Attempts to put together a parliamentary majority in Verkhovna Rada in any possible way have long been fruitless. Despite regular sessions of the Majority Coordination Council and high-profile issues solved, in reality no majority exists. Until now, no one has been elected to take over from the NDP caucus head and former majority coordinator Oleksandr Karpov — a pretty tough job, considering the fact that the organizers are unable (or unwilling?) to secure the attendance of the Communist deputies who fail to turn up.
The situation involving the majority is reminiscent of a one-room apartment where a divorced couple continues to live because neither has anywhere else to go. Nor do those who broke up the family have any alternative accommodations to offer, and as a result virtual strangers have to spend the nights together.
The Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) caucus, its Verkhovna Rada satellites, and supporters have seemingly passed the point of no return. After all the criticism leveled against the oligarchs by Batkivshchyna second-in-command Turchynov on April 3, as well as on various occasions in the past, respectable people should not be trying to get into the same bed with the parliamentary majority. But do they really have any alternative?
Debates in the parliament on the parliamentary majority and opposition bill threw even harsher light on the issue. While most lawmakers were hanging out in the snack bars or lobbies, the debate was carried out mainly by those deputies who are faced with the looming perspective of declaring their affiliation and who, understandably, try to put off this unpleasant decision. But they do not have much choice as seats in the opposition camp have long been taken by the Left. As soon as the official structuring of the legislature takes place, if at all, a small knot of political mugwumps will become visible. The group is, in fact, so small that it will not carry much weight in future voting. Hence arises the natural desire of Solons to circle the wagons in informal coalitions that do not commit themselves to any side.
This is precisely what happened with the Labor Ukraine and National Democratic Party caucuses. The signing of an agreement between them has been presented as a serious political act, as Ihor Sharov and Oleksandr Karpov signed the document to a discreet applause in the presence of their fellow deputies, skipping the usual hugs and kisses. Incidentally, the document signed hardly calls for hugs and kisses. This professionally promoted document includes a list of joint measures which both groups had de facto already been carrying out before they established a bloc. One cannot fail to agree that, in order to coordinate their actions, work out joint positions, prepare joint statements, hold consultations, or vote in solidarity, no separate document need be signed. Simultaneously, Labor Ukraine does not look like a union of politicians who just like to waste of paper and ink.
Most likely, the coquetry between the caucuses indicates one of the possible directions for future election campaign bargaining. The NDP, having a wide network of grassroots organizations but currently losing steam together with the mighty but unstructured Labor Ukraine could become a serious tandem in talks with the SDPU(o) and Regional Revival. One cannot avoid noticing that, simultaneously with signing the agreement with the NDP caucus, Labor Ukraine declared that, without re-registering the majority in Verkhovna Rada, approving the prepared agreement between government and parliament is out of the question. The declaration to the effect signed by Ihor Sharov clearly states, “It is impossible to sign a cooperation agreement with the government with one hand and espouse anti-government slogans with the other.” Definitely, the NDP and Labor Ukraine have sorted out between themselves what the other hand should do. The basic activity for lawmakers’ disengaged limbs will be to push the voting buttons in unison or, if you will, in solidarity with the remainder of the majority team. Although both hands will not be needed. Lawmakers may first sign, that is, declare, on which side of the fence they are, and then vote, which leaves one hand free. Which again means that the majority will be in for some problems on its way to becoming formalized. This kind of wrangling will apparently continue until the people’s deputies vote the bill on the majority and opposition into law.
