July 12 was the closing day of the first session of the fourth Ukrainian parliament. The first semester of the new lawmakers turned out a bit crumpled – in May this was explained by the need to fix the Rada software and that it was allegedly on the verge of being hung up for the last time. True, parliament itself has been hung now and then, albeit not for long (except for the agenda that could not be agreed upon for longer than a plenary week). The speaker saga turned out far shorter than four years ago and allo cating the Verkhovna Rada committee portfolios made one believe the possibility of steering a middle course between the pro-presidential and anti-presidential sectors of the legislature. Yet the peak of rapprochement was voting on the president’s appointment for prosecutor general: the reformer Sviatoslav Piskun received 347 ayes.
The last two months have been rich in events, including the president’s first meeting with the new parliament and his traditional message this time called “The European Choice,” sorting out relationships with the cabinet, along with visits to the UN and NATO Secretaries General Kofi Annan and George Robertson.
Structure, however, remains the parliament’s Achilles’ heel, as the number of factions has increased from six to almost fifteen, with the regional-industrial shaping trend being anything but European. What desperate attempts were made to form a parliamentary majority failed, and there is no doubt that they will resume in the fall.
Thus the system we know as parliament is taking time off for the rest of the summer. Hopefully, this mechanism will show a better performance in the new political season. The Dayasked lawmakers and political scientists to sum up the first session.
Vice Speaker Oleksandr ZINCHENKO :
Our parliament ought to be happy it didn’t get bogged down in electing the Verkhovna Rada leadership and committees, even when it was generally believed that Our Ukraine and SDPU(o) would block the process to get the right people to head committees. I congratulated the Verkhovna Rada and myself on having adopted an entirely different logic of action that proved fruitful. Yet I am outraged by the fact that some factions took a week or a week and a half to place certain issues on the agenda while choosing not to be present during the vote. That doesn’t make the people’s choices’ image any better.
Thus, during the first session Verkhovna Rada showed itself unprepared to discuss serious complex issues. Yet I am convinced that the deputies must use their summer vacations to prepare for the second session.
Ivan KURAS , Regions of Ukraine:
Compared to the previous parliament, organizational matters took far less time. Serious decisions were made on changes in legislative acts of tremendous social, economic, and political importance. Personally, I am aggrieved by the inexplicable confrontation over the agenda. Yet voting for the prosecutor general showed that the parliament is improving its performance. In fact, I believe that the vote indicated laying the foundations of a businesslike parliamentary majority, not on the faction or election level, but in a manner akin to an industrial process – I mean constructive parliamentary work. I think that the first session’s results can be regarded as positive in terms of resolutions submitted and passed, because they help develop this positive trend.
Yuliya TYMOSHENKO , leader of BYuT:
This session proved very productive for the president and his entourage. We are witness to a majority formed by the president, using fragments of the United Ukraine and, regrettably, half of Our Ukraine, along with the Communists and part of the nonaffiliated members. I think that the president will have every reason to raise the matter of implementing the April referendum at the next session. And there is no reason to discuss any positive legislative work at this stage.
Adam MARTYNIUK , Communist faction:
The first session traditionally spends a lot of time dealing with organizational matters. We had to shorten the duration of the session, approximately by a week, owing to the need to repair the Rada system. Naturally, issues that ought to have been deliberated were not for want of time, but we have in practice honored our budget- shaping commitments. We have considered a number of socially important documents we inherited from the previous parliament, issues in conjunction with the president’s proposals and criticism of a number of bills. We have made the first steps in passing bills submitted by the president and government on a first priority basis. Personally, I do not see any tangible reasons for considering this session as one that has failed to honor its commitments.
As for the opposition, it must show more mobility and unity at the next session.
Borys ANDRESIUK , SDPU(o):
First, it was believed that the Verkhovna Rada leadership would be quickly elected, but our parliament has its own inertia. The forecasts by many politicians and analysts proved false, but then the parliament adopted a constructive mode and we elected the leadership quite quickly. After that we got down to the agenda. Cadre issues showed that this Verkhovna Rada is indeed more effective than the previous one. 347 ayes in the vote for the general prosecutor – what could be more political than that? – was a true record. The key intrigue now is the grinding in of two political forces, Our Ukraine and For a United Ukraine. We see that where their views on Ukraine’s future tally, the result is over 300 votes. This is evidence that we have sound forces and an understanding of Ukrain prospects and tendencies, an encouraging sign.
In terms of structuring, this parliament is better regularized, I think. Breaking up would be a logical outcome of For a United Ukraine, and the sooner they do the quicker the parliamentary process will return to normal.
Borys BEZPALY , Our Ukraine:
The first session is not a deep lawmaking process but the so- called organizational overture. By way of comparison, it took this parliament a month to allocate 450 different posts, yet the president could appoint only the head of his administration during the period. Compared to the previous parliament, with its speaker saga lasting two months, our progress is obvious.
As for structuring, this inspires cautious optimism. The main problem is the electoral system, because of the structure. Here the main problem is the electoral system, because the structure starts taking shape in the course of elections and deputies enter parliament backed by their own teams. We have such party teams, although the majority nominees remain in the swamp, as we say here. The election turnout showed a minimum number of nineteen nominees passing muster by party rosters.
However, fourteen remains the minimum required for instituting a faction under Verkhovna Rada rules, the result being the appearance of small groups of deputies and parliamentary government suffering in the end, because of all those conjunctures and petty factional interests. In view of this, our state construction and local self-government committee resolved to propose Verkhovna Rada place the next elections bill on the basis of purely proportional representation.
