The election of the heads and first deputy heads of parliamentary committees came on the heels of a grueling race for the speaker’s seat. Yet, contrary to the laws of the genre, the second episode of the conflict over offices looks far more interesting and involved than the first one. On May 31, Verkhovna Rada Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn, whose desperate calls for negotiations were ignored by Our Ukraine, KPU, SPU, and BYuT leaders, accused the four factions of stalling parliamentary proceedings. He noted that these representatives themselves had suggested that such a meeting be held.
The four put down their behavior to ideological confrontation with United Ukraine and say that the election of Mr. Lytvyn runs counter to the interests of Ukrainian citizens. They do not even deny that the committee chairmanship draft they had offered the day before was supposed to compensate for the irreparable losses they suffered in the bid for parliamentary leadership.
Resolute unwillingness to work out a compromise with the duo barely disguises some of their quite pragmatic interests, which can be illustrated by failure of the OU, SPU, and KPU factions, supported by the Tymoshenko bloc, to push through their own version of committee distribution last Thursday. The ideologically-opposed factions reached by joint effort a surprising, at first glance, compromise. Suffice it to recall their proposal to appoint Communist Vasyl Khara as chairman of the Social Policies Committee and Oleksandr Stoyan, No. 2 on Viktor Yushchenko’s list, as his deputy. Then what about the cardinal differences between KPU and the Yushchenko government over public privileges and subsidies? “Chairmanship of some committees is not less and sometimes even more important than the chairs of speaker and vice speakers,” former people’s deputy and former Minister for the Economy Viktor Suslov told The Day, emphasizing that the committees should be formed “on a proportional, not corporate system.”
What does chairmanship of the most prestigious committees (on the budget, financial and banking activities, steering, organized crime and corruption control, fuel and energy, economic policies, industrial policies and entrepreneurial activity) mean? Why are precisely these committees, rather than those on pensions, public health, culture, etc., the object of a bitter inter-faction struggle? These questions are very reluctantly answered in Verkhovna Rada with a voice recorder on. The revealing admission of Oleksandr Zadorozhny, the president’s representative in parliament, that this means apartments, cars, and the possibility of a greater, compared to ordinary deputies, influence on lawmaking and the executive power bodies is revealing only to some extent.
It will be noted that now (after the procedural rules have been changed) members are allowed to stay away from committee sessions. Moreover, distance, proxy, and write-in voting is also allowed. Under these conditions, the committee head often wields decisive influence. Dealing with and making ex-officio impact on individual deputies, he is in fact able to make the committee pass any resolution and alter a bill one way or another. If there is no open confrontation with other committee members, the chair can claim, “The committee is me.”
On May 31 SPU faction leader Oleksandr Moroz put forward a new pattern of parliamentary committee distribution. To begin, he suggested that the offices of parliament leaders be evaluated on points. Then each faction should be furnished with the number of offices it can claim in conformity with the number of points it has won proportionate to its size. In his opinion, parliamentary portfolios should be assessed as follows: 5 points for the speaker, 4 for his first deputy, 3 for his deputy, 2 for the chief of staff, and 1 for a committee head. As United Ukraine and SDPU(o) already hold the speaker’s and vice-speaker’s posts, which makes up 12 points, they should, according to Mr. Moroz, be given chairmanship of another six committees.
Well, the Socialist leader’s proposal is quite some progress compared to recent uncompromising demands of the opposition factions to leave ZaYedU and SDPU(o) without any committee portfolios at all, if, of course, comparison is made with the ultimatum-like sentiments of other Four participants.
