On January 17, the fourth Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine finished its second session and went into a two-week recess. In his concluding speech, Verkhovna Rada Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn pointed out “an increasingly constructive nature” of relations between the factions and deputies and “the setting of a businesslike and friendly atmosphere of work.” In the speaker’s view, parliament succeeded in overcoming the organizational difficulties associated with the formation of the governing bodies. “We displayed sufficient wisdom, political will, and responsibility not to be stuck in the mire of crisis and then stop the gaps in lawmaking,” Mr. Lytvyn emphasized. He noted that our highest legislative body was quite prolific: since the fourth-convocation Verkhovna Rada began its work, it has passed more than 160 final-version laws, held 8 parliamentary hearings and 5 days of government question time. However, the speaker thinks parliaments lacks a systemic approach, i.e., the legislative and executive branches failed to duly synchronize their efforts.
Although the next session (the third) is going to pass under the increasing influence of the oncoming presidential elections, parliament must, according to its speaker, become the instrument of constitutional reform, the center of legislative power and political life in this country.
It is unlikely, of course, that all deputies will readily follow the speaker’s advice to spend the parliamentary recess by meeting their voters in constituencies and forsake trips to Alpine-skiing resorts in Switzerland, Italy, or Austria. Nevertheless, the political process in this country will hardly be “frozen” in the coming two weeks. Rather, the contrary, as it follows from people’s deputies’ offstage comments and some official statements, many of the Verkhovna Rada factions intend to use this time for intensive consultations in search of a new pattern of parliamentary work and majority/minority relationship. Therefore, parliament may enter its, so to speak, third semester with a changed face (for the umpteenth time). Deputies will, in all probability, be guided by the idea that it is time to “make a choice” in view of the forthcoming presidential elections.
COMMENTS
Oleksandr KRYVOSHEYENKO, Director, Center of Political Marketing:
“The Verkhovna Rada’s second session, like in fact the first one, went under the sign of a parliamentary face-off between the pro-presidential and oppositional forces. As neither of the political forces won enough election votes to form a viable majority in parliament, this face-off was of an acute and non-constructive nature. As a result, the past session of parliament featured the following negative points: firstly, there was no productive lawmaking and, secondly, the Verkhovna Rada was still in the process of structuralization. Thirdly, the activities of the major political forces during the second session should be viewed as preparation for the next presidential elections, which was evident by the intensive redistribution of basic — financial, administrative, mass- media and other — resources. What also confirm this viewpoint were the attempts to pass some laws aimed at reinforcing the starting positions of certain presidential candidates.
“The session also proved that the highest legislative body is unable to form a steady and viable majority, given the current lineup of forces. What is more, this problem was caused not only by the situation in parliament itself. This just shows ineffectiveness of our whole political system (first of all, the election law), which is unable today to make parliament adequately implement the prevailing public preferences.
“The situation, when there is no viable majority in parliament, may drag on until the next presidential elections.
“Considering the performance of the Verkhovna Rada as a collective subject of political process and the topmost legislative body, one must also note the following. The current parliament never managed to increase its influence on the course of political processes in this country. The President remains the most influential subject in Ukraine’s political life: neither the last parliamentary elections, nor the frantic efforts of the parliamentary opposition, nor the L. Kuchma-proposed political reform aimed at shifting the gravity center of Ukraine’s political life from the President to VR, could thwart this tendency. At the same time, parliament still remains by far the most democratic body of power: firstly, owing to its representative nature, and, secondly, due to the greater clout of the opposition (compared to the previous-convocation Verkhovna Rada).”
Volodymyr MALINKOVYCH, Director, Ukrainian section of the International Institute of Humanitarian and Political Studies:
“This was an interesting session. First of all, it showed a confrontation between the government and the opposition, which came just short of bringing the whole lawmaking process to a halt. In my view, incidentally, the greater blame falls not on the opposition but on the pro-presidential factions and groups that must have decided at a certain moment that they could deal the opposition a ‘mortal blow’ and thus strip it of any decision- making opportunities. But, thank God, parliament managed — at the very last moment, on the eve of the New Year — to overcome this very acute crisis and even to pass quite a lot of crucial laws, including the budget, the Economic and Civil Codes. I think the very fact that the face-off was overcome is a good lesson for the people’s deputies: it shows that nobody will stand to gain from declaring a virtual war on the opposition, that there are forces within the parliamentary majority prepared for cooperation with the opposition, and that the opposition is likewise not strong enough to wage such a war to the end. The opposition is now only capable of striking back — so it is unlikely to strive to aggravate relations.
“What worries me is the second session’s failure to launch the political reform initiated by the President on August 24.”
