The true habitat of a constitution is the human heart, not paper. So any constitution should be assessed not by its literary style but exclusively by its ability to make the state provide security, well- being and free development of its citizens. As the 32nd US President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “a constitution should be regarded as not a restraining bandage but as an instrument for protecting the healthy growth of a nation.”
The constitutional theory and practice show that a constitution will only be viable and realistic (not fake) if its core has legal mechanisms that exclude the possibility of non-compliance. This kind of instrument is, above all, consistent implementation of the principle of the original institutional power of the people, which consists in the natural right of a people to institute a state of its own, decide on a suitable constitutional system, adopt and amend its constitution.
A constitutional reform is badly needed. It is indisputable, though, that the Ukrainian people should be the main participant in the long-overdue reform. It is the people that, according to Article 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine, has the right to shape the constitutional setup of the country in a consultative referendum (to choose a preferable system of administration, political governance, elections, and judicature, as well as two or more official languages; express its attitude to EU membership, etc.). As for the latter, it should be specifically noted that, in the view of many law experts, the EU is steadily assuming the features of a federal state. Therefore, one of the legislative prerequisites for Ukraine’s accession to the EU should be a provision in the Constitution of Ukraine about readiness of the state to limit its sovereignty in favor of this federation. Naturally, only the people can and must make a decision of this kind.
Only after assessing the results of a public consultation can lawmakers draw up a new version of the Constitution of Ukraine which is subject to nationwide approval in a decisive referendum.
What should be a distinctive feature of the constitutional reform is compliance with national interests of the people rather than with requirements of the clans, “heroes of the privatization marathon.” By national interests we mean dignity, self- preservation, well-being, and free development of the people, which are ensured by a sovereign, democratic, social, and rule-of-law state.
Naturally, the system of local and regional government also need reforming. People should obtain the right to directly elect and recall local councilors, regional leaders, and some executives of the local law- enforcement bodies. There should be a workable system of checks and balances between all central governmental and municipal authorities. Viable measures should be taken to build a civil society in Ukraine — it may be advisable in this connection to adopt a special law on civil society in Ukraine. Only in this case will a hope shimmer that the rights and freedoms of man will be observed inside his habitat, i.e., in the cities and villages of Ukraine.
The German poetic genius Heinrich Heine once noted that we are in fact struggling not for the human right of a people but for the divine rights of Man. I am convinced that we can only defend our divine rights of Man if we work together. And the only effective instrument that history has devised for this purpose is a constitution which we must discuss, adopt, and guard as the apple of our eye. Only in this case will we and the constitution stop existing in parallel worlds, and only in this case will it be part of our people’s mentality.
