Ukrainian parties in an awkward age

Viktor NEBOZHENKO, sociological survey director, National Institute of Strategic Studies:

“My experience of studying elections since 1989 shows that a 4% entry barrier is a hard-to-achieve but good thing. In case if it was 5%, we would raise a juggernaut coalition of two-three parties that would have to make deals. This would be a major problem. 3% is, in a way, a fallback to 1991 but under new conditions, with a host of new odd birds and demagogues. This means rearing a new single-use elite. But 1% is just as difficult a thing to do. As a professional, I am ambivalent. On the one hand, as a Ukrainian citizen who assesses this in terms of the national interest, I am aware that this is awful. But as a political scientist and an image-maker, I think the 1% barrier is a gold mine, a brilliant opportunity for any homegrown professor in any city to breed a ‘one-percent party.’ In fact, it is, above all, a blow to the multiparty system and reduces it to absurdity. Secondly, it would make it impossible to form a viable majority. And, third, this is a Russian roulette of sorts: the destiny of a certain party will depend on its place on the voting list. Moreover, this will bring into play what is known as statistical error. The parliament will receive parties whose success all our political scientists put together won’t be able to explain. Undoubtedly, we will make a mockery of the parliament. Finally, large and medium-size parties are sure to lose out because there will be several social democratic parties, several Our Ukraines, etc. There will be many — seven to ten — Leftist parties. This means we must warn the deputies from territorial districts that this is not the way to solve their problems. This law is also extremely unsuitable for Our Ukraine and the Donetsk clan because they make active use of the district system.

“I would also like to draw your attention to some more abstract things. The point is that parties as the leading developmental factor of the Ukrainian political system is a somewhat outdated slogan for the twenty-first century. Today, a great many factors affect the political development of a certain country. So we must strengthen parties as the leading factor of Ukraine’s political development IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not we are switching over to the parliamentary-presidential form of government. This is the matter of principle.”

Volodymyr MALYNKOVYCH, Director, Ukrainian Branch, International Institute of Politico-Humanitarian Studies:

“We will not be able to establish a multiparty system in Ukraine without carrying out the political reform. In my opinion, we do not have a multiparty system today. Ukraine’s strongest parties, the KPU and Rukh, emerged in Ukraine well before independence, and their goals are in fact oriented to the past rather than the future. The former wants to go back to the past, the latter wants to win independence and special rights for ethnic Ukrainians, which is not on top of the agenda today because we must build a Ukraine for everybody. For a true multiparty system to be established, our parties should have a chance to form bodies of power. In other words, the party that has won the elections and is supported by a considerable part of the country’s population should be able to form a government responsible precisely to this party, the parliamentary majority and, accordingly, the voters.

“But, to carry out the political reform, all or at least the most important political forces should be really interested in the progress of the state rather than in clinging to their current offices or trying to seize some they covet. I cannot see this kind of approach today by either the majority or the opposition. The opposition, especially the Right, had shown until recently no readiness to carry out the political reform. As to the pro-presidential parties, they indeed initiated this reform but have always tried to tie their own tactical interests to the strategically important aspects of the political reform and, what is more, to put them in the foreground.

“And today, when a compromise seems to be within reach and opposition leaders, including Yushchenko and Moroz, have voiced readiness to back the political reform’s main provisions contained in bill No. 4105, the majority parties are introducing a bill that in fact brings to nothing the idea of a political reform in what concerns the multiparty system. Here I have in mind the draft on a 1% entry barrier. Should this law, God forbid, be passed, it will, in my opinion, pull the plug on the multiparty system and the political reform as a whole. The point is that now a parliamentary election can be won by parties supported by considerable masses of people, while the 1% threshold will allow nine day wonders, parties formed by a small group of armchair strategists who wield financial or political clout, to make their way into the parliament and exert a powerful influence on forming the government. It is totally ruled out that these entities can turn into full-fledged European-style political parties. What they can really do, however, is foil the formation of a viable party-based government. If ten parties of this kind come to parliament, they will bring along about a hundred deputies responsible for nothing. For this reason I think it is time to stop these tactical games about the political reform and begin to form parties, especially in the center. This would be a concrete contribution of the supposedly patriotic parties to the formation of a multiparty system. I think it goes without saying that Ukraine does need such a system.”

Volodymyr FESENKO, Director, Penta Center for Applied Political Research:

“It is very difficult to define what a political party is. For parties are entirely different things in the US, Western Europe, and, say, Japan. As [Russia’s ambassador to Ukraine] Viktor Chernomyrdin said, whatever party we try to form in the post- Soviet space, it will be, one way or another, a replica of the CPSU. This is perhaps inevitable, and it will take the lifetime of at least one more generation for our parties to be transformed and overcome their birth trauma. It is very important that laws are passed to enhance the role of parties in Ukraine’s political system. I think it was a very important step when the parliament passed and the president signed the law on parties. This is very important for the institutionalization and stabilization of political parties in Ukraine.

“The next important step should be switching to a proportional-representation election system and establishing a proper procedure of forming the cabinet by the ruling parliamentary coalition. Some speakers said here that it is not important what form of government, presidential or parliamentary, there will be. In reality, comparative political science studies show it is very important. The proportional system is a poor match for the institution of a strong president. The combination of these two institutional factors provokes a conflict between the executive branch embodied by the president and the parliament. A different situation arises under a parliamentary or premier-presidential system. It is here that a certain harmony can be found.

“Another important point is assessment of the electoral law. We have already heard criticism of the 1% barrier. I call it the 1% kickback. Kickback is a very popular term at Verkhovna Rada and in business. It is in fact the veiled variety of a bribe. To whom? Ostensibly, to the majority-district deputies. But I think not only to them. The 1% barrier can be useful for the parties that once made up part of the For a United Ukraine bloc. As of today, only one of them, the Party of Regions, can surmount the 4% barrier. This raises a hypothesis. As the 1% barrier in fact legitimizes a fragmented party system, I think this bill is not only an attempt to reach a compromise but also a political ploy aimed at foiling the formation of large electoral blocs and their eventual transformation into strong political parties. This has been proved by the experience of many countries. If the 1998 and 2002 elections had been held under the 1% barrier, 16 and 13 parties would be represented in the parliament respectively. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to form a ruling parliamentary-governmental coalition under such conditions. Now I want to draw your attention to a more complicated aspect of this problem: to our deep regret, this is connected not only with the electoral barrier. It is easy to see that even if the 2002 or 1998 elections had been held under the proportional system with a 4% entry barrier, it would have been extremely difficult to form a ruling governmental coalition. Let me give a simple example. The 2002 elections: it was possible to form a stable majority if the coalition had consisted of deputies from Our Ukraine, For a United Ukraine, and SDPU(O). You will agree that it is a fantastic scenario, although Ivan Pliushch actually proposed it. Another option is the opposition. They could have gathered with great pains 226 deputies and only with the help of the Communists at that. But it is only in theory that one can imagine OU, BYuT and the Communists in a coalition. There is great likelihood that the 2006 elections will create a similar situation, when it will be impossible to form a stable parliamentary-governmental coalition because the parliament will still have a strong Communist Party faction taking about a fourth if not more of all seats. There will be a strong Center-Right and, naturally, 30-40% of the seats will belong to Centrist parties. The only way out is to form a coalition of Right Centrists and Centrists. However, we do not know yet what disputes and structural differences might arise after the election of a new president. For there will be splits between the new pro- and anti-presidential forces. This is sure to create additional difficulties in forming a coalition. So it will be very difficult to implement this project even under the proportional system. As for me, I favor proportional representation in regional, rather than central, multi-seat constituencies. This would mean reaching a compromise and gradually extending the proportional principle to the regions. Incidentally, the entry barrier can be varied. Yet, it should not be lowered below 4% or 3%. Otherwise we will produce fragmentation and promote the emergence of regional quasi-parties. This will only impair the stabilization of political elites and the party system and the strengthening of the role of parties.”

Oleksiy HARAN, Director, School of Political Analysis, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy National University:

“I think any lowering of the entry barrier in the Ukrainian parliamentary elections will further destabilize the parliament. And the 1% threshold is a sheer catastrophe. I still hope politicians will rise above their narrow party interests and think about national priorities.

“I think it is wrong to say that the parliamentary model alone can boost the role of parties. I am personally convinced that the French — presidential-prime-ministerial — model could be quite suitable for Ukraine, and we should not have launched such far-reaching constitutional reforms. In France also the cabinet is formed on the basis of a parliamentary majority but at the same time the president is elected in a nationwide election. I think this model could be very easily adopted by passing a few key laws and making minimal amendments to the Constitution.”

Oleksandr DERHACHOV, Senior Research Associate, Institute of Political and Ethno-National Studies, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences:

“Let us concentrate on what the government should have done to improve the formative conditions for the party system. In my opinion, there are two groups of problems here. The first is related to the laws that regulate the emergence, existence, and, the more so, the raison d’etre of parties. That parties are not the indispensable factor in the formation of central governmental bodies is, unfortunately, common knowledge: we clearly see the defects inherent in this kind of system. The 1% barrier wouldn’t be worth discussing if small regional parties had the only goal of running for local council seats and thus assuming local power. Then, after achieving a success on the regional level, they could perhaps turn into nationwide parties. Thus, we should discuss the problem that the Constitution and other laws lack provisions that regulate the raison d’etre of political parties. This is a difficult, but not the most difficult, problem.

“The other group of problems is related to our existing political practice. Unfortunately, the latter does not allow parties to perform their inherent functions. The functions that European parties usually perform have already been intercepted and are being performed in Ukraine by other entities which sometimes copy, however, the functions of some political parties. Let’s look at how parties function in Verkhovna Rada: is there a mechanism of inner party democracy there? Are party programs really being fulfilled? Can one really see whether a certain party sticks to its own program in its practical actions or to that of somebody else? Regrettably, even in today’s parliament, where there are at least some conditions for their existence, parties do not perform their classic functions, especially those of being a link between the government and the people.”