision passed by the Verkhovna Rada was needed by the Ukrainian people, who poured into the streets in protest against the leadership’s attempt to deprive them of their right to elect a new president. This is a compromise for the sake of unity and the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state. Most importantly, this package contains bill No. 3201-7 on local self-governance, which has been our key demand: to introduce the principle of government by the people through constitutional changes, and this principle has been approved as part of the package. Now bodies of local self-governance will be elected and not appointed from Kyiv. Parliament’s decision will not only make it possible to resolve the conflict, but will finally place parties at the center of political processes. Parties will compete for constituents and form a coalition, while the government will be accountable to the public. In this sense, it is a major step toward democracy: bill No. 4180 together with the bill on local self-governance.”
Volodymyr BOIKO, Regions of Ukraine faction:
“I didn’t vote for this package for many reasons. I support the political reform, but the introduction of the imperative mandate is beyond me. Under such conditions there is no need for the Verkhovna Rada: let the party leaders sit down together and make decisions. As for the bill on amendments to the law on the presidential elections, I can’t imagine how it can be put into practice. Who will form new territorial and district committees today? What good did it do to pass a provision whereby only persons in the first disability group, who cannot move unassisted, are allowed to vote at home? What about all the other seriously ill people?”
Ivan ZAYETS, Our Ukraine faction:
“I didn’t vote for the political reform because it doesn’t meet the demands of our citizens. Our citizens took to the streets all across Ukraine to protest against election fraud by those in power, win back their right to elect a government, and redeem the principle whereby the people are the source of power. Those in power are to blame for the fact that the people could not vote freely and that the election results were rigged. The Verkhovna Rada made this point clear in its resolutions of November 27 and December 2. The Supreme Court of Ukraine said so. Meanwhile, instead of condemning those who transgressed the law, today the Verkhovna Rada made concessions to those in power. In effect, parliament has reappointed the Central Electoral Committee members instead of forming a new committee. The Cabinet of Ministers, the key factor of destabilization of the situation, remains. The new electoral legislation does not fundamentally change the conditions of the election campaign because people, and not the laws, function in real life.
“Therefore, I believe that today Ukraine’s democracy stumbled. As a result of this orange revolution we have a new citizen, but the power has largely remained unchanged. Moreover, the constitutional amendments have slowed down the process of renewing the government, because the Constitution contains provisions unacceptable to a democratic people: for example, the General Prosecutor’s Office will have general supervision over how citizens’ rights and freedoms are observed. Thus, the amended Constitution is a step forward and two steps backward. Moreover, these amendments automatically signal the danger that the December 26 elections might be disrupted. This so-called political reform will tempt those in power to disrupt the elections. Then new elections would be scheduled. I think that those in power have enough mechanisms to delay the presidential elections until next September or even later.”
