aaus-list @ ukrainianstudies.org -- [aaus-list] Ghost of Systemic Transformation: Something on Political Reformin Ukraine

[Taras Kuzio <t.kuzio@utoronto.ca>]

     RESEARCH UPDATE
     Vol. 8, No. 30/278
     September 2, 2002
     Copyright ь 2002 by UCIPR
     Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research (UCIPR)
     All rights reserved.
     For subscription, please select any or all of the
publications
     listed at the UCIPR web site
     (http://www.ucipr.kiev.ua)

     Ghost of Systemic Transformation:
     Something on Political Reform in Ukraine
     
     Yulia Tyshchenko, Head of Civil Society Programs
     
     “Ukrainian Bicycle”
     The  new  political season was launched by  President  Leonid
Kuchma  in his formal address to the Ukrainian people on the  11th
anniversary  of  the Independence. The address  consisted  of  two
parts: social security – oriented declarations of the urgent  need
to fight against poverty, ensure access to medical care, undertake
the  pension reform and grant adequate education to all regardless
of  level of income; and the proposals for changing the system  of
power in Ukraine.
     Specifically, the proposals involved:
·    transforming Ukraine into a parliamentary-presidential
     republic;
·    reforming the election law to adjust it to the needs of a
     parliamentary – presidential republic, i.e., introduction of a
     proportional election system of a “European kind”;
·    undertaking an administrative-territorial reform;
·    strengthening local self-governance.
     The two final ideas were not discussed clearly enough. One of
the  key messages of the address was the hint that Kuchma did  not
plan  the  third term in office: “We may be proud that  all  these
years  Ukraine  has remained a stronghold of civic peace,  avoided
acute civic conflicts, barricades of tanks in the capital. Ukraine
has  done and, I have no doubt, will do for the second time as set
by  the  Constitution – the peaceful transition of power from  one
president  to  the other.” Yet, a week later Vice  Prime  Minister
Volodymyr Semynozhenko announced that in the situation of internal
instability of the country “extending the presidential powers  for
the incumbent president at least for two years may be a beneficial
thing”. Hence, not all options of “Kuchma’s third term” have  been
written off.
     According to the presidential address, the transition to  the
parliamentary republic involves:
·    elections under the proportional system;
·    formation of a stable parliamentary majority;
·    process of formation of a coalition government that relies on
     a “stable parliamentary majority” that is “responsible for its
     performance”.
     The  government and the majority together implement  economic
policy  and  are  responsible for results of this  policy  to  the
people.
     According  to  the  president,  these  provisions  should  be
included   in   the   Constitution,  which  means   changing   the
Constitution. When mentioning the changes, Kuchma referred to  the
outcome of the infamous April 2000 referendum.
     Noteworthy, earlier Kuchma was strongly opposed to  the  idea
of transforming the system of power in Ukraine in the way proposed
by the opposition forces. For instance, in April 2001, meeting the
leadership  of  the Federation of Trade Unions, he  said  that  “a
parliamentary-presidential republic  will  bring  Ukraine  to  its
death”  (Fakty i Kommentarii, April 6, 2001). In his  view,  given
the  diverse  parliament, “MPs will never be able to agree…  which
will  cause  a  government  crisis”  (ibid.)  Meanwhile,  the  3rd
parliament did manage to form a majority. The President  was  also
opposed to the idea of introducing a mixed election system for the
1997  parliamentary elections and vetoed several times the  fully-
proportional 2002 election law.
     
     Mosaics of reasons
     One  should  not  be naпve and believe that  the  President’s
initiatives  demonstrate the growing role of  the  parliament  and
influence of individual groups – from the Yushchenko circle to the
Donetsk,  Pinchuk and SDPU(o) groups. Yet, Kuchma in fact accepted
and  verbalized key demands and agendas of the opposition that had
long   called  for  transforming  Ukraine  into  a  parliamentary-
presidential  republic.  Commenting on  the  President’s  address,
activist  of  the  Socialist Party Yuri Lutsenko referred  to  the
address as to “overtaking the initiative from the opposition”.  “I
believe  the  opposition now should propose to  the  President  to
strengthen this idea as a document at a roundtable,” he  said.  He
added  that “consecutive meetings of the opposition leaders should
transform  into meetings with all parliamentary forces to  produce
an order of undertaking the reform of the system of power.”
     The  situation  may  reduce the impact  of  the  opposition’s
protest  actions planned for September 16, as it may significantly
reduce  the  number  of  those who could  join  Yulia  Tymoshenko,
Oleksandr Moroz and the Communists. Observers note that Kuchma has
managed to convert the opposition’s “weapon” into his own.
     Another  reason is rather deep: it has something to  do  with
the  fact that there is no potential “heir” to Kuchma – and, thus,
a  “Russian scenario” seems problematic. This raises the issue  of
the President and his circle in a “Ukraine after Kuchma”. Adjusted
versions  of a parliamentary-presidential republic might  somewhat
soften the issue – if the President is elected by the parliament.
     Another  reason  that  would  be  in  the  interests  of  the
President’s  circle is the fact that the impact of  the  de  facto
presidential race that started immediately after the parliamentary
race might be reduced by the current political debate.
     Meanwhile,  initiatives  about  building  a  majority  and  a
coalition  government are not a long-term thing  but  need  to  be
implemented  taking into account the current political  landscape,
here  and  now. Hence, formation of any majority in the parliament
(a   quasi-majority   based  on  forces  of   outsiders   of   the
parliamentary  elections)  and efforts to  introduce  a  coalition
government   lifts  responsibility  for  the   process   and   the
consequences of the “reform course” from the “general producer”  –
which is very important given the current economic situation.  The
new  development  may  move the epicenter of  the  battle  to  the
parliament instead of the Presidential Administration.
     The  contents  of proposals for transformation of  the  power
system  will  enable  observers to  judge  more  accurately  about
factors and motivations that encouraged the President to issue his
statement the way he did. The reason may also become seen  through
the  way  the majority will be formed in this parliament, and  the
pursuit  of the coalition government idea. Then one may  see  “who
benefits” from it.
     
     A  parliamentary – presidential model of governance: views of
political forces
     Different political forces, the opposition in particular, are
divided on the President’s initiatives.
     Leader of the Communists Petro Symonenko argues “if that is a
serious statement, the President should initiate a response of the
Constitutional  Court  to  the draft  law  on  transition  to  the
parliamentary-presidential republic; after that he should  form  a
commission which, given the President’s address, would review  the
proposals, and after the verdict of the Constitutional  Court  the
proposals could be presented to the parliament. The autumn session
can  give  300  votes to legitimize changes to  the  Constitution”
(Holos Ukrainy, August 28, 2002).
     Socialists  are  less tolerant and more skeptical  about  the
address.  “Everyone  who has the slightest  interest  in  politics
would  notice that the President’s address is yet another attempts
to  camouflage  reactionary intentions to continue  usurpation  of
power,  while simultaneous placement of the President outside  the
framework  of  responsibility for consequences of the governance,”
SPU  leader  Oleksandr  Moroz  says. “Imagine:  the  current  pro-
presidential  majority  in  the  parliament  forms  a   “coalition
government”, takes responsibility for its work, but the  President
stays  aside  although he continues to appoint/dismiss  ministers,
directly  rules  through  the  state  administrations  and   state
secretaries. I.e., there is full power, but it does not seem to be
there  if one looks at it from the outside” (Silski Visti,  August
28, 2002).
     Yulia Tymoshenko is also rather radical in her comments.  The
“Statement  of Yulia Tymoshenko MP on the Address of President  L.
Kuchma  on the Independence Day” argues that “the address  is  the
evidence  of  deep multi-level impotence of the ruling  grouping”,
“the   steps  for  democratization,  proposed  by  the  President,
including  the  expansion  of powers of  the  parliament  and  the
government,  in  fact mean the transformation of  Ukraine  into  a
parliamentary-presidential  or  a simply  parliamentary  republic.
Hence,  the  President  should urgently resign”  (Vechirni  Visti,
August 28, 2002).
     Leader  of Nasha Ukraina Viktor Yushchenko currently sees  no
prospects for reforming the system of power in this country. “Both
the presidential-parliamentary and the parliamentary –presidential
republic can be effective, <…> but it is important in what way the
political reform is undertaken in Ukraine” (Ukraina Moloda, August
28,  2002).  In  his  view, the problem  is  that  “the  coalition
government should be formed by the majority that received mandates
from  the  voters.  But presently there are efforts  to  form  the
majority artificially”.
     Leader of the parliamentary faction of the SDPU(o), Ukraine’s
first  president Leonid Kravchuk believes that the  transformation
may  not  be easy to perform, as the address does not contain  any
indication of the contents and principles of the transformation of
the   presidential-parliamentary  system  into  a   parliamentary-
presidential  one.  “Imagine  that  a  parliamentary  majority  is
formed.  Will it be able to form the government?” (Holos  Ukrainy,
August 28, 2002).
     Leader  of  the “Democratic Initiatives” group of MPs  Stepan
Hawrysh  noted that the President’s address was well expected,  as
“Ukraine  has  stopped  undertaking political  reforms”.  I(n  his
opinion,  the  most important is the statement that the  President
agrees  to  limit  his  powers for creating  a  European  type  of
government,  when  the  parliament  determines  the  contents  and
direction  of political and economic performance of the  executive
branch.
     Member   of   the  Regions  of  Ukraine  Valery   Konovaliuk,
commenting on the address of the President, argues that the  issue
of  forming  a  parliamentary majority was  discussed  before  the
beginning of the summer break and “the parliamentary majority  has
been  being formed during all this period before the start of  the
second session” (Holos Ukrainy, August 28, 2002). Indirectly  this
confirms  the  suspicion that the majority is being based  on  the
quazi-faction  of Yedyna Ukraina. The present-day  “majority”  has
about  212  votes  , which is not enough to be a  proper  majority
(which   needs  226  votes).  Presumably,  the  process   may   be
intensified  through the tested methods of pressure  on  MPs  that
have  been  repeatedly  criticized by Viktor  Yushchenko  and  his
group. For instance, according to Yushchenko’s ally and leader  of
the   Razom  group  of  Nasha  Ukraina,  Oleg  Rybachuk,  the  law
enforcement authorities have initiated more than 29 criminal cases
against businesses, in which MPs - members of Nasha Ukraina –  are
founders or stakeholders.
     
     Problem of Making Proposals more Detailed
     The  President’s address simply enumerates a number of  tasks
but  lacks details about the proposals. It is still a question  to
what extent the proposals are actually meant to be implemented.
     There   is   also  a  problem  of  making  changes   to   the
Constitution.  There  is a possibility that the  changes  will  be
prepared  through  a non-transparent procedure of  decision-making
that  is  typical for the Ukrainian power establishment. Currently
the  process  does not envisage a broad debate in the society  but
rather  imitation  of  some  “people’s  initiative”.  Yet,  making
changes  to the Constitution is supposed at least to show a  broad
political  and  social consensus on particular  issues  that  will
build on the arguments presented by the head of the state.
     As  always,  “the  devil is in the detail”: efficacy  of  the
transformation   agenda   depends   on   coordinated   legislative
initiatives, detailed description of powers of different  branches
and  the  president,  involvement of different  political  forces.
Otherwise  it risks deteriorating yet another issue for discussion
by the Ukrainian political class.
     There is another scenario: formation of a quasi-parliamentary-
presidential   republic,  particularly   is   the   “parliamentary
majority”  to  form the government will be made  of  the  team  of
outsiders  of  the 2002 parliamentary elections. The  practice  of
forming a quasi-majority could be observed during the election  of
Volodymyr  Lytvyn as the Speaker. The threat of this  scenario  is
mentioned, among other things, by Victor Yushchenko: “t  would  be
better  is a vote of an MP in the parliament were free;  then  the
prospects  of  a parliamentary republic could be seen,”  he  said,
arguing  that making a parliamentary republic makes  no  sense  as
long  as  the  parliament remains a “marionette in  the  hands  of
certain forces” (Holos Ukrainy, August 28, 2002).
     Creation  of  a parliamentary majority does not automatically
mean  systemic  change of the power structure. Such  a  change  is
possible only through amending the Constitution. The process is  a
lengthy  one and may last for at least a year. In such a case  the
implementation process may happen to be longer than  the  lifetime
of a “quasi-majority”.
     Obviously,  introduction of the proposed changes would  limit
the  powers of the head of the state. But it is still unclear  how
and  what  will  be  done.  According  to  the  Constitution,  the
President’s powers are very broad. The President, as the  head  of
the  state, can terminate the parliament if it fails to start  its
plenary meetings for more than 30 days within one session. He  has
the power to appoint the Prime Minister following the agreement of
the  parliament, and can dismiss the Prime Minister (no  agreement
of  the  parliament  needed  here).  The  President  appoints  and
dismisses  Cabinet of Ministers, heads of other central  executive
bodies. He/she has the power to form, re-organize and abolish,  at
recommendation of the Prime Minister, ministries and other central
executive  bodies, annul decisions of the Cabinet and the  Council
of  Ministers  of  the Crimea. He/she can for,  within  the  funds
specified  in  the national budget, various advisory, consultative
and other additional entities to help him perform his duties. With
agreement  of the parliament, the President appoints  an  Attorney
General  of  Ukraine  (again, no agreement of  the  parliament  is
needed for the dismissal). The President of Commander-in-Chief  of
the  Armed  Forces. The President has the power  of  signing  laws
approved  by  the  parliament, the power  of  vetoing  a  law  and
returning  it to the parliament, and the power of issuing  decrees
and orders that are binding on the territory of Ukraine.
     The  transformation, if it occurs, will substantially  change
the   Constitution  –  for  instance,  by  abolishing  the  direct
presidential  elections  and  introducing  a  system  in  which  a
president  is  elected by the parliament. Potential mechanisms  of
nomination of candidates, terms, vote counting open a broad  field
for  imagination  and  discussion. Yet,  leaving  the  process  of
electing the head of the state aside, it should be noted that some
political  forces,  primarily the Communists and  the  Socialists,
stress  ion their programs that the presidency should be abolished
(and   a  parliamentary-presidential  republic  may  exist  as   a
transitional form to a fully parliamentary republic).  Hence,  the
president’s powers may be severely reduced.
     The difference of the parliamentary-presidential republic  is
that  the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are accountable  only  to
the  parliament that forms the government. Currently such a system
exists  in  a number of European states: Austria, France,  Poland,
Portugal, Lithuania, Iceland, and Finland. The president,  though,
keeps  his/her  power  of  veto and  the  power  to  dissolve  the
parliament  should  the  latter  fail  to  form  a  majority.  The
parliament,  though, has broad powers of forming,  appointing  and
dismissing  the government. Such a division of powers can  correct
and  balance  political  situation and authority  of  branches  of
power,  minimizing chances for “usurpation” of  power  by  any  of
them.  It  is  also  very  important that  the  system  has  legal
mechanisms for forming the government and possible dissolution  of
the  parliament – from setting the time framework for forming  the
majority  and the government to setting the deadlines for adoption
of a state budget by the parliament. The system should also have a
legal  provision that the head of the executive branch is a leader
proposed and supported by the parliamentary majority.
     Nowadays  it  is  rather hard to predict  what  will  be  the
contents of the initiatives and how, if at all, they are going  to
be  implemented. That will depend on reaction and perspectives  of
political elites and on a possibility to agree with the opposition
on  the  sense  and dynamics of the political transformation.  The
situation  is  complicated not only by  the  debates  between  the
political  opponents. It looks like the historic  round  table  at
which  the  power-holders and the opposition managed  to  come  to
terms  in Poland, and which Polish president Aleksandr Kwasniewski
offered  to Kuchma for negotiations with the opposition,  will  be
too  small  to  sit all those willing to broker consensus  on  the
above  issues.  Numerous  representatives  of  regional  influence
groups argue today that a proportional election system would  help
representation   of  interests  of  political  parties   but   not
priorities  of regional elites. For now, regional elites  are  not
prepared to integrate into political parties. Hence, there may  be
a  number  of  proponents of the idea of introducing a  bi-cameral
parliament  –  which also requires changing the  Constitution  and
broadens the circle of political forces that will have to come  to
terms  with each other. It was not by mere chance that Kuchma  was
referring to the “referendum on people’s initiative”: then one  of
the  controversial  questions was the idea of  introducing  a  bi-
cameral parliament.
     Hence  (re-phrasing  the classic of Marxism),  the  ghost  of
change is sweeping over Ukraine. Today, as usually, there are more
questions than answers about real reasons, scenarios and  contents
of that change.

_______________________________________________
Rue mailing list
Rue@uncpd.kiev.ua
http://www.uncpd.kiev.ua/mailman/listinfo/rue

------ End of Forwarded Message