Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma’s address to the nation on the eleventh anniversary of independence was immediately viewed as political event No. 1. The head of state suggested carrying out a number of internal political reforms long debated by Ukrainian politicians. The main point is turning Ukraine into a parliamentary-presidential republic. “The sustainable and dynamic development of Ukraine calls for radical changes in the political system,” the head of state said. “It so happened that Ukraine was formed as a presidential-parliamentary republic, with all advantages and drawbacks that this implies. Apparently, we had no alternative. In the absence of democratic traditions and the presence of weak political parties, the president had to assume responsibility for making important decisions, including primarily those in the economic field. Let us face it: quite a few reform initiatives, later supported by society and the parliament, were initiated precisely by presidential decrees. But I am convinced that in order to further develop, Ukraine needs a transition to a different political system, a parliamentary-presidential republic... I am certain that we do not have to invent a Ukrainian bicycle by ourselves. Such a mechanism has long existed. It includes a coalition government and relies on a solid parliamentary majority. The parliamentary majority forms the government and bears responsibility for its performance.” The president also set out his vision of specific mechanisms to form a politically responsible government and a politically justified parliamentary majority: “One of the steps toward the political reforms must be reforming our electoral law to meet the requirements of a parliamentary-presidential system. In other words, we need a European-style proportional-representation electoral system. Long overdue is an administrative territorial reform. It is virtually impossible to postpone drawing up the concept and a broad public discussion of it. Transition to the parliamentary- presidential model and strengthened local government is what we call our European choice. It is this political system that proves effective in most countries of Europe. I have already given instructions to set up a task force for drafting a political reform document and I am calling on all political forces, including the opposition, to become involved in this process.”
Pres. Kuchma also stressed the necessity of observing the constitutional norms of transferring power, thereby dispelling rumors that he might take part in the 2004 presidential election. “Ukraine has already seen and, undoubtedly, will see for the second time a peaceful transfer of power from one president to another at a time established by the Constitution,” the president emphasized.
The reaction of the main political forces, especially the opposition, shows that the presidential proposals were unexpected to many. The Four, which, according to Ukrayinska pravda, had been discussing the plans of autumn protests, are now actively broaching the idea of urgently changing their slogans. Little wonder: the demand to switch to a parliamentary-presidential republic had been billed as the main goal of the opposition and excuse for calling protest actions. Now the opposition faces a dilemma: either losing the political initiative and becoming involved in the parliamentary debate on the presidential initiatives or basically sabotaging the proposals and actually radicalizing their own actions. But, as it was to be expected, the Four immediately displayed the signs of different attitudes. Viktor Yushchenko, the main initiator of debates on transition to the parliamentary-presidential form of government, responded negatively to the president’s proposal. Interfax- Ukraine quotes the Our Ukraine leader as saying that he sees no prospects today of reforming the system of power in this country. In his opinion, “the current situation in the parliament discredits the idea of parliamentary democracy,” and parliament remains “a puppet in the hands of certain forces.” It is inadvisable to create a parliamentary republic today, Mr. Yushchenko believes.
Communist leader Petro Symonenko is convinced that Verkhovna Rada could make amendments to the Constitution as early as this fall to allow Pres. Kuchma’s proposals to materialize. “If it is a serious declaration, the president should see to it that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine assess the previously submitted bill on transition to a parliamentary-presidential republic and then set up a constitutional commission to further appraise the president’s proposals. Following the Constitutional Court ruling, these proposals could be introduced in parliament. The Communist faction, if supported by the pro-presidential bloc, could poll 300 votes at the autumn session to enact the Constitutional amendments,” Mr. Symonenko said. BYuT leader Yuliya Tymoshenko has announced she “supports wholeheartedly” the President’s decision on reforms. Yet, Ms. Tymoshenko thinks Mr. Kuchma must resign to pave the way for them. Simultaneously, a Socialist leader “contented himself” in his statement to the prospect of a “constitutional agreement on transferring some powers from the president to parliament.”
All the opposition figures so far say they are determined to carry out the protest actions scheduled for September 16. It is clear, however, that it will now be far more difficult to gather the number claimed, 250,000, of people on the street. In any case, the organizers will have to pay much more money for it, for now that the president has accepted the reforms that the opposition touted, it hardly seems possible to draw politically-minded people into the streets.
It is also obvious that implementation of the political reforms mentioned in the presidential address will be a political marathon. Commenting on the speech, People’s Deputy Leonid Kravchuk noted he approves the head of state’s attitude but stressed that “this is not the beginning of a reform.” In his opinion, what will really set things in motion is making Constitutional amendments and establishing for this purpose a constitutional commission which will submit the proposals to Verkhovna Rada and the president. Transition to the parliamentary-presidential system of power will necessitate “colossal changes in the Constitution,” Mr. Kravchuk believes. He regards the President’s address as “a step to meet the opposition halfway.” At the same time he noted “one should take a calm view” of the protest actions, and if they are conducted within the framework of the law and the Constitution, “nobody can prohibit this in a democratic state.” A number of other political leaders have also expressed a positive attitude toward Mr. Kuchma’s proposals. For instance, in the opinion of Stepan Havrysh, former vice speaker of Verkhovna Rada and leader of the Democratic Initiative faction, the president’s proposal to carry out an urgent political reform shows “that he is aware of the very imperfection of the political system.” Deputy Havrysh emphasized that “the most important thing” is that the president agree to see his powers curtailed in order to establish a European-style system of governance, whereby parliament shapes and directs the political and economic activities of the executive institution. Mr. Havrysh also said he was confident that “the president is ahead of the opposition in terms of tactics.” However, in his opinion, the opposition will seek an opportunity to carry out large-scale protest actions, perhaps focusing on the demand to hold the early presidential elections. “Emphasis will be put on systemic policies, not on personalities,” Mr. Havrysh thinks.
In spite of debate, it is clear for most political players today that the president’s proposal creates a good chance to reform the system of government in Ukraine. But to this end the main political forces must compromise in their understanding of what is more useful for the country in the immediate future. Will the nation’s political beau monde strike a balance between its own claims for the year 2004 and the interests of society?
COMMENTARY
Oleksandr DERHACHOV, political scientist:
The president’s declaration outlines a lot of problems but lacks details. It is now important that this declaration become a political document and the basis for further actions. The question is, after all, to what extent the president’s step is sincere and consistent (or is it just a formal proposal to be discussed for the next two years?). At the same time, this declaration is obviously based on certain concrete circumstances, therefore it is possible to practically implement a considerable part of the proposed things in quite a short time. I believe we will see in the next few weeks to what extent the opposition is prepared to cooperate with those in power, for the president has opened today an additional opportunity for political reforms without street revolutions. However, in my opinion, the three opposition forces (of which BYuT and SPU are more consistent than the Communists) will take a quite active part in the fall campaign. It is unclear now to what extent Our Ukraine will be able to map out a coordinated strategy. In all probability, Mr. Yushchenko cherishes either a well-based hope or an illusion about reaching a compromise with the president and, consequently, being fully incorporated into the changed system of government (as well as becoming if not the official then at least an acceptable heir). This aspect will also become much clearer in September. Still possible today is a compromise between Our Ukraine and some individuals from the president’s entourage.
Andriy YERMOLAYEV, director, Sophia Social Research Center:
A number of party leaders (with members of the former United Ukraine being more active than the opposition) have advanced similar proposals and projects before. Thus I would assess the President’s August 24 address as snatching the initiative from the opposition. The point is the extent to which these declarations are realistic. The main problem is the constitutional reform: if no mechanism of adopting a new Constitution is worked out in the nearest term, all declarations will remain just an intention.
It seems today that the presidential initiative is most likely to be implemented behind the scenes. In other words, amendments and bills drafted by a slew of coordination commissions will be debated by the parliamentary factions. As a result, the constitutional reform will be dealt with by the deputies and the president, while the public and the non-governing political forces will remain just onlookers.
Yet, there is another, more interesting, scenario whereby some kind of constitutional convention could be set up. This would allow taking the matter outside the political corridors and bringing, as much as possible, the mechanism of public dialog into play.
Also important seems the fact that the president’s colors bear the slogans previously exploited by the opposition parties or associations. In my view, this seizing of the initiative aims to stage a race against time. In essence, the winner will be whoever will not only be able to offer a realistic way of carrying out the reform but also become the subject of its implementation. As to the opposition, it got into a quandary not now (after the seizing of the initiative) but back in May and June, when it proved unable to work systemically. In the summer we saw the feebleness of these factions’ leaders who never found the most suitable form of cooperation. Moreover, it is no secret that the generic word opposition covers quite different attitudes. While Ms. Tymoshenko positions herself as an anti-presidential politician, the Communists, who have often been “moderate” allies of government, seem to be playing an ideological war game. It is not ruled out that, taking into account the social accents sent to the president’s address, they will use this as a pretext to distance themselves from the anti-presidential radicals. A still more difficult situation awaits Our Ukraine, for its business members find it more desirable to resume a dialog with the revamped presidential team than to play street games. With this in view, Our Ukraine could try to fill this vacuum in order to reorganize itself. It is not ruled out that on the spur of the moment they will begin forming various intra-faction groups. Besides, there may be some new contract-style initiatives. I do not think Our Ukraine will scrap the idea of settling relations with possible allies that take a more pronounced pro- presidential stand.
It can be forecast that at the very beginning of the new political season the parliament will see fierce competition for the right to be the prime mover of the constitutional process. Yet it is quite difficult to say who will win in the attempt to seize conceptual power in parliament. I think former members of United Ukraine have so far a better chance.
Serhiy TELESHUN, Doctor of Political Science; president, Commonwealth Foundation:
It should be noted that the recent presidential speech, which has attracted the attention of the nation’s politicians and the international community, has two — politico-legal and technological — components. In politico-legal terms, it comes to the conclusion that Ukraine has solved, as it were, all the problems to form a single political, economic, and legal space, has become a full-fledged state and, hence, has approached the stage of political reforms. In technological terms, the speech outlined questions of a tactical (stratification of the opposition) and strategic nature and offered a system of checks and balances. Besides — a no less important point — it mentioned the foreign political factor, taking into account of European experience.
To analyze the prospects of the president’s proposed reforms, one should see the reaction of the opposition which has no common point of view on this matter. I think it will be sniping at personalities by linking them with the slogans about changes in the political system. I have no doubt that part of the opposition will be looking for a place in the new situation.
It should simultaneously be noted that the political reform covers the whole system of executive and legislative bodies at all levels. This requires that amendments to the Constitution be passed by 300 votes. It is essential here that the technological component could play a role by stimulating the making of a majority. So all these factors will influence the further course of the reform. However, before taking radical steps, one must ask this question: has Ukraine exhausted itself as a presidential-parliamentary republic? In addition, it would be a good idea to turn to foreign experience which shows (at least in the CIS and some Western and Eastern European countries) reinforcement of the executive system of government. In my view, today’s Ukraine needs a balance of political forces and increased competitiveness of the bodies of power.
Vadym KARASIOV, political scientist:
The president’s initiative to carry out a political reform to strengthen the parliament has undoubtedly thwarted the new political season’s crisis scenario conceived by the united (to be more exact, crisscross Right-Left) opposition. The institutional deal of the century offered by the president to political elites and counter-elites is an action that can essentially modify the political pattern of forces and the structure of support, loyalty, and political chances. For many opposition figures, this is a blow to ambitious self-projections, a piece of bearish news, to use stock exchange terms, capable of bringing down intra-elite indices on the market for Ukrainian charismas and messiahs.
In all probability, Viktor Yushchenko is the No. 1 victim. Judging by the Our Ukraine leader’s behavior, he was against but at the same time inside the current regime. In other words, Mr. Yushchenko wanted not so much to change as to make his way into the system after, of course, somewhat modernizing or, to be more exact, “moralizing” it. Thus the president’s proposed deep restructuring of the whole power system, including its genetic pattern, will obviously force Mr. Yushchenko at least to fundamentally modify his political and electoral strategy.
The political reforms proposed by the president will in fact make long-term changes in the very structure of political concepts. In other words, the political reform initiative strikes the presidential elections, so eagerly anticipated by the opposition, off the political agenda for the next two years. Instead, the elite is invited to concentrate on discussing the redistribution of constitutional powers and the whole system of government. Parliament should get down to forming a new system of power. Yet, Yushchenko’s stance in the positional structure itself and in the parliamentary lineup is not as strong and obvious as in the field of elections and crowd-pleasing slogans. The more so that some political elites’ anticipation for and betting on proportional representation elections and a coalition cabinet makes it more gainful to reinforce parties with strong collective identities in order to participate in an inter-party coalition-aimed bargaining — rather than to rely on any coalition projects. Clearly, this creates a great temptation for the Our Ukraine parties, including the two Rukh factions and Solidarity, to play an independent political game in the parliament-cabinet bargain and in parliamentary politics as a whole.
Proportional representation elections mean a departure from the winner take all vision of democracy and, therefore, reduction of the role of so-called first-past-the-post leaders, such as Yushchenko, Tymoshenko, and Symonenko. Mr. Yushchenko does not have a party of his own; he faces a dilemma — either to preserve the coalition by transforming it into a strong party led by one man (with himself as leader) or to form one of his own. The latter option in turn raises a hard-to-solve (at least today) problem of finding a suitable competitive space — between the so-called Right-wing nationalism of Tymoshenko, the Left-wing attitudes of Moroz, the national democracy of the Rukhs, the Centrists, the Social Democrats, and the Communists. Obviously, if Mr. Yushchenko accepts the decisive role of the parliament in the political regime and gets involved in the proposed institutional operation, he will favor forms that provide greater chances for winner take all representation and leadership, like, for example, the French system which combines strong presidential leadership and the parliamentary logic of governance.
As to other active political players, especially those of the opposition. the Communist Party has in fact received what it has always been after: relying on a strong collective organization, it can always have a share of parliamentary and cabinet power and, consequently, can now concentrate on fighting the hated liberal nationalism of Yushchenko. Apparently, Mr. Moroz would also like to make an attempt, given his own party’s resources and his attitude toward Our Ukraine and Yushchenko. In any case, the Socialists might opt for this. Under these circumstances, Ms. Tymoshenko is running the risk of slipping to the opposition fringe unless she basically modifies her political line.
As to the very essence of the presidential initiative, one must note the following: first, this is recognition of the growing role the parliament has played in the past year or two, as well as an attempt to make this process open and controllable by the president. The 2002 elections showed that politics and the political elite itself had shifted toward a parliamentary mentality and parliamentarization. Those were ground-breaking elections not only in the sense that they mapped out new political preferences and strategies of the main political players, outlining the prospects of a parliamentary republic, but also because they set the parliamentary pace of Ukrainian politics. In other words, it is the parliamentary elections and the ensuing intra-parliamentary dynamics that do and will impact on the presidential, municipal, and perhaps gubernatorial elections along with the whole pattern of the Ukrainian political superstructure, including even personal political biographies.
The presidential proposals also mean substituting the public and party-based forms of the continuity and replacement of political elites for the dynastic model of power transfer and change. As to the Constitutional model itself proposed by the president, namely, the idea of a parliamentary republic, this is so far only a “force idea,” a window of political opportunity, through which it is possible not only to stabilize the political situation and update the political elites but also to form a European state and the republican model of democracy or even establish the Second Republic which will give way to the First Republic of the nineties. In other words, this is a draft of future changes and of their basic elements. One should also bear in mind that there can be quite a large number of parliamentary democracy models ranging from the French and Polish examples to unstable parliamentary republics, such as the French Fourth Republic or the postwar Italian one — with a weak premier and executive power, a heterogeneous majority, omnipotent party cliques, never-ending collapses of coalitions, etc. (even though the Italian political spectrum featured a strong centrist party on the basis of which numerous coalitions were formed and fell). Thus this requires careful verification of institutional goals as well as painstaking and cautious efforts to form an effective model of representative and party-based policies. Moreover, one must take into account the impact of the variables of globalization, such as the increased number and influence of transnational actors, functional collectives, and multinational corporations on domestic policies, the reduced influence of parties, and the formation of post-party — information and media-related — models of political and electoral mobilization. Whether the parliamentary experiment in Ukraine will be successful and impeccable depends on the correct account of the European experience of political processes as well as on the study and understanding of the Russian standard of political changes. Sooner than not, it will be right to stick to this formula: what is good for a Frenchman (German, etc.) is early for a Ukrainian, and what is permitted Russia is too late for Ukraine.
