At present, debate is centered on whether or not a referendum should be held. We are witness to various points of view and approaches. Some say that a stable political system will not be secured without a referendum, just as the problem of reform will not be solved. Others call for boycotting it, saying it is only the President’s latest attempt to usurp power in Ukraine and become a dictator. Still others propose holding an alternative referendum. Who is right? Whom should we trust and support?
These and other issues interest people who are really concerned, still hoping that the current situation can be corrected by democratic, humane means. Suppose we reason together and decide where exactly we stand, what kind of society we are building, what ways and means we should use.
The 1991 referendum demonstrated Ukraine’s choice as an independent, sovereign, and democratic state. At the time we did not have a real political force prepared to take power and propose a reform option. The Communist parliamentary majority proved ineffective while the democratic minority turned out to be hypnotized by the euphoria of national independence. This state of affairs continued for quite some time and the result was that the basic problems in politically modernizing this society remained unsolved. The ruling political elite, after proclaiming a course set on democratization, the need to lay the foundations of a state ruled by law and civil society, apparently sat back awaiting a miracle, expecting everything to be brought them on the proverbial silver platter.
Parliament proved unable to effectively resolve matters relating to the political system of Ukraine: was it to be a unitary or federal state? This gave rise to the problem of Crimean autonomy. There was no clear delimitation of authority between the legislative and executive branches (was Ukraine to be a parliamentary or presidential republic?), resulting in the confrontation between them and a crisis of its legitimacy. The absence of a leading political force in society caused the problem of multiple parties and the need to change the electoral system. The functions and jurisdiction of the center and regions were not clearly defined, just as there was no effective vehicle to secure their cooperation (the level and degree of local self-government). Put together, this broke the center-region connection and the executive vertical as a whole. Most importantly, the process of enacting the new Constitution was excruciatingly drawn out.
Political uncertainty and instability entailed an avalanche of problems in the economic, social, and cultural spheres. The absence of a strong political center (and effective operating mechanism) caused living standards to plummet throughout Ukraine.
The Ukrainian President proposes to place the bicameral parliament issue on the referendum agenda. Will this help to solve the problem of the relationships between the center and regions? Could this threaten our independence?
I think that the regions, when represented in Parliament, will make their decisions more effective and closer to reality. Favorable conditions will be thus created for the formation of strong regions. A threat to independence and sovereignty? To avoid it under the circumstances, we must have a better delimitation of authority between the center and regions, while comprehensively developing local self-government, allowing the regions a greater degree of independence, with the state effectively monitoring rather than supervising them. Premier Viktor Yushchenko has already proposed adequate budgetary support of the process. I think time will tell just how effective this approach is.
In my opinion, there are three key forces capable of solving the vital problems facing this society: the people of Ukraine, People’s Deputies in Verkhovna Rada, and President elected by the majority. Suppose we consider their actual possibilities.
In a politically stable society, these legitimate forces act in close cooperation and accord. In Ukraine, this is still an ideal which we must attain whether we like it or not. Under the Constitution, Ukraine is a republic with a mixed form of government. Due to the fact that there is no clear delimitation of authority between the legislative and executive branches, we constantly witness confrontation between them. A parliamentary majority took shape in Verkhovna Rada after Leonid Kuchma was elected for the second term, yet this majority is still unable to come to terms with the minority, meaning that the highest legislative body is unable to make effective decisions for the time being. Speaker Tkachenko’s fiasco during the elections and his determination to pass only bills and resolutions he and his associates want are an obstacle to unity.
During the presidential campaign many experts spoke of a crisis of presidential legitimacy. The election turnout showed that this was not so. Most of the Ukrainian people voted for the incumbent President, meaning support of his reform policy. This is probably why numerous political forces (and some of the lawmakers) are frightened to hear what the people think about reducing the number of People’s Deputies or dissolving Parliament if it proves unable to function properly, along with repealing parliamentary immunity, instituting bicameralism, and so on.
Today, one can hear voices skeptical about the ability of the masses to be creative and make an independent choice. While in classical theories democracy was originally described as a means of expressing the general will, in modern theories the democracy in a large society is illusory and can be a way to resist the growth of power akin to bureaucracy.
Such an approach to democracy was implemented in France under President de Gaulle. During his presidency that country had eight referendums. Addressing the nation, bypassing Parliament and the representative system, became standard procedure. The result was that France never became totalitarian. With time the presidential regime softened. France is currently an example of stable democracy.
A democracy cannot exist without an advanced representative system, without the will of the majority when making decisions, without the right to agree or refuse to carry out decisions if found unconstitutional. The political process is regarded as a struggle among the interests of different groups that can be reconciled and partially coordinated only by the state with its system and institutions of power. There is no unity in the Ukrainian Parliament, and it is currently ineffective. The reelected President is perfectly legitimate, and he is using his constitutional right to address the nation.
One can object, of course, that a referendum is a very costly project. True, but can one estimate the likely damage that will be inflicted on this society and the entire nation by the drawn-out economic crisis and politicians’ unwillingness and inability to effectively run this polity? It may well cause irreversible processes. We must ask ourselves whether we want this kind of future.
