Parliamentary Government Versus Revolutionary Expediency
Our nation’s history shows that unity, coherence, and civil harmony in society have always presented an urgent problem for Ukraine by force of this country’s geographic and geopolitical situation, its ethnic, cultural, religious, and regional multiplicity. Today this problem has again arisen, resulting in an open confrontation of the opposing political forces in the newly elected Ukrainian parliament. The provocative statements of some opposition Four leaders that they might organize civil disobedience actions in response to the result of the parliamentary leadership vote bode the danger of bringing the parliamentary confrontation to the nationwide level, again drawing Ukrainian society into the whirlpool of disintegration and new social splits. Even today, some opposition media prophesy one dreads to estimate how many times the inevitable breakup of Ukraine and related social cataclysms.
It is common knowledge that the prestige and clout of political parties ultimately depend on the extent to which their activities contribute to finding the historical, strategic, program-related, tactical, or humanitarian factors that could unite, rather than disunite, society. Thus, the escalation of tension and the aggravation of conflicts can only help earn so-called one-use political capital. The United Ukraine and SDPU(O) factions have been making all possible efforts to ward off confrontation in the solution of portfolio-distribution problems in parliament.
Conversely, judging by the actual configuration of political forces in the current Verkhovna Rada, it should be admitted that the so-called Four have taken a political stand that, instead of displaying a clear concept of future political strategy in the newly-elected government (the questions of this strategy have not yet been put on the agenda), is aimed at redistributing powers in the system of parliamentary leadership and nationwide public administration. The opposition couches these obvious goals in quite dubious arguments about the necessity of changing the existing political order, which has allegedly begun to slow down the progressive development of the state and society.
However, in my opinion, redistributing powers among various political forces is by no means a first priority task today.
The current stage in the development of the Ukrainian parliamentary system is unusual in that the newly-elected Verkhovna Rada will have not only to systemically continue drafting laws to sustain reforms but also to set out how these laws should be applied in practice to realize the course toward European integration along with membership in the leading international and European organizations. This will require serious and joint efforts by all parliamentary committees and factions to pass laws that correspond to the ongoing socioeconomic and political transformations into line with European standards and generally accepted civilized norms. Hence, this will require the parliament to work in unity and cohesion and to put the solution of nationwide problems above narrow party interests. For harmony in the parliament is the most important condition for reaching harmony and cohesion in society, which makes it imperative to admit that all the obvious and barely discernible achievements of today’s Ukraine were only possible thanks to the joint efforts of the Right, Left, and Centrists, and that all, without exception, are responsible to a certain extent for any failure to solve problems. So the constructive support for many government actions, which the United Social Democrats are often reproached for, should only be construed as our readiness to take responsibility for solving our burning social problems.
Power will never be effective unless an optimal functional pattern of its development is set. Moreover, this pattern should be set not by Western experts but ourselves taking into account our own interests, our own interpretations, and our own traditions. What can the parliamentary opposition offer our society today? What does it call for? What goals does it set? Impeachment of the president, dismissal of the Kinakh government which works not worse and, in many respects, even better that the previous one, massive redistribution of portfolios... Suppose the opposition succeeds in achieving all these goals: where will the Four, that is, the Communists, Our Ukraine, Yuliya Tymoshenko bloc, and the Socialists, lead society thereafter? Thus far, the opposition has only identified its tactical benchmarks, without mapping out the strategy of social development or the alternative they are going to put into practice in case of victory.
Simultaneously the transition to a new modern model of democratic development was and still is the No. 1 task for Ukraine which has decisively broken with its totalitarian past. We need a new model not only because we reject the former system of social relationships but also because we are making the transition to this new model of democracy in a postindustrial world which features a different system of values, vast unequally-developed geopolitical spaces, and, on the other hand, an increasingly standardized system of economic management, law, and international relations, which opens up real opportunities for practical implementation of human rights and freedoms.
The Social Democrats do not simply endorse the idea of building an abstract society of the bourgeois type. We suggest that Ukraine attain the social democratic model that effectively functions in the seventeen states of today’s Europe, a model that suits the Ukrainians best of all from the mental and historical angle. The historic victory of European Social Democracy lies, in the long run, not in the number of Social Democratic governments but in the fact that even their irreconcilable adversaries, if coming to power, have to continue pursuing the same policies with perhaps some corrections. For Social Democratic ideas have left an indelible imprint on public consciousness and become a major factor of European development.
The paradox of the current situation in the Ukrainian parliament is that the Four factions, which opted for destructive confrontation between the United Ukraine bloc and SDPU(O) in the very first days of parliamentary proceedings, had been elected to parliament not least because they espoused the social democratic slogans of social justice, protection of working people’s rights, defense of individual democratic freedoms, and joint responsibility for the situation in the state and society, for they understood how close these values are to Ukrainian mentality. The only thing is that some of them accompanied these slogans with revolutionary marches and others couched them in nationalistic rhetoric. In reality, it turned out that what guided both in their bid for parliamentary seats was not so much a noble desire to implement the declared principles and ideals as revenge-seeking, unsatisfied ambitions to wield power, and an irreconcilable attitude to their political opponents. The very fact that the opposition Four has brought together now such sworn enemies as communists and nationalists is further proof that values were misplaced to serve the principle that the end justified the means.
It is common knowledge that the confrontational style of political thinking and behavior is not conducive to reasonable compromise. On the contrary, this will split the parliament and society, for it rejects the universally-accepted rules of the game, which keep politics from turning into robbery. The one who has lost must leave even if he considers himself right: he must seek the cause of his loss in his own errors, not in the alleged scheming of more fortunate rivals. In addition, a politician is primarily supposed to be able to correctly assess the situation rather than put the blame on circumstances. Finally, any minority that has lost has the right to demand justice, not revenge. These simple rules are extremely difficult to learn for many representatives of the Ukrainian political elite, especially those who were forced to part with power.
The common perception is that the parliament mirrors society, and its contradictions reflect social conflicts and its compromises show the prospects of social unity. Assessing the current parliament, I can say that this dictum is only partially true. To make sure that the existing Right-Left coalition is artificial, it is enough to fancy this kind of a coalition in society. This will simply not do. You will see this if you put a Lviv and, say, Luhansk newspapers next to each other. It is participation of the Communists in the coalition of Our Ukraine, BYuT, and SPU that has turned the original idea into blatant political absurdity. For it is absolutely unrealistic to picture a social unity based on the alliance of irreconcilable ideological adversaries.
On the other hand, I think it is not only necessary but also possible to reach a consensus within parliament. But this kind of consensus should be based not on bargaining and the ultimatums of the opposition to be given chairmanship of all parliamentary committees as compensation for losing the parliamentary leadership race but on the readiness to solve the pressing problems of reform and map out an integrated and consistent strategy of socioeconomic and political transformations in this country in compliance with the selected model of democratic development in Ukrainian society. Only then will it be wise to plan and try to achieve stability; improve the existent system of government; impart greater equilibrium to the presidential-parliamentary republic by means of a more equitable distribution of the functions of all branches of government so that each bear greater responsibility.
