Dear friends!
I would be pleased to see all the followers of my blog, and all the experts interested in Ukrainian politics, as readers and "likers" of my new Facebook page - World Press and Bloggers about Ukraine.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/World-press-and-bloggers-about-Ukraine-Svit-pro-Ukrainu/154942321217866
With kind regards,
Tetyana Vysotska.
Showing posts with label Ukraine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ukraine. Show all posts
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
NO to NATO. The question of NATO membership is withdrawn from contemporary agenda for Ukraine – Foreign Minister.
The very idea of possible granting the NATO membership for Ukraine is aggravating the situation in security sphere of the region. Moreover, this idea is not supported by majority of Ukrainians. That’s why it sounds reasonable to withdraw question of possible membership of Ukraine in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization from the country’s foreign agenda. Such was the main message conveyed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Kostyantyn Hryshchenko at the 11th Interdepartmental Meeting on questions of coordination of the executive power institutions in foreign policy sphere (27 May 2010).
“This idea is destructively influencing the effectiveness of foreign policy of our state, and the security situation in the region”, Mr. Hryshchenko said. Ukraine is going to develop its relationships with the Alliance, but only in frames of mutually beneficial co-operation, he added. But “the question of membership has been withdrawn from agenda”.
“This idea is destructively influencing the effectiveness of foreign policy of our state, and the security situation in the region”, Mr. Hryshchenko said. Ukraine is going to develop its relationships with the Alliance, but only in frames of mutually beneficial co-operation, he added. But “the question of membership has been withdrawn from agenda”.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Revenge or Justice? Old criminal case re-launched against ex-PM of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko.
Today, on 12 May 2010, former Prime Minister and current active oppositionist Yulia Tymoshenko visited the Main Investigative Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine. She was officially informed that the criminal case No4912-93 has been re-launched against her.
It is an old, but not very clear story. There is no official information yet on the content of a case, but it is said that the case concerns suspected bribes. I may only say for sure that the criminal case No4912-93 against Mrs. Tymoshenko was opened in May 2004, while she was in a strong opposition to President Leonid Kuchma. Current President Viktor Yanukovych had been serving as a Prime Minister that time.
According to the Prosecutor General’s Office information service, the proceedings were closed in January 2005 – after the Orange Revolution and the inauguration of President Viktor Yushchenko. The planned investigative actions were not completed, PGO press service claims, and the pre-court trial has been re-launched.
Yulia Tymoshenko states that the case No4912-93 was closed in 2004 (e.g. before she came to power). At the today’s press briefing near the office of the PGO Main Investigative Department, she said that the investigation was dismissed due to the absence of crime components. ‘Prosecutor General’s Office is a repressive instrument of Yanukovych”, she argues. “A big shadow project on privatization of state monopolies has been prepared, using the technology of foundation of joint ventures with foreign country. Our political team is the only one which opposes to that”.
The same time some fresh cases have been opened against the team of Yulia Tymoshenko. The Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Sivkovych has recently informed journalists that investigation of cases on stealing the budgetary funds by the Tymoshenko’s Government is planned to be finished by autumn 2010. By that time “the majority of opposition members will think on how to hide or escape”, he added. The alleged corrupt practices in a budget sphere are estimated to overcome 100 billion UAH (more than 12.5 billion USD).
Meanwhile, on 17-18 May the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev will visit Ukraine again – to sign more documents, strengthening the ties between two countries. First of all, an agreement on the demarcation of Russia-Ukraine border is to be signed. Let’s see what Ukraine is granting to Russia in this field.
It is interesting to mention that on the day of Medvedev’s arrival to Kiev, Yulia Tymoshenko is invited to the PGO office again. Revenge or justice?
It is an old, but not very clear story. There is no official information yet on the content of a case, but it is said that the case concerns suspected bribes. I may only say for sure that the criminal case No4912-93 against Mrs. Tymoshenko was opened in May 2004, while she was in a strong opposition to President Leonid Kuchma. Current President Viktor Yanukovych had been serving as a Prime Minister that time.
According to the Prosecutor General’s Office information service, the proceedings were closed in January 2005 – after the Orange Revolution and the inauguration of President Viktor Yushchenko. The planned investigative actions were not completed, PGO press service claims, and the pre-court trial has been re-launched.
Yulia Tymoshenko states that the case No4912-93 was closed in 2004 (e.g. before she came to power). At the today’s press briefing near the office of the PGO Main Investigative Department, she said that the investigation was dismissed due to the absence of crime components. ‘Prosecutor General’s Office is a repressive instrument of Yanukovych”, she argues. “A big shadow project on privatization of state monopolies has been prepared, using the technology of foundation of joint ventures with foreign country. Our political team is the only one which opposes to that”.
The same time some fresh cases have been opened against the team of Yulia Tymoshenko. The Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Sivkovych has recently informed journalists that investigation of cases on stealing the budgetary funds by the Tymoshenko’s Government is planned to be finished by autumn 2010. By that time “the majority of opposition members will think on how to hide or escape”, he added. The alleged corrupt practices in a budget sphere are estimated to overcome 100 billion UAH (more than 12.5 billion USD).
Meanwhile, on 17-18 May the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev will visit Ukraine again – to sign more documents, strengthening the ties between two countries. First of all, an agreement on the demarcation of Russia-Ukraine border is to be signed. Let’s see what Ukraine is granting to Russia in this field.
It is interesting to mention that on the day of Medvedev’s arrival to Kiev, Yulia Tymoshenko is invited to the PGO office again. Revenge or justice?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
No losers, but Ukraine. The USA and Russia signed START II – a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
Today, on 8 April 2010 the Presidents of Russia and the United States have signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START II, which is to replace the Treaty between the USA and the USSR on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START), signed on 31 July 1991, and expired on 5 December 2009.
The new START has already been called as a new significant step in bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the United States. But, despite all the words about strengthening the international security, the real needs of non-nuclear-weapon countries, and especially the states that unilaterally forswear the nuclear weapons, were left behind the scene. Neither Barack Obama, nor Dmitrir Medvedev hasn’t declared clearly the willingness of their countries to increase credibility of security guarantees for unprotected “little” members of the international community.
As a result, after the expiration of the old START, Ukraine, a pioneer state which performed a unilateral nuclear disarmament, is left de jure unprotected from possible outside aggression by any clear legal mechanism. For this moment Ukraine is not a party of any international legally binding document, which may for sure guarantee its safety.
“There are no losers and winners. All the international community has won”, Dmitry Medvedev said to journalists at the joint press conference with Barack Obama. I would not agree with Mr. Medvedev. There is at least one loser – as it usually happens, the loser is Ukraine.
Let’s refresh our memory. The role of Ukraine in the global nuclear disarmament process may serve as a great example for any country of P5, taking to the account the unilateral decision of the country to become nuclear-weapons-free in early 1990s (last nuclear weapon left Ukraine in 1996).
Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the nuclear armory heritage of Ukraine was estimated as the third-largest in the world. In 2002 Ukraine declared its willingness to forswear the nuclear arsenal (let’s not get into the details, why it was decided, and whether this decision was clear-eyed).
But in that early 1990s it was obvious that in return for forswearing one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world, Ukraine shall get significant security guarantees (including economy security). The providers of these guarantees should be Russia (as the recipient of the weapons) and the United States.
Such guarantees were impliedly (as Ukraine was one of the parties) provided by mentioned above and now expired Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START), signed by the USA and the USSR in 1991. To present a kind of extra-guarantees, after the Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of Ukraine, the USA, and Russia (14 January 1994), the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed on 5 December 1994. This document was closely connected with the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of the Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in November 1994.
Budapest Memorandum was signed by Ukraine, Russia, United States, and United Kingdom. China and France assured their support and security guarantees for Ukraine in the diplomatic notes of 5 December 1994. No questions? There are a lot. The problem is that the Budapest Memorandum doesn’t contain the clear mechanisms of guaranteeing the protection for the country, its independence and territorial integrity from any threats. It presents only the mechanism of holding consultations, when such a threat may appear. Moreover, the decisions, taken during the mentioned consultations, may be vetoed by any member of the UN Security Council (for example, by Russia).
As a result, de jure Ukraine is not a member of any system of collective security today – and, de facto, is unprotected.
Years of efforts of Ukrainian diplomacy were dedicated to attempts to formalize the security assurances for Ukraine from nuclear weapons states. To accomplish this goal, a new comprehensive legally binding treaty shall be worked out, taking to the account the START Treaty expiration. This new Treaty shall be signed by all the nuclear states (P5), and should contain clear description of mechanisms of the implementation of security guarantees for Ukraine, including negative security assurances, as well as the responsibility of nuclear states for violation of these obligations. Such an approach will only enhance and strengthen the non-proliferation regime and global security, in particular in the context of establishment of nuclear weapon free zones.
The START II Treaty demonstrated that in can con be considered as such a document. The new document shows a kind of egocentrism of the super powers: the commitment of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to accede the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states was only “taken into account” in the preamble of the START II. Cold War ended, but the negligence to needs of ‘small countries’ is still present not only in presidents’ rhetoric, but also in multilateral documents.
Besides, the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych – during his first visit to Russia – proposed to sign the START II Treaty in Kiev, not in Prague. Such a decision could have served at least as a sign of respect to Ukraine as a country dedicated to global disarmament and non-proliferation. Unfortunately, this proposal was not taken seriously.
The next ‘point of hope’ for Ukrainian security is the NPT Review Conference, which is scheduled for May 2010 (New York). Hopefully, the new edition of the NPT Treaty will include some statements to guarantee peace and stability in one of the biggest states of European continent.
The new START has already been called as a new significant step in bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the United States. But, despite all the words about strengthening the international security, the real needs of non-nuclear-weapon countries, and especially the states that unilaterally forswear the nuclear weapons, were left behind the scene. Neither Barack Obama, nor Dmitrir Medvedev hasn’t declared clearly the willingness of their countries to increase credibility of security guarantees for unprotected “little” members of the international community.
As a result, after the expiration of the old START, Ukraine, a pioneer state which performed a unilateral nuclear disarmament, is left de jure unprotected from possible outside aggression by any clear legal mechanism. For this moment Ukraine is not a party of any international legally binding document, which may for sure guarantee its safety.
“There are no losers and winners. All the international community has won”, Dmitry Medvedev said to journalists at the joint press conference with Barack Obama. I would not agree with Mr. Medvedev. There is at least one loser – as it usually happens, the loser is Ukraine.
Let’s refresh our memory. The role of Ukraine in the global nuclear disarmament process may serve as a great example for any country of P5, taking to the account the unilateral decision of the country to become nuclear-weapons-free in early 1990s (last nuclear weapon left Ukraine in 1996).
Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the nuclear armory heritage of Ukraine was estimated as the third-largest in the world. In 2002 Ukraine declared its willingness to forswear the nuclear arsenal (let’s not get into the details, why it was decided, and whether this decision was clear-eyed).
But in that early 1990s it was obvious that in return for forswearing one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world, Ukraine shall get significant security guarantees (including economy security). The providers of these guarantees should be Russia (as the recipient of the weapons) and the United States.
Such guarantees were impliedly (as Ukraine was one of the parties) provided by mentioned above and now expired Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START), signed by the USA and the USSR in 1991. To present a kind of extra-guarantees, after the Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of Ukraine, the USA, and Russia (14 January 1994), the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed on 5 December 1994. This document was closely connected with the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of the Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in November 1994.
Budapest Memorandum was signed by Ukraine, Russia, United States, and United Kingdom. China and France assured their support and security guarantees for Ukraine in the diplomatic notes of 5 December 1994. No questions? There are a lot. The problem is that the Budapest Memorandum doesn’t contain the clear mechanisms of guaranteeing the protection for the country, its independence and territorial integrity from any threats. It presents only the mechanism of holding consultations, when such a threat may appear. Moreover, the decisions, taken during the mentioned consultations, may be vetoed by any member of the UN Security Council (for example, by Russia).
As a result, de jure Ukraine is not a member of any system of collective security today – and, de facto, is unprotected.
Years of efforts of Ukrainian diplomacy were dedicated to attempts to formalize the security assurances for Ukraine from nuclear weapons states. To accomplish this goal, a new comprehensive legally binding treaty shall be worked out, taking to the account the START Treaty expiration. This new Treaty shall be signed by all the nuclear states (P5), and should contain clear description of mechanisms of the implementation of security guarantees for Ukraine, including negative security assurances, as well as the responsibility of nuclear states for violation of these obligations. Such an approach will only enhance and strengthen the non-proliferation regime and global security, in particular in the context of establishment of nuclear weapon free zones.
The START II Treaty demonstrated that in can con be considered as such a document. The new document shows a kind of egocentrism of the super powers: the commitment of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to accede the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states was only “taken into account” in the preamble of the START II. Cold War ended, but the negligence to needs of ‘small countries’ is still present not only in presidents’ rhetoric, but also in multilateral documents.
Besides, the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych – during his first visit to Russia – proposed to sign the START II Treaty in Kiev, not in Prague. Such a decision could have served at least as a sign of respect to Ukraine as a country dedicated to global disarmament and non-proliferation. Unfortunately, this proposal was not taken seriously.
The next ‘point of hope’ for Ukrainian security is the NPT Review Conference, which is scheduled for May 2010 (New York). Hopefully, the new edition of the NPT Treaty will include some statements to guarantee peace and stability in one of the biggest states of European continent.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Two Hetmans and Defector. The coalition negotiations in the Parliament of Ukraine have reached a final stage.
There is a popular joke-proverb in Ukraine: among three Ukrainians there are two hetmans (hetman is the old Ukrainian Cossack chieftain) and one defector. The proverb reflects the main peculiarity of Ukrainian national character: it is very difficult for us to reach an agreement in political negotiations as every party has its own huge ambitions.
The ‘two hetmans – one defector’ formula is a great illustration of what’s going on inside the Parliament of Ukraine these days. After the inauguration of Viktor Yanukovych as the President of Ukraine, his faction has started negotiations to form a new coalition of majority in Parliament. The Party of Regions expected a kind of blitzkrieg. But the expectations failed. Even the dismissal of Prime Minister and a threat of snap parliamentary election have not led the MPs to consolidation.
The stumbling block of the ‘coalition saga’ hides in provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, which have no clear regulation of the process of formation of the coalition in Parliament.
A bit of prehistory. Before 2004, Ukraine had a majority voting system, when each constituency elected its own Member of Parliament. (I still hope we will come back to this scheme one day). But in December 2004, at the peak of Orange Revolution, the Constitution of Ukraine was amended, changing the voting system from majority to proportional vote. The amendments came into force in 2006, when first ‘proportional’ parliamentary election was conducted.
The December-2004 amendments also introduced new terms ‘majority’ and ‘coalition’ in Ukrainian parliament. According to the amended Chapter 83 of Constitution, “basing on the consensus of political viewpoints the coalition of the MP’s factions shall be formed, comprising the majority of Members of Parliament of Ukraine from the constitutional membership of the Parliament of Ukraine”. If the coalition is not formed duting 30 days, the President of Ukraine has a constitutional right (not obligation) to dismiss Parliament.
The main question of today’s Ukrainian political discussions is whether the coalition of factions, which have the majority of seats in total amount of MPs, or the coalition of majority of MPs shall be formed.
If the constitutional way of formation of the coalition is a simple sum of factions, the Party of Regions can not form the coalition without the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence faction. (Extra details on Ukrainian parliamentary arithmetic may be found in one of my previous posts)
Moreover, due to the current situation inside the OU-PS faction (which is divided to little groups of interest, and can not act as a monolith body), the formation of the coalition on the base of factions, not MPs individually, is totally impossible. Every part of the OU-PS faction tried to lobby the appointment of its candidate for the position of Prime Minister – the names of Arseniy Yatseniuk, Viktor Yushchenko, and some other variants were proposed. As a result, the Party of Regions ‘got tired’ and made a decision to propose the candidature of its member Mykola Azarov (ex-Minister of Finance and Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine).
(Some rumors say that Azarov was planned for the PM position from the very beginning, and the negotiations on the ‘non-Party-of-Regions’ candidate were just a trick).
Nevertheless the fact is the following: tomorrow, on 11 of March 2010, the Party of Regions will form the coalition of MPs (based on its own faction, factions of the Block of Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn, Communist Party, and some individual MPs from the OU-PS and even from the Block of ex-PM Yulia Tymoshenko plus independent MPs).
All the political forces who will be eliminated from acting power after the formation of a new coalition are claiming that such a coalition will be unconstitutional. Among them – Yulia Tymoshenko and her allies, Arseniy Yatseniuk, and even Viktor Yushchenko (who seriously hoped to become a PM by himself).
By the way, number 3 according to the results of the first round of Presidential election – 2010 Sergiy Tigipko has agreed to become a Vice-Prime Minister in a new Government (it is a result of his yesterday’s meeting with Viktor Yanukovych). Number 4, Arseniy Yatseniuk has decided to form its own opposition government. The same business is in plans of Yulia Tymoshenko who declared herself as the only leader of democratic opposition. (See the proverb about two hetmans).
The opponents of the ‘individually made’ coalition are referring to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No 16-pn/2008 of 17 September 2008, which has interpreted the Constitutional provisions in favor of faction-based formation of the coalition.
Again a prehistory. The need in the interpretation of the coalition-building part of the Constitution was caused by decision of two MPs from the OU-PS and BYT factions (on 6 June 2008) to withdraw their membership in the coalition, formed by their factions. As the result, the coalition had less than 226 members (the majority of MPs).
The same time (it is what the opposition doesn’t mention it its rhetoric), in the decision No 16-pn/2008 the Constitutional Court stated that on that time the Parliament of Ukraine had no legitimate Rules of Procedure, which, according to the Constitution, shall regulate the process of formation and the termination of activities of the coalition: “The filling of such gaps (in legislation) is not the authority of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. These questions shall be regulated in the Constitution of Ukraine and/or in the Law of Ukraine on the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine”.
I would also quote the Constitution of Ukraine here: “The basis for the formation, organization of operation, and termination of activities of coalition of deputy factions in the Parliament of Ukraine shall be established by the Constitution of Ukraine and Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine”.
The Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine were adopted (at last) on 10 February 2010. On 9 March 2010 Parliament adopted amendments to the Law on the Rules of Procedure, which permits to form the coalition of majority according to the individual membership principle.
So, the Rules of Procedure and the common sense say that it is possible to form a coalition, comprising 226 and more Members of Parliament of Ukraine (i.e. the majority of MPs).
Moreover, the individual way of formation of the coalition corresponds with the international standards and the rule of law. The European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) has issued the Opinion on the amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine adopted on 8.12.2004 (adopted by the Commission at its 63rd plenary session in Venice, 10-11 June 2005).
The opinion of the Venice Commission states the following:
“It may be questioned whether such a formalised procedure for forming a parliamentary majority would contribute to enhancing political stability in Ukraine. Furthermore, it could hardly be seen as compatible with the freedom of the choice and decision guaranteed to political parties by the Constitution, in conformity with European standards in this field. Generally speaking, alliances between political parties depend on the free choice of the parties concerned, and will last as long as the governing bodies of the parties find it convenient to stick to the negotiated agreements. In addition, a coalition government may give disproportionate power to small parties and therefore be unrepresentative”.
Full version of the Venice Commission opinion may be read here.
For all intents and purposes, it is unconstitutional indeed to restrict the activities of Members of Parliament of Ukraine as representatives of citizens of Ukraine by the ‘will of the faction’. Besides, even in this convocation of Parliament only the Communist party faction consists of members of one political party. Other factions are political blocks of two and more parties’ representatives. So, it is not logical to push them into the borders of ‘united actions inside the faction’.
When I was discussing this question with my friend (ex-journalist of Yulia Tymoshenko newspaper) yesterday, she invented a very interesting idea. If the coalition is formed only by factions, there is no need in personal vote in Parliament at all, she said. Heads of parliamentary factions may single-handedly decide, which a faction’s position is, and all the decisions in Parliament shall be made by simple arithmetical calculations. Than, there is no need to keep a building of the Parliament, she added. What a great way to save money for a state budget in crisis times!
The ‘two hetmans – one defector’ formula is a great illustration of what’s going on inside the Parliament of Ukraine these days. After the inauguration of Viktor Yanukovych as the President of Ukraine, his faction has started negotiations to form a new coalition of majority in Parliament. The Party of Regions expected a kind of blitzkrieg. But the expectations failed. Even the dismissal of Prime Minister and a threat of snap parliamentary election have not led the MPs to consolidation.
The stumbling block of the ‘coalition saga’ hides in provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, which have no clear regulation of the process of formation of the coalition in Parliament.
A bit of prehistory. Before 2004, Ukraine had a majority voting system, when each constituency elected its own Member of Parliament. (I still hope we will come back to this scheme one day). But in December 2004, at the peak of Orange Revolution, the Constitution of Ukraine was amended, changing the voting system from majority to proportional vote. The amendments came into force in 2006, when first ‘proportional’ parliamentary election was conducted.
The December-2004 amendments also introduced new terms ‘majority’ and ‘coalition’ in Ukrainian parliament. According to the amended Chapter 83 of Constitution, “basing on the consensus of political viewpoints the coalition of the MP’s factions shall be formed, comprising the majority of Members of Parliament of Ukraine from the constitutional membership of the Parliament of Ukraine”. If the coalition is not formed duting 30 days, the President of Ukraine has a constitutional right (not obligation) to dismiss Parliament.
The main question of today’s Ukrainian political discussions is whether the coalition of factions, which have the majority of seats in total amount of MPs, or the coalition of majority of MPs shall be formed.
If the constitutional way of formation of the coalition is a simple sum of factions, the Party of Regions can not form the coalition without the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence faction. (Extra details on Ukrainian parliamentary arithmetic may be found in one of my previous posts)
Moreover, due to the current situation inside the OU-PS faction (which is divided to little groups of interest, and can not act as a monolith body), the formation of the coalition on the base of factions, not MPs individually, is totally impossible. Every part of the OU-PS faction tried to lobby the appointment of its candidate for the position of Prime Minister – the names of Arseniy Yatseniuk, Viktor Yushchenko, and some other variants were proposed. As a result, the Party of Regions ‘got tired’ and made a decision to propose the candidature of its member Mykola Azarov (ex-Minister of Finance and Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine).
(Some rumors say that Azarov was planned for the PM position from the very beginning, and the negotiations on the ‘non-Party-of-Regions’ candidate were just a trick).
Nevertheless the fact is the following: tomorrow, on 11 of March 2010, the Party of Regions will form the coalition of MPs (based on its own faction, factions of the Block of Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn, Communist Party, and some individual MPs from the OU-PS and even from the Block of ex-PM Yulia Tymoshenko plus independent MPs).
All the political forces who will be eliminated from acting power after the formation of a new coalition are claiming that such a coalition will be unconstitutional. Among them – Yulia Tymoshenko and her allies, Arseniy Yatseniuk, and even Viktor Yushchenko (who seriously hoped to become a PM by himself).
By the way, number 3 according to the results of the first round of Presidential election – 2010 Sergiy Tigipko has agreed to become a Vice-Prime Minister in a new Government (it is a result of his yesterday’s meeting with Viktor Yanukovych). Number 4, Arseniy Yatseniuk has decided to form its own opposition government. The same business is in plans of Yulia Tymoshenko who declared herself as the only leader of democratic opposition. (See the proverb about two hetmans).
The opponents of the ‘individually made’ coalition are referring to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No 16-pn/2008 of 17 September 2008, which has interpreted the Constitutional provisions in favor of faction-based formation of the coalition.
Again a prehistory. The need in the interpretation of the coalition-building part of the Constitution was caused by decision of two MPs from the OU-PS and BYT factions (on 6 June 2008) to withdraw their membership in the coalition, formed by their factions. As the result, the coalition had less than 226 members (the majority of MPs).
The same time (it is what the opposition doesn’t mention it its rhetoric), in the decision No 16-pn/2008 the Constitutional Court stated that on that time the Parliament of Ukraine had no legitimate Rules of Procedure, which, according to the Constitution, shall regulate the process of formation and the termination of activities of the coalition: “The filling of such gaps (in legislation) is not the authority of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. These questions shall be regulated in the Constitution of Ukraine and/or in the Law of Ukraine on the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine”.
I would also quote the Constitution of Ukraine here: “The basis for the formation, organization of operation, and termination of activities of coalition of deputy factions in the Parliament of Ukraine shall be established by the Constitution of Ukraine and Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine”.
The Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine were adopted (at last) on 10 February 2010. On 9 March 2010 Parliament adopted amendments to the Law on the Rules of Procedure, which permits to form the coalition of majority according to the individual membership principle.
So, the Rules of Procedure and the common sense say that it is possible to form a coalition, comprising 226 and more Members of Parliament of Ukraine (i.e. the majority of MPs).
Moreover, the individual way of formation of the coalition corresponds with the international standards and the rule of law. The European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) has issued the Opinion on the amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine adopted on 8.12.2004 (adopted by the Commission at its 63rd plenary session in Venice, 10-11 June 2005).
The opinion of the Venice Commission states the following:
“It may be questioned whether such a formalised procedure for forming a parliamentary majority would contribute to enhancing political stability in Ukraine. Furthermore, it could hardly be seen as compatible with the freedom of the choice and decision guaranteed to political parties by the Constitution, in conformity with European standards in this field. Generally speaking, alliances between political parties depend on the free choice of the parties concerned, and will last as long as the governing bodies of the parties find it convenient to stick to the negotiated agreements. In addition, a coalition government may give disproportionate power to small parties and therefore be unrepresentative”.
Full version of the Venice Commission opinion may be read here.
For all intents and purposes, it is unconstitutional indeed to restrict the activities of Members of Parliament of Ukraine as representatives of citizens of Ukraine by the ‘will of the faction’. Besides, even in this convocation of Parliament only the Communist party faction consists of members of one political party. Other factions are political blocks of two and more parties’ representatives. So, it is not logical to push them into the borders of ‘united actions inside the faction’.
When I was discussing this question with my friend (ex-journalist of Yulia Tymoshenko newspaper) yesterday, she invented a very interesting idea. If the coalition is formed only by factions, there is no need in personal vote in Parliament at all, she said. Heads of parliamentary factions may single-handedly decide, which a faction’s position is, and all the decisions in Parliament shall be made by simple arithmetical calculations. Than, there is no need to keep a building of the Parliament, she added. What a great way to save money for a state budget in crisis times!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Parliament of Ukraine has just passed a no-confidence motion against the Government of Yulia Tymoshenko.
Here are the results of the vote. 243 Members of Parliament of 404 registered today has voted in favor of Yulia Tymoshenko’s dismissal. Among them were:
172 MPs from the Party of Regions faction (whole faction)
7 MPs from Yulia Tymoshenko Block
15 MPs from Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense faction
27 MPs from Communist party faction (whole faction)
19 MPs from Block of Volodymyr Lytvyn (all except Lytvyn)
3 independent MPs
Monday, March 1, 2010
New lords, new laws.
The chapter about Holodomor has dissapeared from the official website of President of Ukraine.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Yushchenko or Yatseniuk – who will be the next Prime Minister of Ukraine?
Viktor Yanukovych was inaugurated as the President of Ukraine today. Yulia Tymoshenko still insists that he is not her President. Prime Minister and members of her faction have even ignored the official inauguration events. Looks not very smart, imho.
But who will be the next Prime Minister? Has Yulia Tymoshenko any chance to save her chair? Here is some news on the negotiations inside Parliament:
1. The Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT) has started to gather signatures of MPs to justify the current parliamentary coalition, the existence of which is rather questionable. (The Speaker of Ukrainian Parliament Volodymyr Lytvyn has demanded to prove the existence of current coalition before 2 of March, otherwise a new coalition shall be formed, or in 60 days Parliament will be dismissed according to the Constitution).
2. The BYT will definitely fail to gather 226 signatures; it is obviously seen after today’s sitting of the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense (OU-PS) faction. Not more than 10 MPs from the faction would support Mrs. Tymoshenko premiership.
3. To form a new coalition (in order to avoid the early election) the Party of Regions and its leader Viktor Yanukovych need support of the OU-PS faction.
4. According to the info from today’s OU-PS faction sitting, the majority of MPs may support the coalition with Yanukovych party, but only if the ‘democratic Prime Minister’ is elected (i.e. not-member of the Party of Regions).
5. The candidacy of ex-President Viktor Yushchenko has been actively lobbied, and is in general approved by the Party of Regions. But the OU-PS faction (ex-pro-Yushchenko monolith, now split to little groups of interest) has not approved the Yushchenko-PM-scheme. Yet?
6. Today OU-PS MPs had discussed the idea to nominate ‘number 4’ in the first round of Presidential election Arseniy Yatseniuk as a future PM. He made a speech, which did not inspire the majority of veteran MPs as was made in Yatseniuk’s habitual paternalistic and moralizing style.
7. On Monday, 1st of March, the OU-PS faction will have the next sitting to approve the final decision. Before that they are going to negotiate with Yanukovych, and also with Tymoshenko.
8. It sounds surreal, but I think Viktor Yushchenko has about 80% of chance to become next Prime Minister – he is the most convenient for all (as nobody wants to keep the rating of Yatseniuk).
9. Though the PM’s chair is not a convenient place to seat in these days, due to the total crisis of Ukrainian economy and state finances, when the declaration of default is a very realistic outcome.
But who will be the next Prime Minister? Has Yulia Tymoshenko any chance to save her chair? Here is some news on the negotiations inside Parliament:
1. The Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT) has started to gather signatures of MPs to justify the current parliamentary coalition, the existence of which is rather questionable. (The Speaker of Ukrainian Parliament Volodymyr Lytvyn has demanded to prove the existence of current coalition before 2 of March, otherwise a new coalition shall be formed, or in 60 days Parliament will be dismissed according to the Constitution).
2. The BYT will definitely fail to gather 226 signatures; it is obviously seen after today’s sitting of the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense (OU-PS) faction. Not more than 10 MPs from the faction would support Mrs. Tymoshenko premiership.
3. To form a new coalition (in order to avoid the early election) the Party of Regions and its leader Viktor Yanukovych need support of the OU-PS faction.
4. According to the info from today’s OU-PS faction sitting, the majority of MPs may support the coalition with Yanukovych party, but only if the ‘democratic Prime Minister’ is elected (i.e. not-member of the Party of Regions).
5. The candidacy of ex-President Viktor Yushchenko has been actively lobbied, and is in general approved by the Party of Regions. But the OU-PS faction (ex-pro-Yushchenko monolith, now split to little groups of interest) has not approved the Yushchenko-PM-scheme. Yet?
6. Today OU-PS MPs had discussed the idea to nominate ‘number 4’ in the first round of Presidential election Arseniy Yatseniuk as a future PM. He made a speech, which did not inspire the majority of veteran MPs as was made in Yatseniuk’s habitual paternalistic and moralizing style.
7. On Monday, 1st of March, the OU-PS faction will have the next sitting to approve the final decision. Before that they are going to negotiate with Yanukovych, and also with Tymoshenko.
8. It sounds surreal, but I think Viktor Yushchenko has about 80% of chance to become next Prime Minister – he is the most convenient for all (as nobody wants to keep the rating of Yatseniuk).
9. Though the PM’s chair is not a convenient place to seat in these days, due to the total crisis of Ukrainian economy and state finances, when the declaration of default is a very realistic outcome.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Court-Round. Hearing of the case on election of President of Ukraine to be broadcasted live this week, and the Inauguration ceremony – next week.
Presidents Obama, Medvedev, Sarkozy, and other world leaders has already congratulated Yanukovych on winning the presidential election, but Prime Minister Tymoshenko still fights. Tomorrow (on 16 February) she is going to take the election-case to the Supreme Administrative Court. The victory was fabricated, Yulia Tymoshenko claims. The same time Viktor Yanukovych is getting ready for the inauguration: Parliament is expected to approve the date – 25 February 2010 – during its tomorrow morning sitting (16 Feb).
On Sunday, 14 February, the Central Election Commission of Ukraine officially declared Viktor Yanukovych as a winner of presidential election in Ukraine (the results adopted by the CEC are here in Ukrainian language).
One day before the CEC decision, on 13 February, Yulia Tymoshenko made an appeal to the nation, saying she would not accept the victory of Yanukovych because the result of election was fraudulent. Saturday declaration was the first public appearance of Mrs. Tymoshenko after the Election Day (except of her televised opening speech at the Cabinet sitting, when she avoided mentioning election topic at all). ‘I want to declare very clear: Yanukovych is not our President. In whatever way the situation develops, he will never be the legitimately elected President of Ukraine’, she said.
So, the ‘court-round’ of election of the President of Ukraine – 2010 is inevitable. But it is most likely that the claim of Prime Minister will not be satisfied. The difference between candidates is to big (3.48 percent) to prove the falsifications and to change the winner’s name. Though the Tymoshenko camp (at least a part of it, as some personages, including, according to rumors, the Vice Speaker of Parliament Mykola Tomenko, Vice Prime Minister Grygoriy Nemyria, and even a top-lawyer of BYT and Deputy Head of Block of Yulia Tymoshenko faction Andriy Portnov were strongly against the court appeal) expects the cancellation of the election result and declaration of a repeat, third round of election, or even the roll-back to the new first round with a new nomination of presidential candidates.
Whatever the case, the show will surely be worth watching. I used a word ‘show’ as the First Vice-Prime Minister Oleksandr Turchynov has promised today that the Supreme Administrative Court sitting will be broadcasted live on TV.
Very interesting point is the possible involvement of some OSCE observers as witnesses during the court examination. Direct speech of Yulia Tymoshenko: ‘My convincement in the idea that we have to fight is supported also by the last evidences of some OSCE observers. They expressed a wish to testify in courts on our side with video materials, with their estimations that there was a system fraud at the Ukrainian election’. Oleksandr Turchynov also has said today that they will file to the court some video materials, which prove the fraud in favor of Yanukovych.
The same time the winner’s establishment prepares to the inauguration procedure. According to the law on election of the President of Ukraine, the inauguration shall take place during 30 days from the official declaration of the winner by the CEC (in this case – by March, 14). The first question in tomorrow’s order of business of Parliament is the establishment of the inauguration date on Thurthday, 25 February. This proposal is very likely to be approved by the majority of MPs.
The Inauguration Day is closer, and the negotiations inside Parliament are more and more active. As I mentioned in my previous posts, to dismiss Prime Minister a new coalition of at least 226 MPs (leading by the 172-seats Party of Regions) should be formed. Despite of some controversial Constitutional provisions on the procedure of coalition-building (some details on the formation of current, very questionable BYT-leaded coalition may be found here) the coalition of the Party of Regions, the Block of the Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn, part of Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence faction, and maybe the Communist Party faction is likely to be formed, and Parliament will pass a no-confidence motion against the PM Tymoshenko. It is very probable that the no-confidence-vote will appear in the parliamentary agenda even next week.
By the way, the ex-presidential Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence (OU-PS) faction is demonstrating re-load tendencies. Some members of the faction has already mentioned that there are active negotiations on the formation of a new political movement (group, party) on the base of OU-PS, with the participation of members of other parliamentary factions (BYT, Party of Regions) and out-of-parliament political forces.
Who will be elected as a new Prime Minister? It may be a PM of a current ‘opposition government’, ex-Vice Prime Minister (2002-2005 and 2006) and ex-Minister of Finance (2006), Head of Viktor Yanukovych electoral headquarters Mykola Azarov. But some people say that the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko may be appointed to this position due to some shadow pre-election agreement with Yanukovych. Let’s see. The scheme with the Prime Minister who is not a member of the Party of Regions is very convincing – in that case ‘democratic’ forces in Parliament will have a strong argument to explain to electorate their decision to join the anti-crisis coalition of Viktor Yanukovych.
In the meantime the phantom of snap parliamentary poll is still present in Parliament’s building. As it would be easy to link the early parliamentary election with the regular local elections, scheduled for this year, MPs are preparing the decision to postpone the local vote, scheduled on 30 May 2010 (the campaign shall be started on 23 February). Vice-Speaker Mykola Tomenko (BYT faction) has registered a project of law proposing to shift the local election date to 27 March 2011. MP from the OU-PS faction Oksana Bilozir proposed another (earlier) date in her law project – 26 September 2010. Parliament will discuss this question tomorrow. Show to be continued.
On Sunday, 14 February, the Central Election Commission of Ukraine officially declared Viktor Yanukovych as a winner of presidential election in Ukraine (the results adopted by the CEC are here in Ukrainian language).
One day before the CEC decision, on 13 February, Yulia Tymoshenko made an appeal to the nation, saying she would not accept the victory of Yanukovych because the result of election was fraudulent. Saturday declaration was the first public appearance of Mrs. Tymoshenko after the Election Day (except of her televised opening speech at the Cabinet sitting, when she avoided mentioning election topic at all). ‘I want to declare very clear: Yanukovych is not our President. In whatever way the situation develops, he will never be the legitimately elected President of Ukraine’, she said.
So, the ‘court-round’ of election of the President of Ukraine – 2010 is inevitable. But it is most likely that the claim of Prime Minister will not be satisfied. The difference between candidates is to big (3.48 percent) to prove the falsifications and to change the winner’s name. Though the Tymoshenko camp (at least a part of it, as some personages, including, according to rumors, the Vice Speaker of Parliament Mykola Tomenko, Vice Prime Minister Grygoriy Nemyria, and even a top-lawyer of BYT and Deputy Head of Block of Yulia Tymoshenko faction Andriy Portnov were strongly against the court appeal) expects the cancellation of the election result and declaration of a repeat, third round of election, or even the roll-back to the new first round with a new nomination of presidential candidates.
Whatever the case, the show will surely be worth watching. I used a word ‘show’ as the First Vice-Prime Minister Oleksandr Turchynov has promised today that the Supreme Administrative Court sitting will be broadcasted live on TV.
Very interesting point is the possible involvement of some OSCE observers as witnesses during the court examination. Direct speech of Yulia Tymoshenko: ‘My convincement in the idea that we have to fight is supported also by the last evidences of some OSCE observers. They expressed a wish to testify in courts on our side with video materials, with their estimations that there was a system fraud at the Ukrainian election’. Oleksandr Turchynov also has said today that they will file to the court some video materials, which prove the fraud in favor of Yanukovych.
The same time the winner’s establishment prepares to the inauguration procedure. According to the law on election of the President of Ukraine, the inauguration shall take place during 30 days from the official declaration of the winner by the CEC (in this case – by March, 14). The first question in tomorrow’s order of business of Parliament is the establishment of the inauguration date on Thurthday, 25 February. This proposal is very likely to be approved by the majority of MPs.
The Inauguration Day is closer, and the negotiations inside Parliament are more and more active. As I mentioned in my previous posts, to dismiss Prime Minister a new coalition of at least 226 MPs (leading by the 172-seats Party of Regions) should be formed. Despite of some controversial Constitutional provisions on the procedure of coalition-building (some details on the formation of current, very questionable BYT-leaded coalition may be found here) the coalition of the Party of Regions, the Block of the Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn, part of Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence faction, and maybe the Communist Party faction is likely to be formed, and Parliament will pass a no-confidence motion against the PM Tymoshenko. It is very probable that the no-confidence-vote will appear in the parliamentary agenda even next week.
By the way, the ex-presidential Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence (OU-PS) faction is demonstrating re-load tendencies. Some members of the faction has already mentioned that there are active negotiations on the formation of a new political movement (group, party) on the base of OU-PS, with the participation of members of other parliamentary factions (BYT, Party of Regions) and out-of-parliament political forces.
Who will be elected as a new Prime Minister? It may be a PM of a current ‘opposition government’, ex-Vice Prime Minister (2002-2005 and 2006) and ex-Minister of Finance (2006), Head of Viktor Yanukovych electoral headquarters Mykola Azarov. But some people say that the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko may be appointed to this position due to some shadow pre-election agreement with Yanukovych. Let’s see. The scheme with the Prime Minister who is not a member of the Party of Regions is very convincing – in that case ‘democratic’ forces in Parliament will have a strong argument to explain to electorate their decision to join the anti-crisis coalition of Viktor Yanukovych.
In the meantime the phantom of snap parliamentary poll is still present in Parliament’s building. As it would be easy to link the early parliamentary election with the regular local elections, scheduled for this year, MPs are preparing the decision to postpone the local vote, scheduled on 30 May 2010 (the campaign shall be started on 23 February). Vice-Speaker Mykola Tomenko (BYT faction) has registered a project of law proposing to shift the local election date to 27 March 2011. MP from the OU-PS faction Oksana Bilozir proposed another (earlier) date in her law project – 26 September 2010. Parliament will discuss this question tomorrow. Show to be continued.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Breaking News. Yulia Tymoshenko decided not to recognize the victory of Viktor Yanukovych and to contest the result of election in court.
The press conference of Yulia Tymoshenko was announced and cancelled two times today. Instead of making public speeches, Prime Minister held a closed sitting of her parliamentary faction. Yulia Tymoshenko, who, according to preliminary calculations of Central Election Commission, is 3.20 percent behind Viktor Yanukovych, had to make a vital decision: what to do next?
The result of today’s evening sitting couldn’t stay hidden from journalists (that’s what democracy is, by the way!). Ms Tymoshenko declared that she will not recognize the victory of head of the Party of Regions Viktor Yanukovych, and ordered her lawyers to start legal proceedings to contest the result of the election. The main goal is to repeat voting, i.e. to have the third round of presidential election as it was in 2004.
According to the latest CEC data (99.44 percent of electronic ballot-count records counted), Viktor Yanukovych has 48.81 percent of the vote, and Yulia Tymoshenko – 45.61 percent. 4.37% of Ukrainians voted against all. 1.19% of ballots were declared invalid.
The turnout on 7 February was 69.07%.
To be continued tomorrow.
The result of today’s evening sitting couldn’t stay hidden from journalists (that’s what democracy is, by the way!). Ms Tymoshenko declared that she will not recognize the victory of head of the Party of Regions Viktor Yanukovych, and ordered her lawyers to start legal proceedings to contest the result of the election. The main goal is to repeat voting, i.e. to have the third round of presidential election as it was in 2004.
According to the latest CEC data (99.44 percent of electronic ballot-count records counted), Viktor Yanukovych has 48.81 percent of the vote, and Yulia Tymoshenko – 45.61 percent. 4.37% of Ukrainians voted against all. 1.19% of ballots were declared invalid.
The turnout on 7 February was 69.07%.
To be continued tomorrow.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Guesstimation. Who (and when) will be the next President of Ukraine? And what comes next?
It is my first post here after the first round of presidential election in Ukraine. Obviously, the result was predictable. But nevertheless every Ukrainian needed time to think over in order to understand, what happened. After January, 19, at least one simple thing is clear: there will be no miracle for Ukraine. And no hope for a big change. We’ve got a choice without choice – between two well-known faces.
The results of the first round of Presidential vote in Ukraine demonstrated a confident priority of leader of the opposition Party of Regions, anti-hero of times of the 2004 Orange revolution Viktor Yanukovych, who received a support of 35,32 percent of voters.
The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko has got only 25,05 percent (a gap between two leaders is 10,27 %, which is a big challenge for the PM).
The 7th of February will be a day of a totally hopeless choice for Ukraine. President Viktor Yushchenko had mentioned recently that both candidates are almost equal. Yes, I must confess that there is not much difference between Tymoshenko and Yanukovych. First of all, they’ve got very similar programmes, mostly based on social promises and well-written slogans (it reflects a wider problem of absence of big ideological parties in Ukraine – all the main political forces differ by names of their leaders and oligarchic sponsors). Secondly, they have almost the same origin – East of Ukraine. It is very popular these days to say that Viktor Yanukovych represents Eastern and ‘pro-Russian’ (I don’t agree with that formulation) Donetsk region, and that he has a lot of difficulties with communication in Ukrainian language (though he’s not a good speaker at all). But lot of experts prefer to forget that only a decade ago Yulia Tymoshenko had a nickname “ a gas princess from Dnipropetsovsk”, and that she learned Ukrainian only at the beginnign of 2000th.
The choice between Viktor Yushchenko (who did represent Ukrainian mentality and traditions) and Viktor Yanukovych in 2004 was really a choice between values – Western and Eastern. But the current choice is totally different. It may be said that it is a choice between importers and exporters (as there are more representatives of the biggest export-oriented enterprises are accumulated around Viktor Yanukovych, and Yulia Tymoshenko’s biggest supporters are making their profits on import operations). but it’s not a clear statement at all. I would say, it is just a fight for power between two politicians and their establishments – it is naïve to expect the revolutionary breakthrough from any of them.
Who will win?
Most probably, Yanukovych.
Is it for better, of for worse? I don’t know what to say. No comments for this moment.
Let’s count. (It will be just a ‘guesstimation’ as the percentage strongly depends on the voters’ turnout. Besides, the less turnout we will have in the second round, the better it will be for Mr. Yanukovych, as he proved to have a very stable electorate).
Starting position:
YANUKOVYCH – 35,32 %
TYMOSHENKO – 25,05 %
Both the pretenders are fighting now for votes of supporters of other political heavyweighters.
First of all, it is Sergiy Tigipko who (with a help of a French political technologist Jacques Segela) showed the third result – 13,05 percent. Here I would like to mention that I don’t agree with experts who call Mr. Tigipko a kingmaker. Yes, he may become very and very influential, but only after the parliamentary election. As for now, Mr. Tigipko may hardly influence his electorate to vote for this or that candidate – it’s a specifity of Ukrainian voter, and especially of a well-educated urban voter, than he makes his own decisions, some times unpredictable.
Most of Ukrainians who voted in favor of Tigipko didn’t actually support him as a politician, but were hoping for change and the renovation of Ukrainian politics. On 7th of February a big part of them will stay at home, some will vote against all, and others will divide between Yanukovych and Tymoshenko. I would suppose that at least half of supporters of Tigipko will vote for Yanukovych as they represent Eastern, Central and Southern part of Ukraine.
So, we are adding 6,5% to Yanukovych – subtotal result 41,82 percent. Let’s also give around 4% to Tymoshenko – subtototally 29,05 percent.
Arseniy Yatseniuk with a very unsuccessful advertising campaign, mostly created by Russian team of PR-professionals, has gained only 6,95 percent. Some of his voters will also demonstrate the absenteeism, but the active part will surely vote for Yulia Tymoshenko. Let’s say it will be 5%. (YANUKOVYCH – 41,82 %, TYMOSHENKO – 34,05 %.)
The voters of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko (5,45 %) are also rather unpredictable. Taking to the account the rough fight between PM and President during last months, we may predict that part of them will not show up at the polling places. But I hope Yulia Tymoshenko may count on additional 4,5 percent. (YANUKOVYCH – 41,82 %, TYMOSHENKO – 38,55 %.)
It is for sure that the electorate of a Communist party leader Petro Symonenko (3,54%) will vote for Yanukovych. At least, 3 percent. (Subtotal result: YANUKOVYCH – 44,82 %, TYMOSHENKO – 38,55 %.)
In favor of Prime Minister may be also around 4 percent of voters, who supported other candidates – like Speaker of the Parliament of Ukraine Volodymyr Lytvyn (total 2,35%), radical right politician Oleh Tyahnybok (1,43%), and ex-Minister of Defense Anatoliy Hrytsenko (1,2%).
So, the forecasting figures look like YANUKOVYCH – 44,82 %, TYMOSHENKO – 42,55 %. (The gap is 2,27 percent).
But taking to the account the probable growth of the level of absenteeism, my own style of the vote-count, very favorable to the Prime Minister, and also the fact that Ms. Tymoshenko represents the acting power, I would predict that in reality the gap may be not 2, but 3-4 percent or even more.
Anyway, both candidates are preparing to challenge the result of election in courts. And here comes the next important question:
Is there any chance to have an inauguration in March?
According to the Law on Election of the President of Ukraine, the official results of second round should be declared not later than 17 February. But the court proceedings (which will be long and difficult in case of 1-2-3-percent gap between candidates, or in case of a high level of ‘against all’ votes) may postpone this date even for a month.
The inauguration shall be held in frames of 30 days after the declaration of official results, and some influential off-going forces may try to postpone this date. The elected President shall take the oath during the special parliamentary sitting, which may also be wrecked.
So, there is a chance that the inauguration of nobody-knows-who will be held in March 2010, but as I am informed the headquarters of both candidates has received the instructions to be ready to work till the summer. Maybe, to prepare for the early parliamentary elections, who knows.
Early parliamentary election: to be or not to be?
Analyzing the current alignment of political forces in Ukraine, I am 99 percent sure there will be no early parliamentary election on 30 of May 2010, despite of all the ‘promises’ of the top-politicians.
(The day of 30 of May is widely discussed as a possible date for early parliamentary vote as is an officially established day for the local elections).
The argumentation is simple: there is no parliamentary party in Ukraine, which would be really very interested in early election in 2010. Though, it is very possible that the early parliamentary poll will take place in 2011, even in January 2011, – about one year before the scheduled time.
Why the current composition of Parliament seems to be very livable? First of all, because two biggest factions wouldn’t run the risk of losing the precious parliamentary seats.
The party of Regions is again in the most confident position. In comparison to the results of last parliamentary election of September 2007, Viktor Yanukovych slightly strengthened the ranks of his supporters – on 1 percent (from 34,37%). But it is not clear, how Ukraine will vote for the ‘Regions’ in half of the year, especially if Yanukovych win the presidential position (Ukrainians are predisposed to give less support to the ruling authorities).
Yulia Tymoshenko, to the contrary, has lost more than 5 percent – in 2007 she had 30,71% of votes. And 5 percent is about 20-27 seats in Parliament (it depends on the quantity of parties, which will overcome a 3% threshold).
All the other political parties, presented in Parliament now, including the members of so-called ruling coalition, have very illusive chances to enter the Parliament after the early vote. The block of Viktor Yushchenko Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense has already been falling into pieces, and ex-and-current-pro-presidential MPs are seriously thinking about their political future and risk not to become MPs again in case of the early election. Communist Party understands that it will never win 27 seats in Parliament which they have now. The block of Volodymyr Lytvyn (currently having 20 seats) seems as totally not able to pass the 3% threshold, so, the Speaker would surely form a coalition with a winner of Presidential fight, whoever it will be.
Does a new coalition already exist?
The vote in favor of dismissal of the Interior Minister of Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko on Thursday, 28 January, has showed that a new coalition (pro-Yanukovych one) already exists in Ukrainian Parliament.
Who voted in favor? Here is the list, ahich may be considered as a draft of a 'new coalition':
The Party of Regions faction – 171 vote (out of 172 members of the faction)
The Block of Yulia Tymoshenko faction – 1 vote (out of 153 members of the faction)
Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense faction – 11 votes (out of 71).
I have to add that part of these MPs represent ex-Head of Presidential Secretariat Viktor Baloha. A brother of Viktor Yushchenko Petro and a godmother of President’s child Oksana Bilozir also voted in favor of Minister’s dismissal.
The Communist Party of Ukraine – 27 (out of 27).
The Block of Lytvyn – 19 (out of 20 – as the Speaker decided not to vote).
Independent MPs – 2 (out of 6).
As the proverb says, we shall see how the cat jumps.
The results of the first round of Presidential vote in Ukraine demonstrated a confident priority of leader of the opposition Party of Regions, anti-hero of times of the 2004 Orange revolution Viktor Yanukovych, who received a support of 35,32 percent of voters.
The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko has got only 25,05 percent (a gap between two leaders is 10,27 %, which is a big challenge for the PM).
The 7th of February will be a day of a totally hopeless choice for Ukraine. President Viktor Yushchenko had mentioned recently that both candidates are almost equal. Yes, I must confess that there is not much difference between Tymoshenko and Yanukovych. First of all, they’ve got very similar programmes, mostly based on social promises and well-written slogans (it reflects a wider problem of absence of big ideological parties in Ukraine – all the main political forces differ by names of their leaders and oligarchic sponsors). Secondly, they have almost the same origin – East of Ukraine. It is very popular these days to say that Viktor Yanukovych represents Eastern and ‘pro-Russian’ (I don’t agree with that formulation) Donetsk region, and that he has a lot of difficulties with communication in Ukrainian language (though he’s not a good speaker at all). But lot of experts prefer to forget that only a decade ago Yulia Tymoshenko had a nickname “ a gas princess from Dnipropetsovsk”, and that she learned Ukrainian only at the beginnign of 2000th.
The choice between Viktor Yushchenko (who did represent Ukrainian mentality and traditions) and Viktor Yanukovych in 2004 was really a choice between values – Western and Eastern. But the current choice is totally different. It may be said that it is a choice between importers and exporters (as there are more representatives of the biggest export-oriented enterprises are accumulated around Viktor Yanukovych, and Yulia Tymoshenko’s biggest supporters are making their profits on import operations). but it’s not a clear statement at all. I would say, it is just a fight for power between two politicians and their establishments – it is naïve to expect the revolutionary breakthrough from any of them.
Who will win?
Most probably, Yanukovych.
Is it for better, of for worse? I don’t know what to say. No comments for this moment.
Let’s count. (It will be just a ‘guesstimation’ as the percentage strongly depends on the voters’ turnout. Besides, the less turnout we will have in the second round, the better it will be for Mr. Yanukovych, as he proved to have a very stable electorate).
Starting position:
YANUKOVYCH – 35,32 %
TYMOSHENKO – 25,05 %
Both the pretenders are fighting now for votes of supporters of other political heavyweighters.
First of all, it is Sergiy Tigipko who (with a help of a French political technologist Jacques Segela) showed the third result – 13,05 percent. Here I would like to mention that I don’t agree with experts who call Mr. Tigipko a kingmaker. Yes, he may become very and very influential, but only after the parliamentary election. As for now, Mr. Tigipko may hardly influence his electorate to vote for this or that candidate – it’s a specifity of Ukrainian voter, and especially of a well-educated urban voter, than he makes his own decisions, some times unpredictable.
Most of Ukrainians who voted in favor of Tigipko didn’t actually support him as a politician, but were hoping for change and the renovation of Ukrainian politics. On 7th of February a big part of them will stay at home, some will vote against all, and others will divide between Yanukovych and Tymoshenko. I would suppose that at least half of supporters of Tigipko will vote for Yanukovych as they represent Eastern, Central and Southern part of Ukraine.
So, we are adding 6,5% to Yanukovych – subtotal result 41,82 percent. Let’s also give around 4% to Tymoshenko – subtototally 29,05 percent.
Arseniy Yatseniuk with a very unsuccessful advertising campaign, mostly created by Russian team of PR-professionals, has gained only 6,95 percent. Some of his voters will also demonstrate the absenteeism, but the active part will surely vote for Yulia Tymoshenko. Let’s say it will be 5%. (YANUKOVYCH – 41,82 %, TYMOSHENKO – 34,05 %.)
The voters of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko (5,45 %) are also rather unpredictable. Taking to the account the rough fight between PM and President during last months, we may predict that part of them will not show up at the polling places. But I hope Yulia Tymoshenko may count on additional 4,5 percent. (YANUKOVYCH – 41,82 %, TYMOSHENKO – 38,55 %.)
It is for sure that the electorate of a Communist party leader Petro Symonenko (3,54%) will vote for Yanukovych. At least, 3 percent. (Subtotal result: YANUKOVYCH – 44,82 %, TYMOSHENKO – 38,55 %.)
In favor of Prime Minister may be also around 4 percent of voters, who supported other candidates – like Speaker of the Parliament of Ukraine Volodymyr Lytvyn (total 2,35%), radical right politician Oleh Tyahnybok (1,43%), and ex-Minister of Defense Anatoliy Hrytsenko (1,2%).
So, the forecasting figures look like YANUKOVYCH – 44,82 %, TYMOSHENKO – 42,55 %. (The gap is 2,27 percent).
But taking to the account the probable growth of the level of absenteeism, my own style of the vote-count, very favorable to the Prime Minister, and also the fact that Ms. Tymoshenko represents the acting power, I would predict that in reality the gap may be not 2, but 3-4 percent or even more.
Anyway, both candidates are preparing to challenge the result of election in courts. And here comes the next important question:
Is there any chance to have an inauguration in March?
According to the Law on Election of the President of Ukraine, the official results of second round should be declared not later than 17 February. But the court proceedings (which will be long and difficult in case of 1-2-3-percent gap between candidates, or in case of a high level of ‘against all’ votes) may postpone this date even for a month.
The inauguration shall be held in frames of 30 days after the declaration of official results, and some influential off-going forces may try to postpone this date. The elected President shall take the oath during the special parliamentary sitting, which may also be wrecked.
So, there is a chance that the inauguration of nobody-knows-who will be held in March 2010, but as I am informed the headquarters of both candidates has received the instructions to be ready to work till the summer. Maybe, to prepare for the early parliamentary elections, who knows.
Early parliamentary election: to be or not to be?
Analyzing the current alignment of political forces in Ukraine, I am 99 percent sure there will be no early parliamentary election on 30 of May 2010, despite of all the ‘promises’ of the top-politicians.
(The day of 30 of May is widely discussed as a possible date for early parliamentary vote as is an officially established day for the local elections).
The argumentation is simple: there is no parliamentary party in Ukraine, which would be really very interested in early election in 2010. Though, it is very possible that the early parliamentary poll will take place in 2011, even in January 2011, – about one year before the scheduled time.
Why the current composition of Parliament seems to be very livable? First of all, because two biggest factions wouldn’t run the risk of losing the precious parliamentary seats.
The party of Regions is again in the most confident position. In comparison to the results of last parliamentary election of September 2007, Viktor Yanukovych slightly strengthened the ranks of his supporters – on 1 percent (from 34,37%). But it is not clear, how Ukraine will vote for the ‘Regions’ in half of the year, especially if Yanukovych win the presidential position (Ukrainians are predisposed to give less support to the ruling authorities).
Yulia Tymoshenko, to the contrary, has lost more than 5 percent – in 2007 she had 30,71% of votes. And 5 percent is about 20-27 seats in Parliament (it depends on the quantity of parties, which will overcome a 3% threshold).
All the other political parties, presented in Parliament now, including the members of so-called ruling coalition, have very illusive chances to enter the Parliament after the early vote. The block of Viktor Yushchenko Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense has already been falling into pieces, and ex-and-current-pro-presidential MPs are seriously thinking about their political future and risk not to become MPs again in case of the early election. Communist Party understands that it will never win 27 seats in Parliament which they have now. The block of Volodymyr Lytvyn (currently having 20 seats) seems as totally not able to pass the 3% threshold, so, the Speaker would surely form a coalition with a winner of Presidential fight, whoever it will be.
Does a new coalition already exist?
The vote in favor of dismissal of the Interior Minister of Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko on Thursday, 28 January, has showed that a new coalition (pro-Yanukovych one) already exists in Ukrainian Parliament.
Who voted in favor? Here is the list, ahich may be considered as a draft of a 'new coalition':
The Party of Regions faction – 171 vote (out of 172 members of the faction)
The Block of Yulia Tymoshenko faction – 1 vote (out of 153 members of the faction)
Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense faction – 11 votes (out of 71).
I have to add that part of these MPs represent ex-Head of Presidential Secretariat Viktor Baloha. A brother of Viktor Yushchenko Petro and a godmother of President’s child Oksana Bilozir also voted in favor of Minister’s dismissal.
The Communist Party of Ukraine – 27 (out of 27).
The Block of Lytvyn – 19 (out of 20 – as the Speaker decided not to vote).
Independent MPs – 2 (out of 6).
As the proverb says, we shall see how the cat jumps.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
All Flags at Half-Mast. One more quotation from the President of Ukraine.
“If Yulia Tymoshenko is getting into the second round, it will be the time to go to Maidan and dip the national flag”, the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko said during one famous TV-show on 15 January 2010.
Friday, January 15, 2010
There is a threat to Independence and Integrity. President Yushchenko addressed Ukrainian citizens.
Today on 21.00 the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko has made an extraordinary address to the citizens of Ukraine, translated by all the national TV and radio channels.
“January the 17th may become the day, when country will be pushed to backward direction”, Viktor Yushchenko said. Among the main threats President mentioned “a threat of energy dependence and loss of the influence to the gas transit system”, “a debt load of tens of billions dollars”, “a threat of reconsideration and postponing the European direction”, and “a threat to the integrity and sovereignty” of Ukraine.
Also President has emphasized a threat of the falsification of voting results.
Viktor Yushchenko appealed to election commissions at every polling place (to respect the rule of law), to judges (“you will play the unique role”), and to the ‘shoulder-strap people’ (“your duty is to defend the people’s choice”).
“January the 17th may become the day, when country will be pushed to backward direction”, Viktor Yushchenko said. Among the main threats President mentioned “a threat of energy dependence and loss of the influence to the gas transit system”, “a debt load of tens of billions dollars”, “a threat of reconsideration and postponing the European direction”, and “a threat to the integrity and sovereignty” of Ukraine.
Also President has emphasized a threat of the falsification of voting results.
Viktor Yushchenko appealed to election commissions at every polling place (to respect the rule of law), to judges (“you will play the unique role”), and to the ‘shoulder-strap people’ (“your duty is to defend the people’s choice”).
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
From 10 to 15 percent of votes may be fabricated during the presidential election – MP of the Yulia Tymoshenko faction
The idea of using the courts in making the decision on the result of the election of the President of Ukraine, using the 2004 scenario, is widely promoted by Ukrainian politicians these days. Especially by the political team of the Prime Minster of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko.
In particular, Sergiy Sobolev, Member of Parliament of Ukraine from the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko, said to the journalist of Ukrainian 5th TV channel on 11 January 2010 that ‘up to 10 percent of votes may be falsified’. ‘If we take to the account those voters who will vote at several polling places (which is possible due to some essential ‘holes’ in law on presidential election – T.V.), the fraud may raise up to 15 percent’, Mr. Sobolev added.
In particular, Sergiy Sobolev, Member of Parliament of Ukraine from the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko, said to the journalist of Ukrainian 5th TV channel on 11 January 2010 that ‘up to 10 percent of votes may be falsified’. ‘If we take to the account those voters who will vote at several polling places (which is possible due to some essential ‘holes’ in law on presidential election – T.V.), the fraud may raise up to 15 percent’, Mr. Sobolev added.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Expected Fraud. Is Yulia Tymoshenko preparing a ground to declare the results of presidential election as a fake?
The BYT (Block of Yulia Tymoshenko) parliamentary faction has accused the Central Election Commission in taking the decision, which will lead to the mass falsifications during the election of the President of Ukraine.
‘Controlled by the party of Regions majority at the Central Election Commission made a decision of 4 January this year on the procedure of vote at home, and inclusion of voters into the voter registers on election day, which contravenes the democratic standards for holding elections’, is said in today’s official statement of the BYT faction. ‘In such a way members of CEC, who are close to the Party of Regions, had de facto opened the unlimited opportunities for use of the mass fraud during the election of the President of Ukraine’.
“There is no doubt: the establishment of Viktor Yanukovych doesn’t believe in victory of its candidate in free and transparent election”, members of the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko declared.
By the way, all Ukrainian polls stated that the rating of Mr. Yanukovych is bigger than Ms. Tymoshenko’s one on 7-15%.
The BYT faction has proposed to hold an extraordinary sitting of the Parliament of Ukraine on 13 January – to change some procedures of vote, approved by the CEC, ‘to prevent fraud’. One shouldn’t be an expert to predict that the Parliament will fail to adopt any changes. But the fact of putting the question of electoral procedures on vote will surely give to one of the presidential candidates an extra-right to declare the result of vote on 19 January, and especially on 7 February (2 round), as a fraudulent.
Viktor Yanukovych has already commented the BYT initiative, saying that ‘we will fight, and we will not permit to make a decision on the result of election in courts’. But it seems to me that there may be a third round of election of the President of Ukraine – in the Arbitration Courts.
‘Controlled by the party of Regions majority at the Central Election Commission made a decision of 4 January this year on the procedure of vote at home, and inclusion of voters into the voter registers on election day, which contravenes the democratic standards for holding elections’, is said in today’s official statement of the BYT faction. ‘In such a way members of CEC, who are close to the Party of Regions, had de facto opened the unlimited opportunities for use of the mass fraud during the election of the President of Ukraine’.
“There is no doubt: the establishment of Viktor Yanukovych doesn’t believe in victory of its candidate in free and transparent election”, members of the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko declared.
By the way, all Ukrainian polls stated that the rating of Mr. Yanukovych is bigger than Ms. Tymoshenko’s one on 7-15%.
The BYT faction has proposed to hold an extraordinary sitting of the Parliament of Ukraine on 13 January – to change some procedures of vote, approved by the CEC, ‘to prevent fraud’. One shouldn’t be an expert to predict that the Parliament will fail to adopt any changes. But the fact of putting the question of electoral procedures on vote will surely give to one of the presidential candidates an extra-right to declare the result of vote on 19 January, and especially on 7 February (2 round), as a fraudulent.
Viktor Yanukovych has already commented the BYT initiative, saying that ‘we will fight, and we will not permit to make a decision on the result of election in courts’. But it seems to me that there may be a third round of election of the President of Ukraine – in the Arbitration Courts.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Political ZOO. White Bengal Tiger as a symbol of a presidential electoral campaign in Ukraine.
“Promise me you'll never forget me, because if I thought you would, I'd never leave.” Winnie the Pooh.
I am back to blogging since yesterday, and the same day the President of Ukraine gave me a reason to start this subject - the Tiger topic in Ukrainian politics.
While giving a speech in frames of his visit to Cherkassy region, Viktor Yushchenko – as usually – strongly criticized the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko. Moreover, he proposed to the PM to leave the Ukrainian politics. Answering a question on the not-adopted-Budget-of-Ukraine for 2010, President, in particular, said: “It is time for her to have a rest, at least for a little bit, because every month of her work brings a colossal poverty to our country. Let her roll on the floor with the tiger, so far to end her working way in Ukrainian politics”.
I would love not to comment the quotation, but to tell more about The Tiger.
On 24 August, 2009, the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko visited the popular child festival “Black Sea Games” in Crimea. During the visit PM received an original gift – a Bengal tigress of a white color. By the way, they say, the unique White Tiger on the territory of Ukraine.
Re-presented to the Yalta zoo, the tigress named TigerYulia (‘tigrulia’ in Ukrainian transcription) was not abandoned and forgotten. The symbol of 2010 according to the Chinese calendar, the White Tiger became a very active ‘face’ of the presidential campaign of the Prime Minister.
I am back to blogging since yesterday, and the same day the President of Ukraine gave me a reason to start this subject - the Tiger topic in Ukrainian politics.
While giving a speech in frames of his visit to Cherkassy region, Viktor Yushchenko – as usually – strongly criticized the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko. Moreover, he proposed to the PM to leave the Ukrainian politics. Answering a question on the not-adopted-Budget-of-Ukraine for 2010, President, in particular, said: “It is time for her to have a rest, at least for a little bit, because every month of her work brings a colossal poverty to our country. Let her roll on the floor with the tiger, so far to end her working way in Ukrainian politics”.
I would love not to comment the quotation, but to tell more about The Tiger.
On 24 August, 2009, the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko visited the popular child festival “Black Sea Games” in Crimea. During the visit PM received an original gift – a Bengal tigress of a white color. By the way, they say, the unique White Tiger on the territory of Ukraine.
Re-presented to the Yalta zoo, the tigress named TigerYulia (‘tigrulia’ in Ukrainian transcription) was not abandoned and forgotten. The symbol of 2010 according to the Chinese calendar, the White Tiger became a very active ‘face’ of the presidential campaign of the Prime Minister.
At first, on the 1st of September 2009 a lot of Ukrainian schoolboys and schoolgirls received new school diaries and notebooks with the image of TigerYulia with the famous braid on her (tigress’) head.
Then TigerYulia appeared on the billboards of the PM before and after the New Year.
Then TigerYulia appeared on the billboards of the PM before and after the New Year.
By the way, Viktor Yushchenko also used a symbol of Tiger in his political PR. At the end of 2009, the press service of the President informed that the beloved cat of the President, named Tiger, run away from the country house of Viktor Yushchenko. TV-journalists immediately offered a helping hand to the Tigerless President – almost the same day he got a new little cute kitty, which probably received a different name.
FT.com / Comment / Editorial - Ukraine’s dilemma
And here is the FT-editorial view on the situation in Ukraine, in rather interesting tone:
Five years ago, Ukraine’s presidential elections captured the imagination as Viktor Yushchenko emerged triumphant.Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. Link to the article: FT.com / Comment / Editorial - Ukraine’s dilemma
On Sunday, Ukrainians vote in the first presidential election since 2004 and in very different circumstances from the Orange Revolution. Mr Yushchenko’s failure to create stability, fight corruption or protect citizens against a rapacious bureaucracy has created widespread disillusion.
The gloom is compounded by the economic crisis, which has forced Kiev into an International Monetary Fund rescue programme.
Despite the political chaos, the Orange Revolution’s legacy has survived in a free media, openness to the outside world, and multi-party competition. Despite constant Russian interference, Ukraine’s sense of identity as an independent state has grown. And, despite the economic crisis, Ukraine is a richer place than five years ago, with a better stock of housing, cars and consumer goods.
But Mr Yushchenko’s political failures have left voters with a lamentable electoral choice. He stands no chance of retaining office. The top contenders are Viktor Yanukovich, the opposition leader, and Yulia Tymoshenko, the prime minister, Mr Yushchenko’s 2004 ally but now his bitter rival.
It is humiliating for Ukraine that Mr Yanukovich, whose 2004 presidential campaign was widely seen as fraudulent, has not been hounded out of politics. He has survived thanks to a cynical political culture and the backing of big business. Even Mr Yushchenko has done deals with him.
Ms Tymoshenko should, in principle, be a more attractive choice, given her Orange credentials. But she has proved herself shamelessly opportunistic and shares the blame with Mr Yushchenko for the failures of the Orange camp. Her economic policies show a unnerving penchant for populist intervention, eg with arbitrary price caps.
In international affairs, both would balance ties with Russia with a slow push for European Union integration. Not much to choose between Ms T and Mr Y on this score.
So, whom to back in Sunday’s first round and next month’s run-off? Given the candidates’ shortcomings, voters must focus on what is important. The key now is political stability. Only a stable Ukraine can achieve economic reform and recovery. Ms Tymoshenko is the polar opposite of a stabilising force. Mr Yanukovich, for all his manifest faults, may prove the lesser evil. Pity Ukraine that it has come to this.
Orange sunset as Ukraine poll heralds turn to Russia | World news | The Observer
The Observer: "Orange sunset as Ukraine poll heralds turn to Russia. Five years after Ukraine's Orange Revolution, its next presidential election is between two pro-Moscow candidates"
Both of the front-running candidates in the poll have indicated that firmer ties with Russia, whether for pragmatic or ideological reasons, will be a priority. The poll will thus ring the death knell for a pro-western revolution that degenerated into a morass of political infighting, compounded by economic crisis.
Leading the polls is Viktor Yanukovych, a former prime minister whose initial victory as the Russia-backed candidate in 2004 sparked allegations of a rigged vote. His only serious rival is Yulia Tymoshenko, the prime minister and Moscow's new favoured candidate. President Viktor Yushchenko, hero of the Orange Revolution, now has an approval rating below 3%. Last week he accused Yanukovych and Tymoshenko of comprising a "single Kremlin coalition", such was their joint desire for warmer relations with Moscow.
Whether Yanukovych or Tymoshenko wins, the goal of Nato membership, still aspired to by Yushchenko, is almost certain to be abandoned.
Yanukovych last week repeated his long-held stance that he would take Ukraine off the path to Nato membership. "Ukraine was and will be a non-aligned nation, as it is now," he told.
A Zero-Wind Chill. Only 7 days left before the presidential election in Ukraine.
Celebration of the New Year and the Orthodox Christmas has lowered the speed of the electoral campaign in Ukraine. All the major candidates were actively present at Ukrainian media-space with colorful video greetings, and on thousands of billboards near the main roads all over the country, but there was no sign of a real fight. One week before election, and a total calmness of a political sea.
The zero-wind air conditions may be caused by the predictability of the result of the first round of the election (17 January 2010). It is obvious that two winners who will meet in the second tour on 7 February 2010 are Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and the leader of the biggest opposition Party of Regions Viktor Yanukovych. The distance between them is predicted to be around 10-12 percent, not in favor of the lady.
It seems that nothing may change the current correlation of political forces during the next week (though, it would be interesting to follow the last speeches of all the main pretenders to the presidential power, and I will do my best to share my impressions here, taking a week-off in the office). The most interesting developments are expected to happen within a time-frame between the first and second rounds, and also after the 7th of February – on the streets and in courts.
The zero-wind air conditions may be caused by the predictability of the result of the first round of the election (17 January 2010). It is obvious that two winners who will meet in the second tour on 7 February 2010 are Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and the leader of the biggest opposition Party of Regions Viktor Yanukovych. The distance between them is predicted to be around 10-12 percent, not in favor of the lady.
It seems that nothing may change the current correlation of political forces during the next week (though, it would be interesting to follow the last speeches of all the main pretenders to the presidential power, and I will do my best to share my impressions here, taking a week-off in the office). The most interesting developments are expected to happen within a time-frame between the first and second rounds, and also after the 7th of February – on the streets and in courts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
