The second has gone… After the three single member constituencies have been liquidated in Kyiv at the expense of foreign polling stations, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has adopted one more decision concerning the elections. Simultaneous ballot to the parliament with party lists and districts allowed by the “Law on the parliamentary elections” has been cancelled. This decision, just like the previous one, was initiated by the Party of Regions (51 MPs) in their appeal to the Constitutional Court. In their opinion, that prevision did not meet the principle of supremacy of law and did not provide for the realization of principles of justice and equality during the elections.
The decision of the Constitutional Court is disadvantageous for the opposition. It is no coincidence that one of the leaders of Fatherland Mykola Tomenko said that it was a “hit below the belt.” However, he specified that it was a blow for “authorities’ partners and the so-called opposition forces that cooperate with the power.” It is difficult to agree with this since Fatherland also negotiated with the governing party before voting for the election law. In addition, it is a strike upon the whole opposition. From now on it will have fewer chances at the election. Actually, the vice-speaker of the parliament emphasized it as well: “The governing party understands perfectly well that it will lose the election in the party lists and the only possibility to create the parliamentary majority is winning in the majoritarian districts. That is why it is doing its best to promote the least charismatic and least popular opposition candidates.”
The governing party is happy. It is “weeding” election legislation throwing away its disadvantageous norms through consecutive decisions of the Constitutional Court. “There will not be any emergency parachutes,” MP from the Party of Regions Vladyslav Zabarsky said. “Candidates will be more responsible in front of their electors; that is why I think that this decision is very positive.”
Obviously, this situation is advantageous for the power. Political expert Kostiantyn Matviienko thinks that “they are doing everything to limit opposition’s possibility to enter the Verkhovna Rada as much as possible. Now the leaders of the lists in the majoritarian districts Yatseniuk, Turchynov, and Korolevska will be able to enter the parliament in the majoritarian districts, but they will have to ballot in the party lists. Thus the governing party gets the double advantage: firstly, there will be fewer majoritarian opposition candidates in the parliament; secondly, the opposition parties whose leaders will ballot in the majoritarian districts, for example, Anatolii Hrytsenko, will not have any chances to enter the parliament.”
What about the legal assessment? “Unlike many previous decisions, this time the Constitutional Court has been consecutive,” head of the Centre for Political and Legal Reforms Ihor Koliushko commented. “It has supported the legal provision recorded in its previous decision in 1998. Certainly, there are some questions from the political point. At the moment when the decision was adopted all the political forces of the parliament were aware of the position of the Constitutional Court, however, they deliberately included another provision of the law. However, I cannot say that simultaneous ballot sharply contradicts any constitutional norms. This is the way how the Constitutional Court interpreted the Constitution. It had the right to do it. From the political point, somebody has outstripped somebody else. They could have adopted a compromise decision but for this they had to consult the judges from the Constitutional Court. First of all, it can be differently interpreted; secondly, many countries that do not give any reasons to doubt their democracy allow such simultaneous ballot that does not provoke any significant problems. It means that we cheated somebody at the beginning to vote for the law and then cancelled this provision through the Constitutional Court.”
This scenario was predictable. The opposition understood it as well. However, they still supported the law on the parliamentary elections. They hoped for something. What for? The Party of Regions has repeatedly demonstrated that it is not ready to waive its interests enjoying the full authority. The current amendment of the election legislation proved it once again. That is why the declaration made by the leader of the Front of Changes Arsenii Yatseniuk that “Yanukovych wrecked the honest election,” is, to put it mildly, weird. What guarantees did the opposition have that the agreements would be preserved? It constantly criticizes the authorities, calling their rule “the dictatorship.”
