From the Street to Parliament

The political masses are gradually grasping the idea of a necessary and inevitable dialogue between those in power and the opposition and are beginning to demand specific steps instead of declarations of intent. This is why every action of either side cannot be regarded in any different context.

The authorities felt better, of course, without a dialogue. When peace was brought about in the fall of 1999, it caused some disorientation. Tellingly, it is now widely admitted that a political crisis was inevitable even without the Gongadze tragedy and unexpected accusations by Melnychenko. The confrontation we have now only helped certain deep social processes to surface quicker. The fundamental point or cornerstone point in all this still remains the election law, according to which we will elect the next parliament. Multiparty elections are nothing but an objective requirement, and the sooner they are held, the faster society will be able to identify itself. No matter how hard one would like to stick to the tried and true formula of good authorities versus bad Communists, the latter is now as obsolete as the engine of an old KamAZ truck which can carry you someplace but will be kept off even the threshold of a normal country. It is now the time for new up-to-date political engines to be reckoned with.

The quite unexpected statement the Cabinet indirectly made last Thursday about undesirability of passing an election law based on proportional representation made me get back to this problem within the context of ongoing developments. Let us start with references to the “unconstitutionality” of some provisions of the law. For some reason, many have found it in vogue recently to take on the role of the Constitutional Court, which is not always advisable. For if the president heeds the government’s advice and vetoes the election law, all parliament will have to do is override this veto by the required number of votes, which would also be sufficient, incidentally, for the relevant amendments in the Constitution. It is hardly in Leonid Kuchma’s interests to knit the lawmakers so closely that they could amend the fundamental law. Amendments can be made not only about the election law. Thus it is not ruled out that the viewpoint voiced by Presidential Chief of Staff Volodymyr Lytvyn is a trial balloon. If push comes to shove, it will be possible to say that the statement was misunderstood and to hold it back, as was the case with forming a coalition government, which contravenes the Constitution far more than the election law does.

In reality, the point may be about checking the readiness for a dialogue, as we said. For the election law is precisely one of the issues over which the standpoints of the president and his current opponents still differ in principle. Just imagine for a second the president giving the go-ahead for a party-based election, even after having the law amended. Then the next obligatory step should be adoption of the law on political parties as subjects of the election process. In such case both legislative acts would have to be rapidly put into operation, and the opposition would lose almost half its arguments. Members of the anti- presidential, opposition, quasi-opposition, and the now-indefinite political groupings will be forced, as decent people, to urgently “marry” within the political process, opting out of their extramarital existence. It is by no means the same thing to set up a non-registered amorphous Forum of National Salvation and to urgently form real parties so that they could be registered before the elections under the new law. It is an open question whether the opposition really needs this.

This factor can immediately pull the rug out from under the feet of politicians who represent nobody but themselves. The normal process of political party registration will at once put the record straight, making the dreaded regionalization of parties almost impossible. In this case also everything will depend on the current authorities. For even the most clearly written procedure of party registration can be offset by means of administrative techniques such as the ones that enabled virtually unknown presidential candidates to muster a million supporters in 1999 and made it possible to hold a national referendum in 2000. In reality, the opponents of proportional representation can only cash in on the existence of more than a hundred parties, which they decry in public. At the beginning, they might be somewhat afraid: what if the political situation in this country changes after the emergence and participation in the elections of full-fledged parties? There will be no alternative: one must begin sooner or later to play according to the long-established rules. Do we not want those willing to bring down the “criminal regime” and the regime itself to stop making statements on behalf of the people that put into our mouths the words we never guessed? This would immediately cancel the need to appeal to international institutions, so much detested by some.

According to all the laws of logic, the signals the authorities and the opposition are now exchanging should materialize one way or another. And the sooner their street corner debates move to the legislature, the more chance this country will have to find an honorable way out of the crisis which disgraces us before the whole world. Let there be endless rallies and demonstrations, tents and pickets. But all this should be part of a civilized election campaign, the result of which will show what the people, on whose behalf so many like to speak, really wants. Elections, especially on a proportional basis, is a difficult and risky affair. However, it is hard to think of another civilized way out of the crisis.

INCIDENTALLY

President Leonid Kuchma believes that the law passed on a proportional representation election system violates the Constitution and will veto it, Interfax-Ukraine reports. The president also emphasized the necessity of passing a law on political parties before introducing the proportional system of parliamentary elections.

He also drew attention to the fact that his stand on this law “is shared by many deputies and the parliamentary speaker.” Mr. Kuchma admitted “it is clear” to him “who advocates the law on a proportional election system... I understand why the Communist Party is promoting this law. If I were them, I would do the same,” he said.