The election battles of 2004 and 2005 led the government to address the question of peaceful public gatherings, which have become more frequent since the change of leadership in Ukraine. In this connection the Republic Institute initiated a roundtable discussion of the proposed bill “On Freedom of Peaceful Gatherings,” which was attended by representatives of the ministries of justice and internal affairs, the uniformed services, as well as judges and lawyers. Explaining their decision to hold the seminar, the organizers said that violations of the right of citizens to peaceful public gatherings remains a problem, despite the fact that power has changed hands. Surveys indicate that rallies are broken up, and protesters’ rights are stubbornly ignored even under the “Orange government.”
This is no surprise, since protesters still do not have any rights as such. In the absence of a law regulating peaceful rallies in Ukraine, representatives of the local authorities, uniformed services, and the justice system reject the claim that protesters’ tents are “small architectural structures,” difficult as it is to imagine an architectural structure made of canvas, and that protesters must keep a 50-meter distance from government buildings. Local government bodies have repeatedly used these questionable guidelines to justify banning outright peaceful public gatherings. Taking into account such violations of human rights, the seminar participants focused on ways to prevent the courts from banning rallies that represent a peaceful means of expressing the will of the people.
In the opinion of lawyer Olena Lukash, who became famous after the memorable Supreme Court hearing that overturned the results of the November 2004 runoff elections, the bill that was drafted and submitted by the Republic Institute is democratic and “complies with OSCE principles.” The bill’s authors underscore that the right of citizens to organize peaceful gatherings is a constitutionally protected human right. Punishments for any violations on the part of both the government and protesters should be handed down on an individual-case basis, which immediately increases the two sides’ mutual responsibility. The bill also emphasizes that a threat to public order does not justify government intervention, and noise created by the crowd is no reason to break up a rally. The participants debated the question of financial incentives for rally participants, but failed to reach common ground. The view that any kind of work deserves to be rewarded clashed with the opinion that protesters must be guided exclusively by patriotic feelings and not financial motives.
Under the proposed bill, for a rally to be officially sanctioned citizens must submit a written request and the gathering must be absolutely peaceful. Local authorities must accept the written request and create the best possible conditions for the rally. However, despite the generally liberal nature of the bill, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights and National Minorities Hennadiy Udovenko insisted on imposing some limitations, since there is never any guarantee that a peaceful rally will not turn violent.
The proposed bill will be subject to repeated deliberations in parliament, and so far it is difficult to predict its future. After all, two similar bills previously proposed by a group of MPs and former president Leonid Kuchma were voted down. One can only hope that the new leaders still remember the rallies on Maidan during the Orange Revolution and will legalize peaceful public gatherings, thanks to which the Ukrainian nation defended their victory and its own right to vote. As Mr. Udovenko rightly noted, one shouldn’t assume that the Orange Revolution is the last one.
