On Land and Power Again

The top current political priority is to define the future system for electing deputies to the legislatures of Ukraine and the Crimea. Apart from the election law of Ukraine, lawmakers have also passed in its first reading the bill on the electoral system for the Crimea. The big question now is how this law takes into account the realities and needs of the peninsula’s population. In any case, the new bill has met a mixed reception in the autonomous republic. This is the topic of conversation between our correspondent and Refat Chubarov, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, Deputy Speaker of the Crimean Tatar Majlis (parliament), and member of the Presidential Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatars.

The Crimean Tatars will oppose the law on elections to the peninsular legislature which has been approved in the first reading, as this law will make it impossible for them to be adequately represented in the Crimean parliament.

Refat-aha, what was the reaction of the Crimean Tatars and Majlis to the positive first reading of the bill on the elections to the Crimean parliament?

Refat Chubarov: Even if the bill passes its second reading, we will do our best to convince the president not to sign it into law. We believe that, as in solving other key issues of Ukraine’s development, the president should clearly indicate his vision of the situation and his stand as guarantor of the Constitution. Such a declaration could provide the guidelines for pro-presidential caucuses. In fact, the proportional representation system, especially at the regional level, has many drawbacks and the president is right in criticizing and rejecting it. In such a case, the President should define his formula which will make it possible for the Crimean Tatars to be elected to the peninsula’s parliament, at least in numbers corresponding to the share the Crimean Tatars have in total population on the peninsula.

What is the historical background of Crimean Tatar representation in the elected offices on the peninsula?

We have been adamant about the representation of the Crimean Tatars in state bodies for quite some time, trying to solve the issue one way or another. During the political conflagration in the fall of 1992, we managed to find a more or less acceptable solution to the problem and the compromise which had been reached — representation quotas for Crimean Tatars in parliament — made it possible to defuse the confrontation. There are two aspects, however, which do not allow us to do this again: first, the Crimean Autonomous Republic has no right to adopt its own laws and the Crimean Tatars have no leverage to influence the make-up of the peninsula’s legislature; second, the old law had a clause making the quotas valid only for one tenure of parliament, since at the time we believed that the integration of Crimean Tatars into the Ukrainian society would be over by that time. Despite our opposition to the clause, we failed to have it dropped from the law.

Now and especially after 1998, there has been a growing awareness both in the Crimea and Kyiv that the absence of Crimean Tatars in the peninsular legislature not only makes them helpless in solving problems of their integration but also creates tensions in Crimean society, since without representation in the parliament, we are forced to look for other ways to defend our rights. The president himself has repeatedly declared both at the sessions of the Council of Representatives and on other occasions that the problem is here and should be addressed. On May 3, he instructed a work group headed by Justice Minister Siuzanna Stanyk to prepare appropriate proposals. At my suggestion, we set up an ad hoc work group to reach a consensus among the Crimean parliament, government, and Majlis on the form and mechanisms for electing a new peninsular legislature. As a member of that group, I prepared a memorandum stating that there were several ways of solving the issue: first, quotas, second, the adoption of a proportional representation electoral system, and third, the majority electoral system on the basis of national constituencies. Leonid Hrach and Crimean lawmakers criticized the proposed mechanisms but supported the proportional representation system, believing that it will favor their goals. The fact is that the majority system does not completely suit the Communists as they do not have charismatic candidates to put up in majority constituencies, especially since many Communist politicos have compromised themselves and the Ukrainians are becoming more and more aware of who is who. I have to be fair here and should admit that in their support for the proportional system the Communists have always stressed that the system can also ensure the representation of Crimean Tatars in state bodies.

We responded by agreeing that the proportional system can solve the problem of Crimean Tatar representation in parliament. But then another problem comes to the fore, that of party election lists. Given the goodwill of Verkhovna Rada, national minorities’ organizations will be able to put up their candidates and in this case we could accept the system.

It was then that Natalia Shtepa’s project prepared by Crimean parliament lawyers (even called the Hrach project) was submitted. The project proposed adopting the proportional representation system. Later on, several lawmakers came up with a proposal to introduce a mixed, 50-50, system, envisaging a seven seat quota for Crimean Tatars, and one representative each for deported Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Germans, as well as for indigenous Krymchaks and Karaites, within the share of the proportional system. The third project was the reaction to the failure to adopt a wholly proportional system for Ukraine, allegedly, due to the immaturity of our political parties.

For these reasons, a group of lawmakers who had already submitted the bill proposing proportional representation backtracked and recalled their bill. It seems to me that this was probably due to the fact that the Communists would not accept the idea of twelve to fourteen Crimean Tatar lawmakers in the legislature. Thus, the bill just passed in the first reading cannot suit us for it will obviously not allow us to attain our goals. Within the proportional representation share, a mere three to four Crimean Tatars could win seats in parliament. Within the majority share, Crimean Tatars stand no chance at all, as the constituencies will be increased twofold and Crimean Tatars will not make up even a quarter of the voters. Such an electoral system cannot be acceptable.

How will the issue of Crimean Tatars representation in Verkhovna Rada be solved?

The solution will hinge on the goodwill of the Ukrainian political parties. This, in my opinion, is a very strange situation. The Crimean Tatars can join the election bloc of several all-Ukrainian parties, something which could help Crimean Tatars to emerge from their artificial isolation or self-isolation. I think, and you can tell me if I am wrong here, the time has come when many issues should be solved not only by Crimean Tatars and not so much by Crimean Tatars, as in line with accepted democratic procedures.

Of course, you cannot rule out the election of Crimean Tatars in majority constituencies, but this is merely a theoretical possibility.

Recall that in September 1990 a model for settling the returning Crimean Tatars was adopted such that, in line with the Communist scenario, their share could not exceed the 25%. At that time the Communists foresaw that the election of Crimean Tatars to representative offices would pose a threat to them. Presently, their successors are aware that they are implementing much the same policy and they are doing this deliberately. However, I am strong in my conviction that no country, let alone Ukraine at its present stage of development, can develop normally if the whole nation is denied the right to be represented in the parliament of a part of Ukraine which is presumably home to the Crimean Tatars. If not, is there any sense in the existence of the autonomous republic? As any other people or large social group, we must make a strong case for our problems and see to it that they are solved. If we are not represented in parliament of the autonomous republic, how can we address our problems in an accepted democratic way through our deputies? If not, we shall be forced to seek other ways.

What key issues will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Representatives with the president?

The meeting will take place in Crimea. However, the major issues of land and representation in state bodies are still with us, despite our expectations that this law would solve them.