The Verkhovna Rada developments of January and February were very long in the spotlight for all Ukrainian society. And although it is a bit too early to sum up Parliament’s velvet revolution, it is possible even now to point out some preliminary consequences of it. We should note conditionally that there are two viewpoints about today’s state of affairs in Verkhovna Rada: optimistic and pessimistic. Those supporting the former view think that the parliamentary crisis ended February 8, when the majority got back into the Parliament building. Conversely, the supporters of the latter view say that, as the victorious majority returned to the session room, the conflict has simply entered a new phase. Among these is Mykola TOMENKO, Director, Institute of Politics.
“Those who had forecast the dissolution of Verkhovna Rada on February 16 were mistaken. The majority has returned home, the minority participates in proceedings, and a budget has been passed. Can we say the parliamentary situation has stabilized?”
“The situation in Parliament can be characterized as a temporary and illusory stability. Passing the budget marked the climax of this stability. I am certain this will be followed immediately by a decline which can result in a serious political crisis because it will turn out that the remaining issues are extremely conflict-prone for the majority, the referendum is gaining momentum, and the parties must react to this, i.e., formally campaign against themselves.
“This is why I would define the current situation as critical. And there are two options here. One is a tentative compromise between the President and Parliament laid down in a clear-cut agreement between both sides. The other is a political war that could start in March: as soon as it becomes clear the referendum will take place, the shaky equilibrium in the majority will be immediately upset. Unfortunately, the latter scenario seems to me more likely.”
“In other words, in your opinion, there is no question of the long- term and more or less stable existence of this Parliament?”
“The point is that today things being temporary and governed by the situation are the determinants of Ukrainian politics. This is why we are dealing here with temporary stabilization in Verkhovna Rada and the temporary and situational functioning of both Parliament and the government. This temporary quality is caused by Ukraine switching from one political condition to another, to a new constitutional regime.
“Today, on the one hand, Parliament is quite a strong deterrent to the President. On the other, regional corporate interests collide with the system of local government. Hence decision-making requires political compromises. This is to some extent a quasi-democratic political model which began to function in Ukraine after the adoption of the Constitution in 1996. But most political actors cannot accept even this model. This is why Ukraine will soon adopt a different constitutional model, where the system of checks and balances disappears: the executive branch becomes self-sufficient, while Parliament turns into a symbolic body that occasionally performs the acts of the legitimization of presidential decisions. The referendum is nothing but a way to switch over to this new political model.”
“The referendum questions were prepared well in advance. Meanwhile, Parliament has already formed a majority.”
“Yes, and, in all probability, the President wanted to react in some way to the new situation and try to offer other strategic models. Cooperation with the parliamentary majority is a moderate model: we have now a new government and a new parliamentary majority which has declared its support of the reform course and the new government. Obviously, the President should also become a new one and work with these new actors. But the President happened to bless the simultaneous launching of a whole series of competing processes: if he wants to support Parliament, he will have to cancel the referendum. But he has said he would never do this. On the other hand, by actively supporting the government, he will have to come into conflict with some financial and political vested interests because the government offers a certain system of relations with business and joint ventures.”
“How long do you think this ‘new’ Parliament will exist?”
“Until the overwhelming majority of people in the parliamentary majority make sure that it is more important for the President to hold the referendum and strengthen executive powers than to preserve the existing system with the current powers of Parliament.”
“Do you think the majority still fails to understand this?”
“In the majority there is the permanent illusion that they can keep their position intact by taking one step or another. And the President by all means supports these sentiments: either the spokesman or the chief of staff declares that the President is not going to hold midterm elections ‘if Parliament works all right.’ At the same time, the illusion of changed referendum questions was dispelled by the Central Election Commission chairman who said these questions should not be reworded: the referendum should be either dropped altogether or held. Thus the referendum will take place. But how are the Deputies going to work after it if, according to our poll results, the minimum number of those voting no confidence in Verkhovna Rada will be 70-75%? From standpoint of society, after the referendum Parliament will have no reason to exist.”
“Not even the majority itself doubts that it is a very motley crew. What groups do you think can be seen in it?”
“The first group can be figuratively called patriotic and reform oriented: it has about 70 to 120 members. The second group includes Deputies’ groups and political parties controlled by financial and political groups or oligarchs. In terms of numbers, they are approximately equal to the first group. And there is the third group is one of independent entrepreneurs who will support the President’s basic line.”
“What made it possible for all these different forces to unite?”
“I would say the majority was formed as an alliance of noncommunist members of Parliament and oligarchs. Leonid Kuchma proclaimed he would become a ‘new President’ and would soon form a new government. This brought forth the idea of a parliamentary majority supported by a huge number of people; however, as the majority was being formed, its technological, resource, financial, and political components outdid the ideological one. At the same time, the struggle for the essence and structure of the majority brought victory to the concept of pro-presidential, not pro-government, majority. This became one of the reasons why we still do not have a full- fledged and continuously functioning majority.”
“It seems like the process of the situational majority transforming itself into a continuously functioning unit seems to have been dragged out a bit: the powers of the parliamentary majority have not yet been clearly stated, nor has an agreement on shared responsibility among the President, Cabinet, and Verkhovna Rada been signed.”
“When there were still various views on the nature of the majority, its initiators were saying: there’s no government now, let’s sign an agreement, and then we’ll see. Incidentally, the President then also said he would surely sign an agreement with the majority, and this was one of the important factors that helped create the majority itself. There is still no joint responsibility. What has emerged is a temporary, situational, and non-functional majority. Now the government does not seem at all to be involved in identifying its strategy of developing the political situation. The only political players are the President and Parliament, and they sometimes agree between themselves.”
“Should the reforms fail, the government is most likely to take the heat.”
“The government is undoubtedly a political plaything in the current situation. What is saving it is the figure of Viktor Yushchenko who enjoys a very high level of public trust.”
“You say your forecasts almost always come true, unfortunately. Unfortunately because they are usually quite pessimistic. To what extent will the current status quo in the majority going to be preserved?”
“The current Parliament does not suit representatives of big financial- political groups. Simultaneously, these very groups are not free of their own differences. There is a group of people working with regional corporative interests. It is this group that lobbied for bicameralism. There is also a group afraid that regional oligarchs will not let their national-level counterparts into regional business. These people categorically oppose a bicameral Parliament because of their own economic interests. What unites them is the idea of a weakened, noncommunist, faction-controllable, but not necessarily bicameral, Parliament. The main question facing both these groups is when and on what basis should elections be held. I don’t think they’ve answered this for themselves yet. This explains why Medvedchuk first said parliamentary elections weren’t needed and then that the referendum will be followed by an early election. The Democratic Union says there will be no early elections but at the same time is stepping up its political advertising.
“We can identify several variations of how the majority relationships will develop. First, differences will increase between the groups controlled by the oligarchs and mainstream parties. Secondly, the President will lose interest in a viable majority, and the latter will fall apart at once, for a 230- 240-strong majority cannot function effectively.
