Wednesday added a sad page to the budgetary saga in parliament; after three years of debate, the Verkhovna Rada instructed the budget committee, the cabinet, and the authors of amendments to revise the 2005 state budget bill and submit it by November 3. All 247 MPs present voted for the resolution. A proposal to adopt the amendments submitted by factions and groups of people’s deputies, forward them to the cabinet for revision, and then return them to parliament for further deliberation was put to the vote. It was also proposed to return the budget bill for a repeated first reading. Neither proposal was supported by the MPs. Members of the Communist faction refused to vote for the proposal to adopt the budget committee’s findings and proposals, saying they did not want the cabinet version of the budget program.
In fact, the budget-deliberation process has never been peaceful, yet this time the stumbling block was not some budget items or clauses, but a lack of votes. Only 248 people’s deputies registered during the morning session. The seats of six majority factions remained empty, as did the government’s seats, which means that the previously declared intention to lift the siege before October 20 was nothing but hot air. Parliamentarians from the six striking factions continued their protest action against what Stepan Havrysh described as “turning the parliamentary rostrum into a hunting ground for political opponents.” The following statements, courtesy of Verkhovna Rada records, are a good illustration of this view: “I am only too well aware that in the event that Yanukovych wins, Ukrainian culture will evolve at the level of the Vladimirsky Tsentral [Russia’s notorious penitentiary]” (from a speech by Our Ukraine’s Yavorivsky); “...now that the administrative resource is rampant on an unprecedented scale, with election commissions being unlawfully established and power structures unconstitutionally involved in the election campaign, the regime is trying to secure victory for Kuchma’s candidate. The number-one campaign stunt pulled off by the government-nominated candidate was raising salaries and increasing pensions...” (SPU faction’s Melnychuk); “...fuel is being added to the fire of interethnic animosity, your candidate is promulgating a civil war, because Yanukovych’s output data in all those dirty leaflets is the same...” (Our Ukraine’s Sobolev), etc., etc. At the same time, people from the BYuT faction, without waiting for the election results, are referring to Viktor Yushchenko as the “people’s president,” and other political forces whose leaders are also running for the presidency never miss an opportunity to advertise their candidates (e.g., “our moral authority Oleksandr Moroz”, “celebrated politician Petro Symonenko”). Without a doubt, if all the seats were occupied in parliament, the 2005 budget bill would be debated with the same rich rhetoric.
Anticipating these complications, Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn told a scheduled press conference earlier that there were four scenarios. The number- one scenario is “pro- oppositional,” namely shelving the bill. Budget Committee Chairman Petro Poroshenko seconded it, stressing that “the government won’t implement this budget, no matter who wins the campaign.” However, playing out this scenario would be very difficult, as it would require not only changes in the thematic code, but also enacting a law, meaning that the president would have to approve it. The second scenario is even more utopian, whereby the cabinet would recall its own bill. Lytvyn and most other MPs believe there are no grounds for this whatsoever, although the Communist faction was insisting that cabinet had to do it, considering the great number of corrections that were submitted.
Almost 3,000 corrections were tabled by factions, the National Bank, and other authorized individuals. Mr. Poroshenko announced, among other things, that Russia’s State Duma had deliberated a budget bill the previous day, but in the second reading. The northern neighbor appeared less enterprising and submitted only 200 proposals, of which only 70 will be taken into account.
According to Mr. Lytvyn’s third scenario, all 3,000 corrections would be deliberated and put to the vote separately. His fourth scenario is that parliament would resolve to adopt the budget committee’s findings, and that the budget bill would be returned to cabinet for revision, allowing for the amendments. Whether or not they will be taken into account is another matter, considering the possibility that cabinet could return the document unchanged. The speaker assured the MPs that the conciliation commission at its sitting on Monday unanimously supported the latter option, so Mr. Lytvyn recommended that it be put to the vote, explaining that “this is actually a new, parliamentary bill, rather than a cabinet bill, because all the proposals are based on the deputies’ remarks.”
Despite countless attempts, the parliamentary bill was not passed. The Communists, firmly convinced that they were being taken for a ride, resolutely opposed it, proposing instead to vote for an “antipopular budget.” Nothing helped: neither detailed explanations that the budget bill was parliamentary, not “ministerial,” (the latter was torpedoed earlier by the CPU faction), or even Petro Poroshenko’s personal solicitations. Alternative resolutions failed to garner even 200 votes, and a search for a compromise also failed. After forty minutes into the debate, the speaker could stand it no longer: “Unless there is a positive vote, we might as well forget about our parliamentarism. Tonight, all the television channels will be announcing that the Verkhovna Rada is slowing down economic progress and interfering with the work of cabinet.” Yet his desperate appeals to the colleagues, urging them to show common sense (“we can’t leave this ball in the parliamentary field”) fell on deaf ears.
The resolution to hold a second first reading, passed with 247 votes, somewhat upset the schedule determined by the budget code. But there is still room left for maneuvering. The final version of the budget must be approved before December 4, i.e., after the elections. “There are no grounds to discuss a budgetary crisis,” says budget committee member Liudmyla Suprun.
Alas, there are enough reasons to do just that.
Last Wednesday, in a half-empty parliamentary session room filled with unoccupied government benches, the bill failed to be approved in the first reading and was deferred until the next sitting. The next day the document that “belongs to no one” acquired a legitimate spokesman: First Vice-Premier Mykola Azarov expressed cabinet’s opinion about the entire budgetary process.
Leafing through a printout of the shorthand record, Mr. Azarov recalled that cabinet had in a timely manner submitted to the Verkhovna Rada “a well-balanced draft budget of a pronounced social nature” (over UAH 65 billion or 55% of all expenditures are being earmarked for social purposes) and was prepared to work with parliament in a constructive fashion. Yet this did not happen, Mr. Azarov said reproachfully. While the budgetary committee held up the bill for a month, almost 3,000 amendments were proposed. According to Mr. Azarov, instead of analyzing them, choosing “ well-balanced proposals,” and preparing its own conclusions, the committee dumped everything into a pot and proposed putting “all this populist hogwash” to a vote. “If you sum them (the amendments — Author) up, you would have to increase budgetary revenues by UAH 30 billion and expenditures by UAH 150 billion,” Mr. Azarov said, noting that cabinet will never accept an unbalanced budget. Once the budgetary committee prepares well-balanced conclusions and proposals about the draft budget, the government will take part in the discussion, he said, perhaps oblivious of the ultimatum-type nature of his statement. In Mr. Azarov’s view, from the very outset cabinet was assigned the role of being at the receiving end — the idea was to force it “to take part in a crowd- pleasing competition.”
Reading out the shorthand record, Mr. Azarov quoted budgetary committee chair Petro Poroshenko as saying that the current cabinet will never implement the proposed budget because it will resign in a month’s time. “How could the committee chairman dare participate in the debate using this kind of approach!” the first vice-premier shouted. In his opinion, the discussions of the draft state budget only confirm that the opposition wants to destabilize the budget adoption process. According to Mr. Azarov, not a single constructive proposal was in fact submitted that day, while the government took more than its fair share of flak. In keeping with the latest tradition, the MPs rapped his knuckles especially hard for “hiding” budgetary revenues within the range of UAH 4-10 billion.
Mr. Azarov says the 2005 budget is “overstrained” because the draft provides for a 35% increase in revenues, which was never the case in previous years. “There are some possibilities for increasing the budget,” he said, pointing out that the document was drafted in the summer, but submitted to the Verkhovna Rada in September. This means some changes may be introduced into the state budget with due account of the changes that occurred in the economy over the last period. Without disclosing a possible increase of budgetary expenditures, the first vice-premier assured the deputies that there are sufficient financial resources for all the proposals coming from Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.
Mr. Azarov is optimistic about the further prospects of the draft budget in parliament. “Nothing tragic has happened. What has happened is the awareness that the budgetary committee has begun to play pre-election games. This should not be done because the budget is too serious a document to be played around with,” Mr. Azarov said. Still, in his view a well-balanced budget is sure to pass, which will require new efforts to reach a compromise with parliament. In all probability, it will be far easier to do this after the elections-or far more difficult.
