“What is your attitude to the decision of the nine factions to redistribute parliamentary committees, under which the minority will have to content itself with three portfolios? Can we call this a new ‘velvet revolution’?”
“I do not think the current developments are to Ukraine’s benefit. Ukraine had for the first time a chance to form a constitutional majority which could take responsibility for the destiny of this country, make certain amendments to the Constitution and, with due account of 11-years’ experience of reforms, solve the extremely painful problems of taxation, pension reform, and economic development as a whole. However, this chance is being missed because some people itch to ‘steer the wheel.’ I am distressed – for several reasons – that a non-viable majority has been formed. First of all, the methods by which it was formed are dangerous for a democracy. If deputies are being pulled out of their factions and forced to vote under pain of prosecution, etc., this kills the very essence of parliamentarism. If people’s deputies are to be taught ‘to march in a line,’ to quote Oleksandr Karpov, a coordinator in the newly-formed pseudo-majority, they will stop expressing the ideas of the populace. Why then elect a Parliament?”
“You said the chance to form the majority was missed. Now other forces are trying to seize the situation. So who do you accuse of incompetence?”
“What kept us from forming the majority was outside pressure on parliament, when the politicians who took part in negotiations kept running to Bankova St. to see the Presidential Administration head in order to bring their parliamentary position into line with the official viewpoint. Our Ukraine found it very difficult to take part in the negotiations under such circumstances. In addition, our bloc’s position was and still is being distorted both in the comments of representatives of the pro-presidential majority and by a number of media outlets. So when a majority is being formed in such an opaque and undemocratic way, Our Ukraine will stay out of it. All of parliament’s members should have gathered and decided on the principles of forming a majority, but in fact all the proposals about making a deal were reduced to portfolio distribution. We are the largest fraction that achieved the best results in the elections, so we must insist that our deputies are vested with appropriate powers to fulfill their election-program promises. From the very outset, Our Ukraine assumed a transparent position, proposing a draft agreement on joint actions. But we were told it was unconstitutional and impossible. Two months later the President came up with the same initiatives. We are pleased, of course, and ready to support them in a way. It is clear today that a different question is the stumbling block: who will be the Prime Minister and who is going to claim any governmental offices? But negotiations should not pivot on this. Let us start with the program. What cemented the Karpov majority? What are they going to start with? With trying to divide everything.”
“Our Ukraine’s representatives have been long using the magic word ‘dialog.’ But Roman Bezsmertny said the other day that OU needs ‘either everything (the right to form the government) or nothing.’ Is this dialog?”
“He meant that if Our Ukraine were barred from joining a coalition government, it would need no ‘leftovers’ in the shape of certain portfolios. A dialog is always needed, even in a war. But its form and content is a quite different matter. We are talking about a different dimension, a different level of the question. This is not our choice. This is the choice of the so-called majority, which, in its present shape, does not need Our Ukraine. In other words, their choice is to see OU in opposition. And if this choice was made on our behalf, Our Ukraine is prepared to show effective actions in opposition. If you are ready to show your own effectiveness by ‘drawing the blanket onto yourselves’ and you don’t need OU, please show it. But this is a road to nowhere. I am sure this will come unstuck in 4-5 months time. We are ready to come back to dialog if all attempts to form an alternative majority are stopped.”
“Viktor Yushchenko said recently that there is either power or opposition – no other way, as it were. You claimed in turn that the opposition was putting the skids under the budget-adoption process. How can you combine these standpoints?”
“History has not yet shown any borderline situations. I mean if a political force is out of power, it automatically opposes those in power. This is an axiom. I was in fact saying that an aggravated political situation could hinder the budget-adoption process. And responsibility for this will be borne not by the opposition but by the pro-presidential forces whose rejection of a dialog will only aggravate the situation. In spite of this, the budgetary committee did not stop working, and we are sure of putting our conclusions to the Verkhovna Rada vote within the period set forth in the Constitution. I can assure you the draft that I am moving for is far better than the one drawn up by the government. Moreover, there are no differences inside the bloc.”
“The Communist Heorhy Kriuchkov expressed the opinion at The Day’s roundtable that some political forces are using the Communists as a ‘bulldozer.’ Will you ever (and, if so, when) break with such temporary allies as the Communists?”
“I categorically oppose the view that one can utilize another. And I see no reason why we should break up because there is no reason why we should be allies. Our Ukraine did not organize the September 16 and 24 rallies. Our people were not there, at least as representatives of the organization. Nor did the bloc’s political council make any decision on the matter. Incidentally, the Solidarity party under my leadership never made any decisions on the participation of its members in those actions.”
“Why then, contrary to the political council’s decision, was Our Ukraine’s leader on the square?”
“Our electorate was there, those who voted against the government. This is why Mr. Yushchenko came to see his voters and signed the rally’s resolution. That is the political right of him as the bloc leader. I stress it was the resolution of a rally, not a political document.”
“But a day earlier he had signed an agreement with five ‘pro-presidential’ factions...”
“A forum organized by our bloc put out a document on a dialogue between the government and the opposition, which was expected to promote the formation of a majority. However, there was no ‘roundtable’ with the government, who ignored the demands of 40 political parties. This is the reason why the negotiations on the formation of a majority have been stopped today.”
