What characterized the position of People’s Deputy Leonid Kravchuk, leader of the Social Democratic Party (United) fraction and first president of independent Ukraine, during the Verkhovna Rada debate on sending the Ukrainian CBR battalion to Kuwait was his different class of thinking, level of generalization, along with his mastery of “text and subtext.” Always spearheading the public and journalist interest, Mr. Kravchuk also faced this time the grossly rude political behavior of the opposition: his speech on the parliamentary podium was followed by cries of “Shame!” Yet, the words of Leonid Kravchuk played their role in persuading Verkhovna Rada to vote for the resolution: “Since the war has started and we can’t stop it by our decisions, I want to place this matter on the humanitarian, rather than political plane. Namely, should Ukraine stay out of this? Shall we defend ourselves only or shall we help other people if chemical, biological and other weapons have been deployed?.. I will vote the way my conscience dictates in order to protect at least one individual there in the Persian Gulf, instead of gesticulating and shouting condemnation.”
The Day’s correspondent asked Mr. Kravchuk to comment on Ukraine’s place and role in today’s complex geopolitical processes and on the most important current domestic and international developments.
“Verkhovna Rada has been rocked by the budget scandal. Would you diagnose this disease? What are its political consequences?”
“The diagnosis is very simple: irresponsibility: if you are in power, you do what you want to and not what the law requires. I don’t know who is to blame. I know that Verkhovna Rada’s legal department and the task force led by Vice Speaker Hennady Vasyliev on behalf of the speaker have drawn up a document exposing a discrepancy of UAH 47.6 million between the budget I voted for as a people’s deputy and the one submitted for the President to sign. I wonder how these 47.6 million hryvnias made their way into the budget after it was approved by Verkhovna Rada? Who wrote these figures? How were they distributed? Who must be held responsible? The issue is not whether this is a big or small amount but of principle. Even if it was a matter of twenty hryvnias, it should have been found on the basis of what law and vote they found themselves there. Somebody must be honest and dignified enough to stand up and say whether there was some directive, secret talks, or secret games... Verkhovna Rada is not keen to punish somebody — all we want is to know what happened and to forestall something of this kind when the next budget is voted on. For things have gone so far that some say it was done by somebody in the Presidential Administration. Again the Presidential Administration will play the role of whipping-boy! But if somebody really had a finger in the pie, let him take a good shower, come out, and say to Verkhovna Rada: dear people’s deputies, you know in what conditions this budget was passed — on New Year’s Eve, quickly — so we made some mistakes and take the blame. Let’s find a way to correct these mistakes, for example, revise the budget approximately in October and hand over these 47.6 million to, say, orphanages, the handicapped, and so on. That’s all. We will accept all this, for we don’t need investigations and prosecutions. Yet, they lack the courage to do this.
“As to political consequences, we already have them in one way or another. I’m surprised when I hear somebody tell us not to wash our dirty linen in public — all this will be discussed in the press and society! My Russian acquaintances already phone me and ask what trick we pulled with the budget, what know-how we used to invent it. In other words, this incident is already on everybody’s lips. It should now be put an end to — after an official explanation.”
“In 1994 you transferred power in a civilized way — for the first time in the post-Soviet space — to your successor. Today, the problem of such a transfer of power is again coming into the limelight. You said in an interview with our newspaper that a civilized change of power ‘should undoubtedly be prepared well in advance.’ What do you think could be the most suitable model for transferring power from Ukraine’s second to the third president?”
“First of all, the current head of state must decide deep in his heart that he will not run for a next term...”
“Do you think the president has not yet made a decision?”
“Outwardly he has: we all heard his statements. But when I say ‘deep in his heart,’ I mean that, whoever might come to him and whatever one might say to him, his decision must remain unchanged. The point is there will be visitors who will say: the regions support you, you are irreplaceable, and God knows what else... I also had such visitors. I experienced all this and know: those who speak the most are thinking mainly about themselves, not about whom they are visiting... After making this decision, the head of state then decides — a very important point — on his successor. (This does mean, of course, that precisely he will be elected.) And he says: I think that, for such and such reasons, this person is most acceptable for Ukraine. Another point. Transferring power is not only handing over the keys to the safe. New laws will have to be passed: on protecting the former president’s honor and dignity, certain guarantees, rights, etc. I stress that the question is not about personalities but about principles. Then the president will say to his successor: among the so many members of my team there are so many time-tested professionals, intellectuals, highly-cultured, and politically mature people for whom Ukraine is above all else; so, in my view, you should not ignore these people, they can work on the next president’s team, too. All civilized countries show concern about the continuity of power. Of course, all agreements must be open and transparent. When all these fundamental problems have been solved, they discuss a purely formal question — where an how to conduct the ceremony of transition: at the Mariyinsky Palace or, say, Ukrayina Palace. Please note this will not be just a show — it is important. Because in former times, a person had not even cleaning out his office before they began to run over him...”
“As reported, one of the chapters in the President’s Message will deal with the political reform. At the same time, debates are going on about its content and timeliness. What do you think now?”
“My attitude remains unchanged: the organization of government is ineffective, neither the Constitution nor the laws clearly explain its powers — this is why a political, above all constitutional reform is necessary. But unfortunately, the correlation of forces is such that this reform will not be carried out (I was and still am pessimistic about this). Verkhovna Rada won’t be able to put together 300 votes to support either the bill introduced a group of people’s deputies — Moroz et al. — or the presidential one unless it undergoes changes in the course of a nationwide debate.”
“And what changes in the current model of government do you think could find support even before the presidential elections?”
“It would be a good idea to pass a series of specific laws, for example, on the Cabinet of Ministers, on elections, on public utilities, that is, laws which would promote a separation of powers within the framework of the existing Constitution. This would lay the basis for more profound transformations, such as the administrative and territorial reforms, etc. But political reform is impossible under the current system of coordinates.”
“What about restricting presidential powers?”
“I think this could be done, but the question is how and for what purpose they are to be restricted.”
“I mean redistributing powers between the president and parliament in favor of the latter...”
“According to the president’s proposal, a part of the Cabinet is to be formed by parliament and the other part by the head of state. Yet, all over the world, the government is formed either by the former or the latter... In other words, there are things to be discussed, and this is what the president suggested we do.”
