Many analysts have pointed out that the Constitutional Court ruling on the referendum posed more questions than it answered existing ones. Indeed, the CC virtuosi managed to arrive at a decision acceptable to all or, in any case, not hurting anybody’s feelings. Presidential Press Secretary Oleksandr Martynenko announced that Leonid Kuchma took the news calmly, “as a definite reality.” And that he did not show any special emotions (which could be interpreted as both presence of mind and absence of any great joy).
The President can no longer order Parliament disbanded, but this does not mean that he has lost control of the situation. The ax is still hanging and can fall, except that the date on which it can fall has been postponed for about two years. Of course, even now some of the lawmakers predict that issues such as lifting parliamentary immunity, institution of a bicameral Parliament, and expanding the President’s authority in terms of the Verkhovna Rada’s dissolution will long remain subjects of wide-ranging debate. There will be different interpretations and adjournments. In any case, however, Parliament will have to introduce referendum-approved constitutional amendments. Most importantly, this will be done under the law.
And if Europe’s response to the ruling proves less than enthusiastic (contrary to the Cabinet’s assurances), someone will have to play whipping boy. It stands to logic that the referendum campaign architect(s) should be made responsible. It was not without cause that people from the first signature-collecting group in Zhytomyr, this glorious city with such a high level of social protection (sic), reported to Bankova Street that, owing to the parliamentary majority’s constructive performance, it was no longer necessary to have disband Verkhovna Rada. Nor was it a coincidence that Oleksandr Volkov and Oleksandr Zinchenko spoke of their opposition to the first referendum question prior to the CC ruling, and that, generally speaking, the whole affair was not their doing. Likewise, there must be some reason behind all that lobby talk that the President’s entourage had placed the Chief Executive in an embarrassing situation with the referendum campaign. Entourage? But who are among that entourage these days?
It is also interesting to watch the SBU’s seven Solons corruption case being fit into this pattern. The list of the guilty parties was made public knowledge quite unexpectedly, yet precisely at a time having such historical significance for Ukraine. Also, Leonid Derkach agreed to make public information about inveterate lawbreakers among the lawmakers that had hitherto been kept so jealously secret with suspicious willingness. Valery Ratsiuk, deputy head of the secret police K Department, however, noted that the Security Service of Ukraine had actually pressed no charges, and that the document actually concerns the said Deputies’ transgressions of set limitations which specifically entails administrative liability, if so agreed by Verkhovna Rada. Needless to say, Parliament will never agree, anyway not as long as parliamentary immunity remains effective. Thus the legislators exposed as originators of business entities can put their minds at rest. The question is how long they will feel secure?
Incidentally, nobody except the Greens has noticed any malicious pattern in the list submitted by the SBU. The Green’s approach is understandable; they have to save the faction’s face, so they are claiming the four of their party members were put on the list because they refused to switch sides with another faction being under SBU protection. But what about the rest? And not only those on the list? There are many founders of businesses in Parliament. Why get on the majority’s nerves before the torturous procedures of “voluntary” invalidation of the immunity? Could it be just to remind each and every member of Parliament that he or she is mortal after all?
Returning to the main event of last week that made many heave a sigh a relief, Parliament will be kept alive until 2002, which makes everybody happy. People from the majority say the absence of the adjournment threat will in no way affect the closeness of their ranks. Now this thesis causes raised eyebrows, at least in terms of loyalty to the Cabinet and President. We still remember all those impassioned speeches about Ukraine needing a bicameral Parliament so badly. Now we hear from Rebirth of the Regions that a bicameral Parliament would be unwise. And the plebiscite as such, according to them, is not that pressing a necessity.
The change in the attitude toward the referendum of those still referred to as oligarchs is explained by certain changes in the list of priorities at the top. Somehow, the referendum campaign general staff has moved from certain well-developed party structures closer to Bankova Street. Not surprisingly, the government-controlled media have adopted a “silent” tactic (others might describe it as sabotage) concerning the referendum campaign. We no longer hear ardent calls for taking part in and voting for this or that. Simultaneously, there is a trend to redistribute the media market. The expensive but ineffective Gravis news program is no longer on ICTV television. Of course, ICTV will still have information support, considering that a new boss could soon surface there with his own development project: Volodymyr Syvkovych, a man versed in television’s intricacies and with an experience (albeit negative) of cooperation with the President. One should also mention an encounter between Hryhory Surkis and Oleksandr Omelchenko, veteran Kyiv Mayor contenders. This time the clash also has to do with the TET and TRK Kyiv television channels. In fact, Volodymyr Lytvyn, head of the Presidential Administration, wishes all leading media to provide “soft support” of the referendum. Some sources say the Presidential Administration also supervises other referendum organizational issues.
Mr. Lytvyn, as head of that body, is a fundamentally new figure for the Ukrainian regime. He is not like Tabachnyk or Kushnariov. All those that expected the Presidential Administration under Lytvyn to turn into a quiet and dusty office were in for a very unpleasant surprise. Right after the elections aides and consultants were reshuffled and replaced, in the end focusing all administrative work on one person, Volodymyr Lytvyn. Assuming that he is really up to the game of reallocating spheres of influence and ways to access the Chief Executive, administration veterans will be left with walk-on parts at best, although worse prospects should not be disregarded, either.
They have managed to turn the referendum into a plebiscite — in other words, into a trite poll. The Constitutional Court stressed that its turnout will by nominally binding, but no deadline has been set determined. The People’s Deputies might vote to introduce the changes tomorrow or one, two or more years from now. They have no reasons to hurry. It is also true, however, that the said poll will be a very costly project: UAH 30 million. Other polling services charge much less.
