Viktor Medvedchuk: “Everything depends not on a pro-presidential position but on its content”

Compared to the two-month long Speaker saga, the election of Deputy Speakers looked easy and painless at first glance, taking only two hours to complete.

However, it does not really mean that there was no intense struggle for the posts from the outset. The intrigue simply developed in parallel with the one of the Speaker and was less public. As a result of complicated political combinations, Adam Martyniuk (CPU) was elected First Deputy Speaker, and Viktor Medvedchuk Deputy Speaker.

The election of Viktor Medvedchuk is indicative first and foremost of the SDPU(u) faction's success, especially considering the small size of the faction compared with much larger Rukh and NDP that did not get any post in the leadership.

The work of the previous Verkhovna Rada showed that Vice Speakers have virtually no real power or influence. However, such tough bargaining for these seemingly "nominal" positions gives us reasons to expect some considerable broadening of the Deputy Speakers' authority. It is entirely possible that Viktor Medvedchuk's skills as an experienced lawyer will impact directly on such changes.

It is should be recognized that the candidacy of the Chairman on the Union of Attorneys, Preside-ntial Adviser and Deputy Head of SDPU(u) appeared in all versions of the vice-speaker's package. One of the likely reasons for that is Medvedchuk's skill in finding common ground with different political parties. It was no accident that many people considered Medvedchuk's quality to remain loyal on any team most important when he was viewed as the most likely candidate for the Speaker's position. We got the impression that this quality of the Verkhovna Rada Deputy Speaker is rather well reflected in the interview below.

Q.: Mr. Medvedchuk, can we state that after election of the Verkhovna Rada leadership Parli-ament has all conditions for forming a left-centrist majority?

A.: No, I do not see any grounds for such a statement. At the moment, we have a Left Center and the information that Hromada may join the united Socialist and Peasant Parties faction. However, it is premature to speak of SDPU(u) joining them. I do not see anything in common between the party's ideological platform and the issue of forming a union.

Q.: In this case can one speak of forming a permanent parliamentary majority in general?

A.: I do not think so. You can see it in the results of voting during the leadership election when 232 deputies voted for the Speaker and 270 for his deputies. This is indicative of a temporary majority formed for resolving specific issues. In my view, a permanent majority might be created in the future, although it is not worth talking about from the viewpoint of realistic forecasting.

Q.: Right after the election of the leadership without Rukh representatives in it, this party declared its opposition to Parliament's leadership. Given that Rukh used to share a pro-presidential position, do you think it will be able to move from declared to practical opposition?

A.: Frankly speaking, I would not like to speculate on the future position of any faction. I am familiar with Rukh's statement on its opposition to the Verkhovna Rada leadership. This is its right. Its cooperation with other factions and specific manifestations of its opposition depend entirely on Rukh itself. I think that if a political party takes the responsibility of declaring itself in opposition, such words must be followed by some real steps. In my view, these steps can be both real and conventional.

Q.: From your standpoint as presidential adviser on tax policy, how effective are Leonid Kuchma's recent economic edicts in reforming the economy? In his assessment of the President's edicts, Yevhen Marchuk said that the President was set up by those who developed such contradictory regulatory documents.

A.: I do not think Mr. Marchuk had in mind specific people since economic edicts were drafted by a number of specialists from the Tax Administration, Cabinet of Mini-sters, and Presidential Admini-stration. I would not say that the President was set up by these edicts. In general, I support the steps taken by the President in these edicts. Although, as a lawyer, I can say that they undoubtedly have flaws. It is necessary to analyze in detail each edict to determine its effectiveness in changing the economic situation. Based on the experience of the thirteenth Verkhovna Rada, we can say that issues of tax legislation were the most divisive, and the bills under consideration were sometimes altered beyond recognition or not passed at all. Meanwhile, the open question of insufficient budget revenues has to be resolved, and the President was forced to take those steps. I am far from thinking them ideal.

Q.: Considering the possibility of SDPU(u)'s growing influence and your work in the parliamentary leadership, do you think the President's fatherly attitude to the NDP faction will also extend to the SDPU(u)?

A.: This question should be addressed to the President. He himself will form an opinion on the capacities of the factions and the prospects for joint work. To my mind, the President does not single out any faction, he has an even-handed approach to all political forces represented in Parliament. I think this is the kind of position that the head of state should take.

Q.: Mr. Medvedchuk, do you think that by joining the Right Centrist bloc, SDPU(u) has earned a reputation of a pro-presidential faction and thus discredited itself?

A.: We did not enter any blocs: there was just a certain coordination of joint actions, but there was no agreement on forming an alliance. With regard to discrediting, I do not think it is the case since there is nothing negative in sharing the President's course of reforming our society and overcoming the economic crisis. This is my opinion as both a people's deputy and a party leader.

Q.: But at the congress last December, the SDPU(u) party declared its opposition to the current government.

A.: Constructive opposition. This means that we criticize the government's drawbacks, of which there are more than enough, and try to propose a solution to the current economic, political, and social crisis. For this reason, I would not and will not say that a pro-presidential position is something negative, for everything depends not on a pro-presidential position as such but rather on its content.

Q.: So far it has been very difficult to make sense of this content. What is it?

A.: You will see it when we get down to approving legislation. Our support of some bills and disapproval of others during their discussion in Verkhovna Rada will make it clear how much our position on economic issues overlaps with that of the President and government.

Q.: If the government happens to have a different vision of reforming the economy, will you support Pustovoitenko's resignation?

A.: If the Parliament and government propose totally different ways of dealing with the economic crisis, it is quite obvious that we will not be in agreement with the government.

Q.: How do you assess the chances of the government? There is much talk about its imminent resignation in the fall...

A.: There should be no forecasts here. This issue was raised in May, and Parliament decided to take it off the agenda of the first session. Whether or not the issue will come up during the second depends on the results of the government's work.

Q.: What factions would like the government to step down?

A.: This I do not know.

Q.: Going back to the election of Deputy Speakers, how much truth is there in the statements by a number of faction leaders that Oleksandr Tkachenko allegedly promised to nominate candidates for the Vice Speaker positions out of the deputies who would have voted for him. Did he promise it personally to you?

A.: This is the first time I have heard about it. I am not aware of any obligations by Mr. Tkachenko regarding nominations for the Deputy Speaker posts.

Q.: In your view, can the Speaker's party alignment affect the course of the presidential election?

A.: Mr. Tkachenko has stated that he does not intend to run for President in 1999. With respect to party position, I would like to point out that all parliamentary leaders are members of political parties. But I personally consider using one's official position in the interests of a party immoral and unlawful. I think Messrs. Tkachenko and Martyniuk share my view on this. We can use only our personal influence and vote as a People's Deputy to promote our political or personal interests.

Q.: Having its own candidate for the presidency, will SDPU(u) be forced to support Leonid Kuchma in the presidential election?

A.: First, our party has never been and will never be forced to do anything.

Secondly, only the party congress is authorized to determine the SDPU(u)'s position in the 1999 election.

Thirdly, today we support reform-oriented steps and the President's attempts to overcome the economic crisis.

Lastly, we are confident that today we should think not of the election marathon that will start only in a year, but of each political party's contribution to improving the situation in the country, raising living standards, and solving social problems.

Photo by Valery Miloserdov,The Day:
Viktor Medvedchuk follows his own line