The leadership has at last ventured to pardon Yurii Lutsenko. The Lutsenko case was ample proof of selective justice in Ukraine. For if the measures applied to Lutsenko were applied to the current government, none of the officials would be likely to remain at large.
Yet if the government had not chosen to prosecute Tymoshenko and Lutsenko, Ukraine would not perhaps have 80 percent of its international problems and, instead, would have every opportunity to realize its international potential. At the same time, the release of Lutsenko is the instance when the rule “better late than never” is applicable. The government has opted for this, which can only be welcomed because this was done in spite of personal motives, memories, fear, and stubbornness.
Naturally, no undue illusions should be harbored, but it is worthwhile to analyze the government’s motives. Obviously, the government is really willing to conclude an association treaty with the EU – it is not just rhetoric. Association and especially a free trade area with the EU can become a large bright spot against the background of this country’s problems. For a free trade area will allow Ukraine’s business to gradually but steadily enter the European market and obtain a better place in the worldwide distribution of labor.
Besides, the government must be fed up with being an outcast in Europe and the rest of the world. For things were so good in the beginning: almost all the European Union leaders came to attend Yanukovych’s inauguration, but the lion’s share of the international political potential was squandered in just one year or so. This is all the more abusive because there is every precondition for the voice of this country (and, accordingly, its government) to be quite influential in the region.
Thirdly, the US State Department hinted that the IMF cooperation and political prisoner issues could be linked. In the conditions when industrial output dropped by 3.2 percent in January and by 6 percent in February, cooperation with the IMF can be not just desirable but vital. Moreover, the Fund issues loans at a 4-4.5-percent interest rate – three times as cheaply as Russian banks do.
Finally, there can also be a much more cynical motivation. Many signs are showing that the government is getting ready for a usurpation referendum, and they urgently need to improve their image and thus add legitimacy to this event.
On November 27, 2012, President Viktor Yanukovych signed the law on referendum, which in fact allows the Constitution to be altered in an anti-constitutional manner.
The Party of Regions made this extremely important decision insidiously and on the sly in the last days of a Verkhovna Rada session, when, after losing to the opposition in the proportional-representation constituencies, it clearly showed that it lacked societal support for any fateful decisions.
Articles 154-158 of the Constitution of Ukraine very clearly set out the procedure of altering the Constitution, all the rest being usurpation.
It should be noted that the current government has ample powers to improve the life of people – please do so if you can. What the Constitution really lacks is a mechanism of checks and balances.
But the government could have checked and balanced itself even today if it wanted to do so. Instead, it passes usurpation-style laws on the Cabinet of Ministers, on judicial reform, and, finally, on referendum. These laws do not introduce the mechanisms of checks and balances – on the contrary, they nip them in the bud.
The formation of the commissions that will count the referendum votes is totally in the government’s hands. And we know only too well how the government can count – at least on the example of the latest or 2004 elections.
The adopted law on referendum does not rule out the possibility of voting on the issues that affect this country’s independence. Our country is a link between “the dead, the living, and the unborn,” and it would be absolutely wrong to endanger this link.
The main goal of the planned constitutional reform is to perpetuate a ruinous domination in Ukraine and to distract people from actual problems by means of a new delusion – we have problems not because our government is ineffective, greedy, and irresponsible, but because the Constitution is bad.
This instrumental approach to the Constitution is destructive, for it undermines the very legitimacy of the state. This is all too clear to the world where the constitutional law can remain stable for centuries on end and, as a rule, the more stable the constitution is, the more successful the state is.
Have those who are rocking the state’s boat today ever studied history? Do we have to emulate the countries of Africa, where every coup is accompanied by a radical overhaul of the constitution? Maybe, it is high time for the Ukrainian leadership to understand that those coups go so smoothly just because the government has strangled respect for the law with its own hands?
Here is, for example, what President Vladimir Putin, still popular among some Regionnaires, said about the attempts to change the Constitution of Russia: “Watering down and loosening the fundamental law is a precursor to watering down and loosening the state itself. The fundamental law must be stable. This stability determines, to a large extent, the stability of the state itself.”
Unfortunately, the current government showed an extremely low level of responsibility in 2004, in the NATO issue, etc. So it is quite easy to imagine that the government will be striking at Ukraine again if it is to be dragged away from the national treasury. Moreover, the government is in fact shamelessly and cruelly picking the pockets of an exhausted, half-conscious, but self-identified country.
We can now see the opposition taking a more active approach. The Sunday rally proved to be far more massive and, let us admit it, more sincere than the previous one. Most of the Kyivites are siding with the opposition because many of them are indignant at being deprived of the right to choose. Besides, the opposition looked at the rally as closely-knit as never before. Tiahnybok praised Yatseniuk, and Yatseniuk praised Klitschko. What helps the oppositionists to rally together is not only the government’s pressure, but also their youth – the next election is by no means the last chance for each of them.
On the other hand, one must take an extremely wise – responsible and, at the same time, resolute – approach to resist usurpation. The opposition should remember every day that, in spite of all reproaches, Ukraine does not have another president and Cabinet. So you have sometimes to curb your own desires if the interests, integrity, and security of the state demand this. Has the opposition reached this balance of responsibility and resoluteness?
It became clear at the rally that the opposition continues to speak with people in the language of slogans. But, to tell the truth, even if this may comply with the rally’s style, it also shows certain arrogance. No one knows why the oppositionists decided that the Ukrainians need pink syrup about inexistent “victories,” which runs counter to reality. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are not afraid of hardships. The people need no appeasing fables about a new “victory” (all the more so that it came off by itself). On the contrary, it is better to show the Ukrainians the situation in darks colors so they can begin to do things with more zeal. Active citizens are already mature enough to be told honestly and without embellishments about the goal and the ways to it.
Hence is the crowd-pleasing nature of some of the opposition’s demands. When they demanded observing the Constitution, as far as in-person voting and Kyiv elections are concerned, it was flawless. But when they added to this the cancellation of pension reform (in which pensioners themselves are unlikely to believe and for which there is definitely no money in the budget, plus to this the 3.2- and 6-percent industrial output slump in January and February, respectively), this did not look too serious.
The opposition seems to continue to regard rallies as scenery for its declarations. But society is something more than scenery – it is a colossal human resource and motive force which, given the right organization, can overweigh all the government’s advantages, including money, administrative resource, and the uniformed services.
