The Parliament of Ukraine has decided today to schedule the next presidential election on 25 October 2009. Just to remind, previously most of MPs and experts suggested the election of President has to be held in January 2010 – 4 years after the Inauguration day. The decision of Verkhovna Rada was a kind of an answer to the Presidential address to Parliament (yesterday).
Actually the real background of today’s vote of Ukrainian Parliament is hiding not exactly in the speech of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, and even not in his unexpected idea to change a Constitution by himself, or to introduce a two-chamber Parliament with a rather weak Lower House.
There is a rumor that the Presidential Secretariat has already drafted a Decree to dismiss the current Parliament and to call for a snap parliamentary election in a nearest future. To stay ahead, all the parliamentary factions united in common decision: to cut the presidential term of Mr. Yushchenko for 3 months. The second, but not less significant goal of the MPs was to secure their immunities: the Constitution says the Parliament shall not be dismissed during 6 months before presidential election.
401 of MPs voted in favor of “25 October”, 7 – the Presidential part of Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence faction (United Center party) – voted against. Vyacheslav Kyrylenko, member of OU-PSD, addressed his colleagues during the parliamentary debates: “What are we afraid of? Early parliamentary election? Dear Mr. Speaker, do you have information on the respective Decree of the President? Please, make this information public!”
What's next? Viktor Yushchenko is going to challenge the decision of Parliament in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. “This decision is not legal, this decision does not correspond to the Constitution”, he said today. “All of them are going to lose before the October… The election will be held in due time, provided by the Constitution of Ukraine”.
The version of the Constitution of Ukraine acting in 2004 (when Mr. Yushchenko was elected) says the presidential election should be held every four years. A current edition of the Constitution provides that the President shall be in power during four years after he assumed the office.
Showing posts with label Constitutional reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitutional reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
“After this speech, I’ll pass to Speaker Lytvyn my project of a new Constitution ”. Viktor Yushchenko addressed the Parliament of Ukraine.
The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko has addressed the Parliament today with his annual speech. Mr. Yushchenko failed to appear in Verkhovna Rada with his speech last year - the parliamentary tribune was blocked - but this time he has fully made up for lost opportunity.
The ordinary presidential speech with the expected call for all the political leaders to stop fighting and unite all the forces for saving Ukrainian economy in crisis times was finished with a surprise. President informed that he's going to introduce to Parliament of Ukraine a new project of the Constitution of Ukraine - right now.
Viktor Yushchenko proposes a dramatic change of the very system of powers in Ukraine. First of all, he wants Ukraine to have the two-chamber Parliament, and to reduce a number of MPs.
According to President, the Lower Chamber of the Parliament of Ukraine shall be elected by proportional voting system (like today) with open political party lists. The Lower Chamber will form the Government and control its work. "The inability to form the Government will lead to the dismissal of the Lower Chamber, but not all the Parliament. In this case the work of the Parliament will not stop," Viktor Yushchenko noticed.
The Upper Chamber should be elected among the representatives of regions of the country - using the majority voting system. It will work in lose connection with the President of Ukraine, in particular, dealing with the security issues. Every district of Ukraine will have 3 Senators elected.
"The political turbulence will be left in the Lower Chamber of Parliament", Viktor Yushchenko thinks. "President, together with the Upper Chamber, will secure stability of the state".
The President of Ukraine called for an urgent examination of his project of the Constitution of Ukraine in Parliament.
The ordinary presidential speech with the expected call for all the political leaders to stop fighting and unite all the forces for saving Ukrainian economy in crisis times was finished with a surprise. President informed that he's going to introduce to Parliament of Ukraine a new project of the Constitution of Ukraine - right now.
Viktor Yushchenko proposes a dramatic change of the very system of powers in Ukraine. First of all, he wants Ukraine to have the two-chamber Parliament, and to reduce a number of MPs.
According to President, the Lower Chamber of the Parliament of Ukraine shall be elected by proportional voting system (like today) with open political party lists. The Lower Chamber will form the Government and control its work. "The inability to form the Government will lead to the dismissal of the Lower Chamber, but not all the Parliament. In this case the work of the Parliament will not stop," Viktor Yushchenko noticed.
The Upper Chamber should be elected among the representatives of regions of the country - using the majority voting system. It will work in lose connection with the President of Ukraine, in particular, dealing with the security issues. Every district of Ukraine will have 3 Senators elected.
"The political turbulence will be left in the Lower Chamber of Parliament", Viktor Yushchenko thinks. "President, together with the Upper Chamber, will secure stability of the state".
The President of Ukraine called for an urgent examination of his project of the Constitution of Ukraine in Parliament.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Open Lists. Ukraine has learned how to hold free and fair elections, but it’s not enough to be called a true democracy.
In this post I would like to turn back to the question of the reform of electoral law in Ukraine. There are a lot of talks about how to change the way Ukrainians are electing the Parliament (I’ll stay away from the analysis of re-distribution of powers) or local Councils, but the very idea of reform is completely distorted. Instead of having a serious talk about the very details of a new electoral system that will fit to Ukrainian realities in a best way, most politicians are trying to switch the public attention to active, but non-effective discussions around one point – a need to move from the closed-party-lists to open-party-lists scheme, in frames of the current proportional voting system. I think it’s not enough at all.
Since the Orange revolution of 2004, all the elections in Ukraine were recognized as free and fair. But as a result of these free and fair elections, we, Ukrainians are receiving – again and again – the Parliament full of come-and-go people. The majority of Members of Parliament of Ukraine doesn’t make any serious decisions, but only thoughtlessly presses the “yes” or “no” buttons, in accordance with order of faction leaders. It has to be changed.
According to the current electoral law, Ukraine elects its Parliament on a base of proportional representation system with closed party lists. The system stipulates that Ukrainian citizens vote not for individuals, but for parties, which are receiving seats in Parliament proportionally to the amount of votes they had won. Every party draws up a list of its candidates for the seats in Parliament, but it must make public only the names of five first persons from the list. A couple of hundreds of other candidates may be hidden until the end of the vote – it’s a provision of the closed-party-lists type of proportional voting system.
As a result, according to the closed-party lists scheme, Ukrainians are voting not for all members of Parliament, but are only choosing between “groups of five”. Even if a party makes public the entire list, the electoral campaign has been centred on a little group of party leaders. And after the elections Ukrainian voters may realise that the party they voted for has in its list, for example, a personal massager of the party chief, or the secretary of a party sponsor. A very big problem of the current electoral system is also the fact that the Members of Parliament has almost no officially established connection with the regions of a country. People simply don’t feel they have a real representative in Parliament: there is no one to be called “my MP”.
It is naive to think that the problem will be cured, if all the party lists were open in its literal meaning – becoming public before the elections. Ukrainian parties are mostly based not on the ideology, but on their leaders who are associated with all the party. And the majority of Ukrainians will keep voting for the personalities they like, not taking care about any lists. (And even if an old woman from the village has an opportunity to read all the lists of all the parties, she will surely not be able to analyse them properly, and to estimate how much people from the list she may see in Parliament after the elections. To make the outcome of the parliamentary election more democratic, there is a need to change the voting system as a whole.
As to my point of view, the best thing for Ukraine is to come back to the majoritarian (plurality) system of vote: the person, not a party should win support of voters, and should represent Ukrainian people in Parliament. Ukraine still doesn’t have a developed party system. Imagine, only about 3% of the citizens of Ukraine are members of any party. That means that 97% of Ukrainians doesn’t feel close to any political party at all. Proportional system was established, among other issues, in order to build up the party system in Ukraine. This idea failed: new-formed Ukrainian democratic political parties in reality are something between the oligarchic lobby groups and fan clubs of charismatic leaders.
In frames of the current proportional, party-based system of vote, the easiest way for Ukraine would be to switch to one of the models of open party lists, when a voter receives a right not only to vote for a party, but also to express his or her preference for a particular candidate(s) in frames of the party list. That means that voter indicates not only a name of the party he or she favours, but also names the favourite candidates from this party, or even indicates the order of preference. Such a model is widely used in the countries of Western and Central Europe. I would propose also to move forward from a single constituency scheme Ukraine currently has. In this case the parties will have to draw up several regional lists of candidates, giving a chance for regional leaders to be elected, and also establishing a stronger link between regions and Parliament.
There are other things which I think have to be done to make the parliamentary election in Ukraine closer to the best democratic standards:
1. To adopt an Electoral Code, a single document, which would incorporate all the rules (including technical) concerning holding parliamentary, presidential and local elections.
2. To form the Registry of voters (at long last) to avoid fraud.
3. To change the provisions of electoral law, re-establishing the so-called “absence certificates” for people who are not at home at a day of election (for ex., they are in the other region of Ukraine or abroad) to have a possibility to realize their Constitutional right to vote.
Since the Orange revolution of 2004, all the elections in Ukraine were recognized as free and fair. But as a result of these free and fair elections, we, Ukrainians are receiving – again and again – the Parliament full of come-and-go people. The majority of Members of Parliament of Ukraine doesn’t make any serious decisions, but only thoughtlessly presses the “yes” or “no” buttons, in accordance with order of faction leaders. It has to be changed.
According to the current electoral law, Ukraine elects its Parliament on a base of proportional representation system with closed party lists. The system stipulates that Ukrainian citizens vote not for individuals, but for parties, which are receiving seats in Parliament proportionally to the amount of votes they had won. Every party draws up a list of its candidates for the seats in Parliament, but it must make public only the names of five first persons from the list. A couple of hundreds of other candidates may be hidden until the end of the vote – it’s a provision of the closed-party-lists type of proportional voting system.
As a result, according to the closed-party lists scheme, Ukrainians are voting not for all members of Parliament, but are only choosing between “groups of five”. Even if a party makes public the entire list, the electoral campaign has been centred on a little group of party leaders. And after the elections Ukrainian voters may realise that the party they voted for has in its list, for example, a personal massager of the party chief, or the secretary of a party sponsor. A very big problem of the current electoral system is also the fact that the Members of Parliament has almost no officially established connection with the regions of a country. People simply don’t feel they have a real representative in Parliament: there is no one to be called “my MP”.
It is naive to think that the problem will be cured, if all the party lists were open in its literal meaning – becoming public before the elections. Ukrainian parties are mostly based not on the ideology, but on their leaders who are associated with all the party. And the majority of Ukrainians will keep voting for the personalities they like, not taking care about any lists. (And even if an old woman from the village has an opportunity to read all the lists of all the parties, she will surely not be able to analyse them properly, and to estimate how much people from the list she may see in Parliament after the elections. To make the outcome of the parliamentary election more democratic, there is a need to change the voting system as a whole.
As to my point of view, the best thing for Ukraine is to come back to the majoritarian (plurality) system of vote: the person, not a party should win support of voters, and should represent Ukrainian people in Parliament. Ukraine still doesn’t have a developed party system. Imagine, only about 3% of the citizens of Ukraine are members of any party. That means that 97% of Ukrainians doesn’t feel close to any political party at all. Proportional system was established, among other issues, in order to build up the party system in Ukraine. This idea failed: new-formed Ukrainian democratic political parties in reality are something between the oligarchic lobby groups and fan clubs of charismatic leaders.
In frames of the current proportional, party-based system of vote, the easiest way for Ukraine would be to switch to one of the models of open party lists, when a voter receives a right not only to vote for a party, but also to express his or her preference for a particular candidate(s) in frames of the party list. That means that voter indicates not only a name of the party he or she favours, but also names the favourite candidates from this party, or even indicates the order of preference. Such a model is widely used in the countries of Western and Central Europe. I would propose also to move forward from a single constituency scheme Ukraine currently has. In this case the parties will have to draw up several regional lists of candidates, giving a chance for regional leaders to be elected, and also establishing a stronger link between regions and Parliament.
There are other things which I think have to be done to make the parliamentary election in Ukraine closer to the best democratic standards:
1. To adopt an Electoral Code, a single document, which would incorporate all the rules (including technical) concerning holding parliamentary, presidential and local elections.
2. To form the Registry of voters (at long last) to avoid fraud.
3. To change the provisions of electoral law, re-establishing the so-called “absence certificates” for people who are not at home at a day of election (for ex., they are in the other region of Ukraine or abroad) to have a possibility to realize their Constitutional right to vote.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Coalition of BYT, OU-PSD and BL factions in Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine does exist. But it is not constitutional.
The Coalition Treaty, uniting the parliamentary factions of the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT), the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence (OU-PSD), and the Block of Lytvyn (BL), was triumphantly signed today in Verkhovna Rada. On behalf of the BYT faction the Coalition Treaty was signed by the Head of the faction Ivan Kyrylenko, on behalf of the OU-PSD – as it was promised earlier – by its Deputy Head Borys Tarasyuk, and on behalf of the BL faction – by the faction’s new Head Igor Sharov. The official name of the Coalition – National Development, Stability, and Order.
37 members of OU-PSD signed the document (total size of the Coalition – 213 MPs). The Head of the OU-PSD faction Vyacheslav Kyrylenko declared that he is going to resign from his position, as he doesn’t represent the faction’s majority anymore. “Any agreement with Tymoshenko worth less than the paper she’s putting her signature on, because it will not be realised, and this will be the main problem of the Coalition”, he said. Mr. Kyrylenko also called the new Coalition as “a serious threat for the state”, noticing the “dominating power” of the Communist Party in this Coalition.
But the Communist party role in the recent developments in Parliament (which is obvious) is not actually the biggest problem of a new parliamentary block of factions. The main paradox is that this newly formed Coalition does not correspond with provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine. We may say that there is a declared unity of factions in Parliament, but there is no new Coalition in its legal meaning.
According to the Part 6 of the Article 83 of the Constitution of Ukraine, “a Coalition of deputy factions, consisted of the majority of Members of Parliament of Ukraine of the constitutional membership of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, shall be formed”. (Here is the official translation of the Constitution, but I have to notice that in Ukrainian language the coalition-part sounds more clear, emphasizing that the coalition should comprise the majority of MPs). So, according to the Constitution, 226 or more Members of Parliament should form the Coalition.
There is also a decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, adopted in September 2008 (a detailed info in Ukrainian may be read here), which states that “the requirement on the overall number of Members of Parliament of Ukraine, who on the strength of parliamentary factions are forming the Coalition of parliamentary factions, concerns the moment of formation of the Coalition, and all the period of its activity as well”.
37 members of OU-PSD signed the document (total size of the Coalition – 213 MPs). The Head of the OU-PSD faction Vyacheslav Kyrylenko declared that he is going to resign from his position, as he doesn’t represent the faction’s majority anymore. “Any agreement with Tymoshenko worth less than the paper she’s putting her signature on, because it will not be realised, and this will be the main problem of the Coalition”, he said. Mr. Kyrylenko also called the new Coalition as “a serious threat for the state”, noticing the “dominating power” of the Communist Party in this Coalition.
But the Communist party role in the recent developments in Parliament (which is obvious) is not actually the biggest problem of a new parliamentary block of factions. The main paradox is that this newly formed Coalition does not correspond with provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine. We may say that there is a declared unity of factions in Parliament, but there is no new Coalition in its legal meaning.
According to the Part 6 of the Article 83 of the Constitution of Ukraine, “a Coalition of deputy factions, consisted of the majority of Members of Parliament of Ukraine of the constitutional membership of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, shall be formed”. (Here is the official translation of the Constitution, but I have to notice that in Ukrainian language the coalition-part sounds more clear, emphasizing that the coalition should comprise the majority of MPs). So, according to the Constitution, 226 or more Members of Parliament should form the Coalition.
There is also a decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, adopted in September 2008 (a detailed info in Ukrainian may be read here), which states that “the requirement on the overall number of Members of Parliament of Ukraine, who on the strength of parliamentary factions are forming the Coalition of parliamentary factions, concerns the moment of formation of the Coalition, and all the period of its activity as well”.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Parliamentary Cheating II. OK, the Speaker is elected, but is there any coalition in Ukrainian Parliament?
On Tuesday, 9 December at 17.46 PM by Kiev time Volodymyr Lytvyn was elected as a Head of the Verkhovna Rada. His candidacy was supported by 154 MPs from the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (total size of faction – 156 MPs), 40 MP’s from the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence Block (total size of faction – 72), 20 MP’s from the Block of Volodymyr Lytvyn (total size – 20), and also 27 MP’s from the Communist party faction (total size – 27) and 3 MPs from the Party of Regions (total size – 175).
It was really hard to believe that the Presidential faction of the Our Ukraine - People’s Self-Defence Block (OU-PSD) will –support Volodymyr Lytvyn, together with the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT) and even with communists, despite the will of President Viktor Yushchenko, who was against the candidacy of Mr. Lytvyn and publicly in favour Ivan Plyushch, member of his party. But the things went even further: a new-elected Head of Parliament declared the formation of the coalition of OU-PSD, BYT, and the Block of Volodymyr Lytvyn.
The Tuesday events are still the object of discussion not only for political analysts, but also for politicians themselves. I would quote the main statements of historical Tuesday and the following day.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008:
Petro Symonenko, leader of the Communist Party of Ukraine stated his party supported the candidacy of Volodymyr Lytvyn to unblock the work of Parliament to fight the world economy crisis consequences. “We voted for the work of Verkhovna Rada”, he said, adding that the communists would never vote for Ivan Plyushch or any other candidacy from national-democratic forces.
Head of the Verkhovna Rada Volodymyr Lytvyn doesn’t see any preconditions to re-elect Prime Minister or to make cardinal changes of Government. But “it’s obvious that there will be some proposals from the coalition concerning the structure of the Government”, Mr. Lytvyn thinks.
Our Ukraine - People’s Self-Defence faction did not approve a text of the Treaty, forming the coalition of OU-PSD, BYT, and the Block of Volodymyr Lytvyn, the press-service of OU-PSD faction informed. Deputy Head of the faction Borys Tarasiuk signed the text of Coalition Treaty without the faction’s agreement. The project of Coalition Treaty will be in the agenda of a faction sitting on 10 December.
The Party of Regions has doubts on the liveliness of a new-formed coalition, if it will not have a permanent support of the Communist party, one of the PR faction leaders Oleksandr Efremov said. “It’s hard to imagine, how communists could work together with the nationalists”, he mentioned. “Without the Communist Party faction, the new-formed coalition doesn’t have 226 votes to approve decisions in Parliament”.
Member of Parliament of the OU-PSD faction (leader of the PSD) Vladyslav Kaskiv declared that there is no coalition in parliament as there is no decision of the OU-PSD faction on participation in this coalition; and there is also no Coalition Treaty as nobody in the OU-PSD is familiar with such a document. “De facto we can say that Volodymyr Lytvyn, obviously moved by positive emotions, made a political statement. But there are no legal fact of forming the coalition”, Mr. Kaskiv said. “We can not do good things with not honest methods… The misrepresenting of facts took place today”.
Wednesday, 10 December 2008:
The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko greets Volodymyr Lytvyn for his election as a Head of Verkhovna Rada. “I hope that the election to this responsible position of so experienced and well-balanced politician will permit to unblock a work of the highest lawmaking institution of a country”, he noticed. Parliament has to approve anti-crisis laws and the project of a State Budget for 2009 as an urgent matter, and the needed condition for that is “parliamentary coalition, efficient and capable de jure and de facto”.
Member of Parliament of OU-PSD faction Ksenia Lyapina informed, “During 4 days we have to sign a Treaty (coalition treaty. – TV); if not, the Head of the Verkhovna Rada has to disown his statement about the formation of a coalition”. During the OU-PSD faction sitting on 10 December, MPs “came to a conclusion that the Coalition Treaty doesn’t exist, nobody of us signed it or authorised anybody to sign it”, Mrs. Lyapina noticed.
Taras Stetskiv, Member of Parliament (OU-PSD, PSD branch) emphasized that the coalition “legally does not exist as it is not signed”.
Oleksandr Efremov, the Party of Regions faction noticed that during the Coordination Council sitting Wednesday, 10 December “one of the Deputy Heads of OU-PSD block Roman Zvarych declared that his faction didn’t make a decision on formation of a coalition with the BYT and the Block of Lytvyn, and Borys Tarasiuk was not authorised to sign the Coalition agreement. So, in reality there is no parliamentary coalition”.
Statement of the Presidium of the Political Council of the party of Regions: “So-called formation of a coalition in Parliament is the another adventure and fraud of people. We don’t believe in capacity of this so-called coalition not only because it doesn’t have the quantity of voices needed. We don’t believe in this coalition as it is based on the politicians who had twice proved their incapacity to work together, to work effectively”… “Ukraine will have to watch again the scandal show of Orange chiefs, who are eager to sink each other in a spoon of water. The Party of Regions is out of this campaign. We also would like to hear a clear position of communists – which was their motivation, when they supported Oranges?”
First Deputy Head of the BYT faction Andriy Kozhemyakin hopes that “a progressive part” of the Party of Regions faction will take part in a constructive work of the Parliament. “It is obvious that the highest management of the Party of Regions is leaded by its own ambitions, not understanding that the crisis is a threat for independence of Ukraine”, he added.
Deputy Head of the OU-PSD faction Borys Tarasiuk issued a statement where he noticed that “due to the absence of a Head of the OU-PSD faction Ivan Kyrylenko during the negotiations, I took responsibility to sign the document on founding of a coalition of three factions – OU-PSD, BYT, and the Block of Lytvyn. Of course, I understood that it would be better if the Head of the faction signed this document. But I don’t know whether Ukrainians would understand us, if, delaying action until the next day, we lost this unique chance to start to work in Parliament normally”.
The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko in her TV appeal to the citizens: “Parliamentary political crisis is over. A normal and consistent work will start in Verkhovna Rada tomorrow. Our hands are free from the irons… All these positive steps were done not with the help of President, but in spite of his active countermeasures to the formation of the Coalition”.
So, is there any coalition in Parliament? Nobody knows. The answer to this question depends on the results of current negotiations of parliamentary factions.
P.S. There is still a possibility of formation of a coalition in Verkhovna Rada with participation of the Party of Regions.
It was really hard to believe that the Presidential faction of the Our Ukraine - People’s Self-Defence Block (OU-PSD) will –support Volodymyr Lytvyn, together with the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT) and even with communists, despite the will of President Viktor Yushchenko, who was against the candidacy of Mr. Lytvyn and publicly in favour Ivan Plyushch, member of his party. But the things went even further: a new-elected Head of Parliament declared the formation of the coalition of OU-PSD, BYT, and the Block of Volodymyr Lytvyn.
The Tuesday events are still the object of discussion not only for political analysts, but also for politicians themselves. I would quote the main statements of historical Tuesday and the following day.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008:
Petro Symonenko, leader of the Communist Party of Ukraine stated his party supported the candidacy of Volodymyr Lytvyn to unblock the work of Parliament to fight the world economy crisis consequences. “We voted for the work of Verkhovna Rada”, he said, adding that the communists would never vote for Ivan Plyushch or any other candidacy from national-democratic forces.
Head of the Verkhovna Rada Volodymyr Lytvyn doesn’t see any preconditions to re-elect Prime Minister or to make cardinal changes of Government. But “it’s obvious that there will be some proposals from the coalition concerning the structure of the Government”, Mr. Lytvyn thinks.
Our Ukraine - People’s Self-Defence faction did not approve a text of the Treaty, forming the coalition of OU-PSD, BYT, and the Block of Volodymyr Lytvyn, the press-service of OU-PSD faction informed. Deputy Head of the faction Borys Tarasiuk signed the text of Coalition Treaty without the faction’s agreement. The project of Coalition Treaty will be in the agenda of a faction sitting on 10 December.
The Party of Regions has doubts on the liveliness of a new-formed coalition, if it will not have a permanent support of the Communist party, one of the PR faction leaders Oleksandr Efremov said. “It’s hard to imagine, how communists could work together with the nationalists”, he mentioned. “Without the Communist Party faction, the new-formed coalition doesn’t have 226 votes to approve decisions in Parliament”.
Member of Parliament of the OU-PSD faction (leader of the PSD) Vladyslav Kaskiv declared that there is no coalition in parliament as there is no decision of the OU-PSD faction on participation in this coalition; and there is also no Coalition Treaty as nobody in the OU-PSD is familiar with such a document. “De facto we can say that Volodymyr Lytvyn, obviously moved by positive emotions, made a political statement. But there are no legal fact of forming the coalition”, Mr. Kaskiv said. “We can not do good things with not honest methods… The misrepresenting of facts took place today”.
Wednesday, 10 December 2008:
The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko greets Volodymyr Lytvyn for his election as a Head of Verkhovna Rada. “I hope that the election to this responsible position of so experienced and well-balanced politician will permit to unblock a work of the highest lawmaking institution of a country”, he noticed. Parliament has to approve anti-crisis laws and the project of a State Budget for 2009 as an urgent matter, and the needed condition for that is “parliamentary coalition, efficient and capable de jure and de facto”.
Member of Parliament of OU-PSD faction Ksenia Lyapina informed, “During 4 days we have to sign a Treaty (coalition treaty. – TV); if not, the Head of the Verkhovna Rada has to disown his statement about the formation of a coalition”. During the OU-PSD faction sitting on 10 December, MPs “came to a conclusion that the Coalition Treaty doesn’t exist, nobody of us signed it or authorised anybody to sign it”, Mrs. Lyapina noticed.
Taras Stetskiv, Member of Parliament (OU-PSD, PSD branch) emphasized that the coalition “legally does not exist as it is not signed”.
Oleksandr Efremov, the Party of Regions faction noticed that during the Coordination Council sitting Wednesday, 10 December “one of the Deputy Heads of OU-PSD block Roman Zvarych declared that his faction didn’t make a decision on formation of a coalition with the BYT and the Block of Lytvyn, and Borys Tarasiuk was not authorised to sign the Coalition agreement. So, in reality there is no parliamentary coalition”.
Statement of the Presidium of the Political Council of the party of Regions: “So-called formation of a coalition in Parliament is the another adventure and fraud of people. We don’t believe in capacity of this so-called coalition not only because it doesn’t have the quantity of voices needed. We don’t believe in this coalition as it is based on the politicians who had twice proved their incapacity to work together, to work effectively”… “Ukraine will have to watch again the scandal show of Orange chiefs, who are eager to sink each other in a spoon of water. The Party of Regions is out of this campaign. We also would like to hear a clear position of communists – which was their motivation, when they supported Oranges?”
First Deputy Head of the BYT faction Andriy Kozhemyakin hopes that “a progressive part” of the Party of Regions faction will take part in a constructive work of the Parliament. “It is obvious that the highest management of the Party of Regions is leaded by its own ambitions, not understanding that the crisis is a threat for independence of Ukraine”, he added.
Deputy Head of the OU-PSD faction Borys Tarasiuk issued a statement where he noticed that “due to the absence of a Head of the OU-PSD faction Ivan Kyrylenko during the negotiations, I took responsibility to sign the document on founding of a coalition of three factions – OU-PSD, BYT, and the Block of Lytvyn. Of course, I understood that it would be better if the Head of the faction signed this document. But I don’t know whether Ukrainians would understand us, if, delaying action until the next day, we lost this unique chance to start to work in Parliament normally”.
The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko in her TV appeal to the citizens: “Parliamentary political crisis is over. A normal and consistent work will start in Verkhovna Rada tomorrow. Our hands are free from the irons… All these positive steps were done not with the help of President, but in spite of his active countermeasures to the formation of the Coalition”.
So, is there any coalition in Parliament? Nobody knows. The answer to this question depends on the results of current negotiations of parliamentary factions.
P.S. There is still a possibility of formation of a coalition in Verkhovna Rada with participation of the Party of Regions.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Chasing the shadow. What kind of Ukraine the President dreams of?
During these latter days I was thinking a lot, trying to find an answer to one question: what is the current political strategy of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko? It emerged that it’s not an easy thing to understand. Since the early autumn President is literally pushing Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to form a coalition with the Party of Regions (PR) of Viktor Yanukovych, one of the main “enemies” of Orange Revolution. But the same time Viktor Yushchenko doesn’t want this alliance to be formed.
In September 2008 Mr. Yushchenko accused Mrs. Tymoshenko in high treason (after the vote for cutting presidential powers, which she performed together with the PR on 2nd of September). Then members of President’s Our Ukraine party stepped out of so-called Democratic coalition with the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT), de facto blocking the work of Parliament. In October President issued a decree that dismissed Verkhovna Rada and scheduled early parliamentary election. In November Viktor Yushchenko decided to cast aside the idea of snap election, publicly encouraging parliamentary factions to unite for adoption of anti-crisis legislation in the name of state interests. The same time Our Ukraine party officially declared that it would not form a coalition with the BYT and/or the PR faction. No logic?
Mr. Yushchenko seems to be in favour of a kind of “technical coalition”, when parliamentary factions vote concordantly, but do not sign any coalition papers. Theoretically, it gives an opportunity for President to call early election any time he wants (it would be legitimate as the coalition doesn’t exist), and also to question the legitimacy of Government any day he’s in a mood for. Nevertheless, the BYT and the PR were close to accept the idea of "technical coalition", but… Viktor Yushchenko ruined it himself. He declared that only Our Ukraine faction should propose the candidacy for Speaker, which was unacceptable for the biggest parliamentary parties. As a result, the BYT and the PR announced their possible alliance, but President answered to that by calling the probable coalition “a danger for Ukrainian democracy”.
What is the President’s logic today, and what does he want to achieve in a long run? Igor Kril, member of the United Centre party founded by Head of the President’s Secretariat Viktor Baloha, gave a little hint on Friday, 5 December. Talking about a candidacy of Prime Minister, acceptable for his party, Mr. Kril said, the PM “should not run for President”. Which means that he/she will not be a competitor for Viktor Yushchenko in 2009. That gives us a tip, why President choose as his Speaker candidate Ivan Plushch, Soviet-times’ Communist Party activist, and now member of Our Ukraine – Mr. Plusch doesn’t have noticeable political ambitions.
The ideal system of top state authorities in Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko is dreaming of, should be built of modest “technical” people, and crowned by President. Any strong political player holding a key rating-forming position in Government or Parliament is a priory a threat for stability of the mentioned system. It is without doubt that Mr. Yushchenko will keep fighting these threats, using his favourite methods – false situational alliances, presidential veto, and a shadow of snap parliamentary poll. The endless circle may be broken only by presidential election (or Constitutional reform), which will mark a starting point for a new political game. Hopefully, it will be performed according to rules of democracy.
In September 2008 Mr. Yushchenko accused Mrs. Tymoshenko in high treason (after the vote for cutting presidential powers, which she performed together with the PR on 2nd of September). Then members of President’s Our Ukraine party stepped out of so-called Democratic coalition with the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT), de facto blocking the work of Parliament. In October President issued a decree that dismissed Verkhovna Rada and scheduled early parliamentary election. In November Viktor Yushchenko decided to cast aside the idea of snap election, publicly encouraging parliamentary factions to unite for adoption of anti-crisis legislation in the name of state interests. The same time Our Ukraine party officially declared that it would not form a coalition with the BYT and/or the PR faction. No logic?
Mr. Yushchenko seems to be in favour of a kind of “technical coalition”, when parliamentary factions vote concordantly, but do not sign any coalition papers. Theoretically, it gives an opportunity for President to call early election any time he wants (it would be legitimate as the coalition doesn’t exist), and also to question the legitimacy of Government any day he’s in a mood for. Nevertheless, the BYT and the PR were close to accept the idea of "technical coalition", but… Viktor Yushchenko ruined it himself. He declared that only Our Ukraine faction should propose the candidacy for Speaker, which was unacceptable for the biggest parliamentary parties. As a result, the BYT and the PR announced their possible alliance, but President answered to that by calling the probable coalition “a danger for Ukrainian democracy”.
What is the President’s logic today, and what does he want to achieve in a long run? Igor Kril, member of the United Centre party founded by Head of the President’s Secretariat Viktor Baloha, gave a little hint on Friday, 5 December. Talking about a candidacy of Prime Minister, acceptable for his party, Mr. Kril said, the PM “should not run for President”. Which means that he/she will not be a competitor for Viktor Yushchenko in 2009. That gives us a tip, why President choose as his Speaker candidate Ivan Plushch, Soviet-times’ Communist Party activist, and now member of Our Ukraine – Mr. Plusch doesn’t have noticeable political ambitions.
The ideal system of top state authorities in Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko is dreaming of, should be built of modest “technical” people, and crowned by President. Any strong political player holding a key rating-forming position in Government or Parliament is a priory a threat for stability of the mentioned system. It is without doubt that Mr. Yushchenko will keep fighting these threats, using his favourite methods – false situational alliances, presidential veto, and a shadow of snap parliamentary poll. The endless circle may be broken only by presidential election (or Constitutional reform), which will mark a starting point for a new political game. Hopefully, it will be performed according to rules of democracy.
Friday, December 5, 2008
The Bogus Marriage. A coalition of the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko and the Party of Regions is likely to be formed in December 2008.
The Thursday’s sitting of Verkhovna Rada lasted only 8 minutes. Members of Parliament decided to take a time-out for extra negotiations, and to renew their work on Tuesday, 9 December. MPs invited the President of Ukraine and Prime Minister to be present on the sitting that day to witness how Parliament will get out of crisis. Viktor Yushchenko will not come to Verkhovna Rada on Tuesday, he’s going to pay a working visit to Lithuania. Maybe that’s right decision: it will be surely not “his day”. In contrary, Yulia Tymoshenko may appear in Parliament – to celebrate another political victory of her party.
As it was predicted earlier, a coalition of the Party of Regions (PR) and the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT) looks like just a matter of time. At least, leaders and members of both factions are not denying the fact of negotiations on this issue anymore. On 2 December, MP from the BYT faction Valeriy Pysarenko said “the BYT is ready to form a coalition with the Party of Regions”. The same statements were made by some other BYT and PR MPs during this week. In the Party of Regions’ official rhetoric the future coalition is called as “anti-crisis” and “built on pure economic reasons”, not on ideological ground.
According to insider’s information, the text of a new coalition treaty has already been initialized. But it doesn’t mean that the document will be signed on Tuesday. At first, the PR and BYT have to elect a new Speaker. It still may be a leader of the People's Party Volodymyr Lytvyn or member of the Party of Regions and current First Vice-Speaker Oleksandr Lavrynovych. The BYT and PR have enough MPs – 331 (the constitutional majority is 300 MPs out of 450) – to amend the Constitution in first reading. The main goal of the reform will be to elect President of Ukraine not by popular vote, but in Parliament, which is more convenient for big parliamentary parties. After a joint vote on the constitutional amendment the BYT-PR coalition may be officially formed. New allies will go on with the constitutional reform process after the New Year holidays, in early February. As a result, Ukraine may have President Viktor Yanukovych, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and Viktor Yushchenko in opposition, like in “old good times”.
President Yushchenko – of course – doesn't like the BYT-PR reformation ideas. “If this kind of consolidation will not be restrained by the ideological positions, national interests, democratic interests, it may lead to serious challenges for Ukrainian democracy”, he declared on 4 December. President highlighted that the main danger of the BYT-PR coalition is “a deep revision of the Constitution of Ukraine”, which includes the idea of election of President in Parliament. “These are things which are ruining Ukrainian democracy and don’t correspond with our aspirations. This will throw Ukraine back from the sphere of stability for many years”, President argued. He emphasised he “will not allow” that.
Ukrainian media have already informed with reference to the reliable source at the Presidential Secretariat that “there is a new decree on snap election on the President’s working table”, and it is with open date.
As it was predicted earlier, a coalition of the Party of Regions (PR) and the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT) looks like just a matter of time. At least, leaders and members of both factions are not denying the fact of negotiations on this issue anymore. On 2 December, MP from the BYT faction Valeriy Pysarenko said “the BYT is ready to form a coalition with the Party of Regions”. The same statements were made by some other BYT and PR MPs during this week. In the Party of Regions’ official rhetoric the future coalition is called as “anti-crisis” and “built on pure economic reasons”, not on ideological ground.
According to insider’s information, the text of a new coalition treaty has already been initialized. But it doesn’t mean that the document will be signed on Tuesday. At first, the PR and BYT have to elect a new Speaker. It still may be a leader of the People's Party Volodymyr Lytvyn or member of the Party of Regions and current First Vice-Speaker Oleksandr Lavrynovych. The BYT and PR have enough MPs – 331 (the constitutional majority is 300 MPs out of 450) – to amend the Constitution in first reading. The main goal of the reform will be to elect President of Ukraine not by popular vote, but in Parliament, which is more convenient for big parliamentary parties. After a joint vote on the constitutional amendment the BYT-PR coalition may be officially formed. New allies will go on with the constitutional reform process after the New Year holidays, in early February. As a result, Ukraine may have President Viktor Yanukovych, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and Viktor Yushchenko in opposition, like in “old good times”.
President Yushchenko – of course – doesn't like the BYT-PR reformation ideas. “If this kind of consolidation will not be restrained by the ideological positions, national interests, democratic interests, it may lead to serious challenges for Ukrainian democracy”, he declared on 4 December. President highlighted that the main danger of the BYT-PR coalition is “a deep revision of the Constitution of Ukraine”, which includes the idea of election of President in Parliament. “These are things which are ruining Ukrainian democracy and don’t correspond with our aspirations. This will throw Ukraine back from the sphere of stability for many years”, President argued. He emphasised he “will not allow” that.
Ukrainian media have already informed with reference to the reliable source at the Presidential Secretariat that “there is a new decree on snap election on the President’s working table”, and it is with open date.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Terry Davis: Instead of talking about early elections, Ukrainian politicians should concentrate on promises they made
This interview will be published in Ukrainian "Narodny Deputat" (ukr. Member of Parliament) magazine, in Ukrainian language. Terry Davis: Instead of talking about early elections, Ukrainian politicians should concentrate on promises they made
By Tetyana VYSOTSKA
- Mr Secretary General, every time we meet, I ask you for your opinion about the political crisis in Ukraine: last year we were talking about the Ukrainian crisis, as well as the year before. In your opinion, what’s happening in Ukraine now, and what can we, as Ukrainians, do to change the situation for the better?
- I think that sometimes it is a mistake to exaggerate the difficulties. I myself never use the word “crisis” when I’m discussing the political situation in Ukraine. Yes, it is a very difficult political situation, it’s a very complicated political situation, and there are lots of difficulties there. But this is not a crisis in my book. A crisis is something much worse. So, I’m glad that it is not a crisis by my definition. I have seen it suggested by some people that there might be another election…
- Yes, they are talking about next March…
- Well, that is for Ukrainians to decide - whether there should be another election. It’s not my business. But I must say that I find difficult to understand what people think a new election would bring. If there is an election, we must wait for the result…
- But isn’t it too often to have an election every year?
- As I know, in many countries elections took place twice in the course of two years. But there are two reasons why I think this is something to be avoided, if possible. First of all, it distracts attention from the real problems of the country and the real difficulties of the people of Ukraine. Secondly, in every democracy people may say: we don’t want to be voting every year, we elected these people, please, get on and do the job you are elected for. It damages democracy, when people think: the politicians can’t agree, they are just squabbling, fighting among each other, arguing… That actually damages the reputation of politics and democracy. Election is an essential part of democracy, but not every week.
- Is the Council of Europe planning to give some official advice concerning the situation in Ukraine? Are you going to meet with Mr Yushchenko and Ms Tymoshenko again?
- I have visited Ukraine several times during the last two years. I know that some people – people not from Ukraine, but from other countries – think that I should not visit Ukraine too often. They say: you should also visit us. There are several reasons why I take a special interest in Ukraine. It is not only because of the people of Ukraine, for whom I have great respect and affection. I think that Ukraine – like Belarus – has been neglected in the past by people like me from Western Europe. So, I try to compensate that a little bit by giving a lot of attention to Ukraine.
Ukraine is a very big country; it has a lot to offer to the rest of Europe. Also it has a very rich history. I have a lot of sympathy for the people of Ukraine, especially because of that period of 1932-33, which you call Holodomor, when so many people died.
- Ukraine is campaigning now for world recognition of Holodomor.
- It must have been a terrible period. This is not a case of being anti-Russian, it is a historic fact that millions of people did die in Ukraine. If I can just give you another example: I came from the United Kingdom, and our neighbouring country is the Republic of Ireland. In Ireland they still have the memory of the great famine which took place 160 years ago. They still remember it, talk about it. It takes a long time for such events to fade in a memory of the people. In Ukraine this memory is also very live.
That is not to blame people, not a case of who is responsible – this is a very difficult matter to judge history. But I can understand why Ukrainians are still so concerned and so upset about this tragedy.
- That’s why Ukraine asks the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly to condemn Holodomor as genocide against the Ukrainian nation.- It is a matter for historians to argue, whether it was genocide or not. To me the most important thing is that millions of people died. Personally I pay respect to the people of Ukraine, and I try to encourage Ukrainians of today to build a better future for Ukrainians of tomorrow.
- To do that and to stop – not crisis, but problems – in Ukraine all the main political forces are thinking about a Constitutional reform. But the changes proposed differ from each other completely: from a strong presidential model to a pure parliamentary system. In your opinion, is it the right time for Ukraine to change its Constitution? Which way should we move?
- Of course, this is a matter for Ukraine to decide which system you should adopt. There are advantages and disadvantages in both systems. What I would say, as a friend of Ukraine, is that it would be in the interest of the people of Ukraine for the politicians to settle this issue as quickly as possible.
- Do you think it is possible to find a quick consensus in this situation?
- I think the situation has to be settled. If I were an Ukrainian, I would be more concerned about the school for my children or grandchildren, I’d be more concerned about being able to buy clothes and food for my family, and I’d be more concerned about the house or apartment in which we live. I’d be concerned about the quality of the air we breathe and of the water we drink. These are really important things – it is a standard of living and a quality of life. People are not very interested in whether it is the parliamentary system or the presidential system. What they want is results.
- So, the reform in Ukraine should be done very soon?
- My strong wish is that the politicians of Ukraine should settle this issue in the interest of the people of Ukraine as quickly as possible. And then start discussing, even arguing, about the policies to be followed by the government in terms of schools, hospitals, housing, and the essential things of life. That’s what people want to hear.
- Politicians just have to start to work…
- I think it is very much in the interest of democracy for the debates in Ukraine to move away from a constitution onto the political issues. I don’t know what this policy should be – in a democracy that is for politicians and for the people of Ukraine to decide. Politicians should propose ideas about policy. It’s true that the best way to decide this is an election. But you do not have an election every year...
It’s like a sailing: you have to decide on a course you are going to follow. That does not mean you simply go ahead regardless of the fact that there is an iceberg in front of you. But you should not keep changing course, you should not keep changing a captain of a ship.
- Talking about the captain of the ship, some Ukrainian politicians advise to have an early election not only of the Parliament, but also of the President of Ukraine. Do you think it is a good idea to change everything in one day?
- Well, it’s a matter for Ukraine, not for outsiders. Of course, Ukraine is a very important member of the Council of Europe, but as a Secretary General of the Council of Europe I do not tell Ukrainians what they should do and when they should have an election.
- The next big problem for today’s Ukraine is its aspiration to become a member of NATO. This trend of Ukrainian foreign policy has already worsened our relationship with Russia. What tone of conversation should Kiev choose in dialogue with Moscow, in order not to spoil our bilateral relations, but to move towards NATO membership?
- You have so well educated and experienced diplomats that I do not think Ukraine needs any lessons in this field. But if I were Ukrainian, I would say to Russians: I ask you to think, why we want to join NATO. Russians should think themselves, why does Ukraine want to join NATO, why does Georgia want to join NATO. And I told that to Russians…
- What did they answer?
- They were surprised because they haven’t thought about that.
- What is your opinion on this issue? Should Ukraine join NATO?
- I am not going to express my opinion about whether Ukraine should join NATO for one very good reason: I know that it is a subject of intense political debates in Ukraine. I never get involved in domestic politics. That’s a matter for Ukrainians to decide.
- Moscow has warned Kiev that if Ukraine joins NATO, or Membership Action Plan (MAP), it will apply some serious sanctions. Will you and the Council of Europe get involved if Russia keeps this promise?
- It depends on what these sanctions are. For example, the price of gas is not a matter for the Council of Europe.
- And if it will be the withdrawal of the Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership Agreement with Ukraine?
- I do not know the terms of the Friendship and Cooperation Agreement. One thing I can say is you cannot force someone to be your friend.
- Lets talk about the issue you know very well – it is the election of the Ukrainian judge of the European Court of Human Rights. Why this process is so long? I know that there is some misunderstanding – or something else – between the President of Ukraine, his Secretariat and the Council of Europe. Can you explain what’s happening and what is the future of this issue?
- You are absolutely right – I agree with you – it just takes for too long to settle this issue. When I visited Kiev last time, I had discussions about it, in particular, with people in the Secretariat of the President. Based on these discussions –they were private discussions – I think there was a lot of misunderstanding. I have done my best to clarify the situation and the rules for the Ukrainian authorities. If there is goodwill on their side, this issue should be settled within the next few weeks.
- I hope so. But what if the problem will not be settled? What next?
- What I’m saying about the political difficulties – not crisis, but difficulties – in Ukraine is that they distract attention. They draw attention away from the real problems of the people of Ukraine. There is an argument from Ukrainian authorities that because there is a political tension, they focus on other issues. But the important issue of the election of the judge should be settled – the quicker, the better for the people of Ukraine.
- It seems to me that the monitoring process concerning Ukraine will not be finished in the near future…
- I will be surprised if the monitoring process is finished in the near future. I would like it to finish, but I do not think it will be finished, until Ukraine has made more progress in keeping its promises. So, I repeat: instead of talking about an early election, instead of talking about when you will have presidential elections, instead of talking about getting your judge elected, it would be a very good thing if the politicians of Ukraine concentrated on the outstanding promises which they made on behalf of Ukraine, when it joined the Council of Europe. Then I would celebrate with the people of Ukraine the end of the monitoring process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
