On April 11 the finance and economy ministries made a joint effort to explain to journalists the economic side of the constitutional reform proposed by the president, arguing that the reform will result in a more effective system of government.
The roles were assigned as follows: the Ministry of the Economy in the person of Deputy State Secretary Serhiy Romaniuk assured the audience the reform was being supported by the collective of almost 1000 workers whom he represented. What basically appeals to the economists is the same date for elections and election campaigning at all levels, because large time gaps between the dates of voting hinder the formation of a harmonious economic policy. They also approve of the formation of the cabinet by Verkhovna Rada because this is supposed to ensure greater coordination and responsibility of the legislative and executive branches. The only thing that found no support from the economic experts is passage of laws by means of referenda. They suggest this provision be strictly limited. Although these alleged senior economists have pointed out certain positive aspects to switching over to a bicameral parliament, such as greater regional representation and enhanced role of local self-government, they caution about the possible drawing out of the procedure for considering legislation.
The Ministry of Finance, represented by Deputy State Secretary Oleksandr Svyryda, believes that the necessity of making changes to the Constitution “is not a subject of debate” because the relevant decision has been made. The so-called financiers decided not to delve into political issues but to concentrate — for they know the turf — on the economic aspects and consequences of the Constitutional reform. So far they do not know what it will cost the taxpayers and believe that in any case the future gains will far outweigh the expenses. Yet, the Finance Ministry has assessed all the pluses. Should all elections be held in the same year, this will make it possible to save money by curbing expenditures for ballot boxes, electoral commissions, etc., in other words, by reducing overhead. What also promises to save money is cutting the number of people’s deputies from the current 450 to 300, as well as prolonging their term from four to five years (the ministry does nor recommend a longer term, for this would upset the balance between the democratic spirit and economic expediency).
Therefore, the state will save, according to Mr. Svyryda, as much as UAH 30-35 million a year on people’s deputies’ upkeep and UAH 15 million on elections.
But what the Finance Ministry considers the main plus of the constitutional reform is the proposed guarantee that the national budget will be adopted before December 1, for otherwise the president will exercise his power to dissolve parliament. “This is a serious incentive for Verkhovna Rada,” the deputy state secretary says convincingly. In his opinion, the national budget, passed “by a miracle” at the last year’s end was fulfilled 100% in the first quarter of this year, in terms of both expenditures and revenues (even over 100%). Moreover, funding was carried out in an automatic, not hands-on mode, which Mr. Svyryda says shows that the state is stable and pursues a transparent policy concerning business circles.
INCIDENTALLY
People’s Deputy Nestor Shufrych (SPDU{O} faction) believes that the main result of the parliamentary hearings on the political reform in Ukraine is the conclusion that the system of government should be reformed. Mr. Shufrych stressed, speaking to journalists in Verkhovna Rada corridors last Friday, that “this is the No. 1 question today, as far as further normal development is concerned.” According to the deputy, “if the reform gets started, this will touch upon all the sectors of our economy.”
Stepan Havrysh, leader of the Democratic Initiative group, opined that establishing an effective system of government should be the main result of the political reform: “This means, above all, that a dialog is in progress, which will lay a solid groundwork for an equitable system of government in Ukraine.” He believes that the presidential-parliamentary rule “has exhausted itself,” and Ukraine “is doomed to seek a new model of government... A non- reformed system of government will slow down this country’s progress.”
Commenting on the past hearings to Interfax-Ukraine, Director of Kyiv’s Center for Political Research and Conflict Studies Mykhailo Pohrebynsky noted, “What is impressive is the stand taken by the opposition in its confrontation with the government — to scorn everything that comes from the government and to seek ways to discredit any proposals it might put forward.” Simultaneously Mr. Pohrebynsky thinks that the parliamentary political forces have “quite a broad field of accord.” In particular, “there are practically no disputes over the idea that the cabinet should be formed by the parliament.” However, he underscored, there is “an unbridgeable gap” between the opposition and pro-presidential forces. “Regrettably, the parliamentary hearings failed to bring the dialog between these forces into the public sphere,” he said.
