The conceptual linchpin of the political season just begun is again the modernization of the system of governance in Ukraine. The presidentially sponsored project of political reforms pivots on the idea of establishing parliamentary democracy or a parliamentary-style republic. Political scientists, politicians, and pundits view this idea as the fundamental principle of political reform and constitutional change as such. In so doing, they focus on such basic factors as the hypothetically high (at least for Ukraine) effectiveness of parliamentary regimes in general and the “European style and nature” of parliamentary republics in particular, which must mean Ukraine’s political Europeanization.
Parliamentary democracy comprises several basic principles and characteristics. First, the institution of parliament and parliamentary democracy as the power of the people are the political dimension of a nation-state. The classic forms of parliamentary and party-based politics came into being under the conditions of modern nation states that constitute the skeleton of political Europe. Secondly, political parties formed on the basis of stable and streamlined social structures, professional strata, and European ideologies resting on collective identities and organizational culture are in fact the central institution of parliamentary democracy. Third, parliamentary democracy is the power of the majority, with the administrative system based on the mechanism of majority vote. With varieties ranging from one-party-majority democracy to proportional-coalition-type democracy, decisions are made by a political majority whose stability is ensured by permanent ideological commitments and affiliations, and the organizational culture inherent in the social and political structures of industrial society.
A parliamentary-presidential or parliamentary republic is the political system of a classic nation-state with a stable party system and a mechanism of majority-vote decision-making, the political superstructure of a social structure, and the economy and society of an industrial-type society. Thus it is no accident that classical European parliamentary government had been finally established by the mid-1950s. Parliamentary-party politics is, so to speak, the political production (or, if you like, the production of the political values) of a classical industrial society. It is therefore no accident that the making of postindustrial, information, and globalized societies went hand in hand with the crisis and sometimes the obvious erosion of classical parliamentary institutions and parties, the dilution of ideologies, and the related mechanisms of societal integration, governance, and the forms of political (above all, party-based) activity.
The emerging postindustrial society brings about what European political scientists define as the transformation of the political, that is, the transformation of party politics into media-oriented politics, of representative parliamentary democracy into media-representative – post-ideological and post-party – democracy. In general, the political sphere is fundamentally transformed, reflecting new demands for the institutions and forms of political legitimacy and organization, political involvement, consolidation of the elites, and the actions of political actors.
Globalization and the European integration that culminate in supranational political institutions, on the one hand, and the increasing role of sub-national and other actors, on the other, upset the political formula of the classic nation-state. The post-national actors, media, international economic institutions, multinational corporations, functional collectives, foundations, and organizations of a global civil society are gradually superseding parties and ideologies as the main mechanisms of political and electoral mobilization. Politicians and superpowers directly turn (the former through the media and the latter through supranational political actors) to the population and community in search of the ways to influence the political process. The mitigation and erosion of societal class conflict in turn reinforces these trends, transferring basic contradictions from the spheres of economics and distribution to those of culture, individual rights, and humanitarian issues. The concept of democracy as power of the people is being actively revised towards the democracy of human rights. However, the cultural sphere, in contrast to the political domain of rigid party-based ideological structures, is specific in dealing with individual identities, differentiation, flexibility, and creativity.
Post-party-based politics presupposes flexible temporary coalitions, management through differentiation, and the encouragement of individual decisions. In other words, political integration is carried out by means of the individual perception of personal forms and instruments. For example, today a television image matters much more than ideological commitment and party affiliations for legitimization and political integration. The Western society of Logos has turned into a society of logotypes, promotion practices, and media representations. The political world is being increasingly Americanized and globalized. The supra- (or post-) national Europe is forming a new type of politics whose structure and instruments are coming into being outside the traditional parliamentary institutions of party systems and nation-states.
It is perhaps no accident that European politicians borrow and cultivate the American (alias global) style of politics, i.e., forming temporary coalitions and flexible alliances long tested by the Americans in their foreign policy. Yet, the technological essence of the latter is no more than adaptation of the principles and instruments of the US domestic policy, especially its political system which presupposes flexible legislative majorities and coalitions of voters, not of portfolios as is the case in the coalition-prone Europe, and parties that only play the role of electoral apparatuses and teams but carry no clear-cut ideological and organizational cultures. Post-nationalism, federalism, regionalism, and stress on the coordinating and conciliatory forms of management are supposed not so much to express the united will of a nation, class, etc., (this – rather than non-national attributes – is precisely the essence of post-nationalism) as to coordinate interests and stances while promoting cooperative decisions instead of playing a majority-vote game according to the minimal majority/ maximal minority pattern.
Most probably, the slogan of a presidential-parliamentary republic, taking into account these and other changes and transformations, is a slogan of belated mobilization. We are offered what is in the phase of transformation, what Europe is discarding, forming a supranational and, hence, post-European community. The world of today is one of federalization, regionalization, and cultural differentiation, governance by way of flexible and expedient alliances and coalitions, the de-charismatization of ideologies and crisis of party systems, separation of nations from the state (similarly to what was occurring in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when religion was separated from the state). It is no accident that this kind of post-political policy has touched off a wave of national pie-in-the-sky in Europe (Le Pen, Hayder, Fortuyn). Right-wing national populism especially resonates with the globalized populism of European elites forced to become involved in supranational projects by sacrificing the principles of republican nationalism (for example, French Gaullism).
Blindly copying the almost exhausted European experience of the parliamentary-presidential republic could end up in quite unproductive decisions: the hectic construction of parties in an “under-” or “post”-party medium instead of administrative construction of expendable coalitions; forced party building instead of administrative coercion; domination of “common party” interests instead of having a managerial system based on various and differentiated interests; and preference for particular and small parties, the more so that, taking into account the critical necessity of departure from postcommunist uncertainty, the formula of the parliamentary- presidential republic should stress the world “republic,” that is, the organization and integration of the public sphere as a one that produces public benefits according to the principles of liberalism and democracy. One must reinforce republican institutions by overcoming such things as crisis of the post-Soviet state and public sphere, patron-client schemes, corrupt politics, and particular business – irrespective of whether it is the presidential or the parliamentary model. For this reason, Ukraine’s parliamentary project needs improvement and correction at the conceptual level – not only from the standpoint of classical political debates on the advantages and disadvantages of presidential or parliamentary systems or even from that of constitutional and technological implementation. Any large-scale political design or project demands getting rid as soon as possible of the hypnotic effect of being behind, when the one trailing is deprived of any broader field of vision and new horizons. Ukrainian parliamentarism should be built and improved taking into account of current trends and current European political practice. It should be remembered that going back to the parliamentary-party classics means turning to what no longer exists or is on the verge of extinction. It is better to think over how to adjust the Ukrainian political system to global institutions, the supranational institutions of the European community, that is, the European Parliament, how to adapt to such a European Union institution as the European Commission, which dramatically differs from the practice of majority vote government, how to streamline and democratize the political media in Ukraine, ensure civil and individual rights, and develop the creative and associative foundations of civil society. We should not invent a Ukrainian political bicycle, nor should we import this European invention of the past centuries. The globalizing world and Europe prefer more rapid and mobile means of transport.
