The change in the parliamentary leadership was accomplished as a result of the creation of the Right majority, which literally scratched and clawed power from the Left. For the first time in Ukraine’s ten years of independence, the Left found itself a minority in parliament. Some say this event is historic; others insist that this majority will not withstand its own internal parliamentary contradictions, and that early elections are certain to take place. In any case, Deputy Speaker Stepan Havrysh joined the legislative leadership just as the very procedures of Ukraine’s supreme lawmaking body were being revised. Today, his efforts are aimed primarily at reorganizing the parliamentary staff and securing information space for Verkhovna Rada. His service record boasts findings of the parliamentary committees of inquiry (over 20) which, in his own words, have since lost their legal and political relevance. His Vice Speaker’s jurisdiction includes in the first place “coordination of work with law enforcement authorities,” the judicial system, and the whole range of issues concerning the body’s legislative activities.
The Day: How well does the Verkhovna Rada leadership work? I have in mind the political aspect, considering that the Presidium membership was nominated by different political forces, as well as the purely human factor, as every new team needs some time to get adjusted.
S. H.:Well, in the final analysis we did not get our posts by sheer chance. All of us know each other quite well, we are on friendly terms and this sense of camaraderie has strengthened with time. The atmosphere within the Presidium is quite comfortable, and we have no differences. Difficulties do arise, and specific discussions are sometimes quite complicated, but we always find ways to solve such problems quickly, largely due to Ivan Pliushch’s rare sense of tolerance and political wisdom along with Viktor Medvedchuk’s pragmatism and high professionalism. As for political interests, we are all ideologically compatible.
The Day: How important in this quest for compromise was the prospect of Parliament’s dissolution which Mr. Kuchma described as the sword of Damocles threatening Verkhovna Rada?
S. H.:Without a doubt, the danger of an early dissolution played an essential role in the adoption of quite a lot of decisions, not only by the majority but also by the minority. Consider that the minority did not show excessive pressure or aggressiveness in its resistance. These people behaved so as not to damage the very creation of the majority. Looking back, we see that, with the exception of former Speaker Oleksandr Tkachenko, who couldn’t bring himself to vacate his chair, the minority showed no signs of particular intransigence in defending their position. When the majority showed they were determined to go all the way, the minority simply stood aside, and we entered. We walked into the session hall without a particularly scandalous effect. I think they acted in keeping with their instinct to preserve Verkhovna Rada, hoping the majority would enter into a fruitful dialogue with Ukrainian society, the government, and the President. We are now in a unique situation, something never experienced by any other CIS country. It is a unique historical experiment, which must be preserved for posterity, and many politicians present in the hall understand this. It was thus we had an opportunity to ease political tensions in Parliament. The minority realized that it had to choose between opposition status or becoming, so to speak, parliamentary ballast. The majority realized it had potential, serious potential, and it has begun to work calmly and effectively.
The Day: Many in the media mention the role of the so-called Ukrainian oligarchs. In your opinion, what is their role in and influence on the processes taking place in Ukrainian society?
S. H.:The theme of Ukrainian oligarchs is something somewhere just made up. It is a common theme for Russia, but for Ukraine it’s different. Our oligarchs are too “poor” to be considered such in the generally accepted sense of the word.
The Day: There is a joke in this vein. What is the difference between a Ukrainian and Russian oligarch? No difference, except that the Ukrainian one has no money.
S. H.: Very well said. And if we are talking about “conditional Ukrainian oligarchs,” the patterns of influence are practically the same. It is influence on the upper echelons of power, influence on the media, and influence on regional teams and interests. I want to say that there is a perfectly real logic of building a state historically. We can’t help but agree with the classic of Marxism that said the bigger the profits the greater the capitalist’s willingness to take risks to obtain them. Of course, the transition period resulted in primitive capital accumulation and a lot of seriously wealthy people emerged in Ukraine. Under the circumstances it could not have been otherwise. Today, however, our “conditional oligarchs” have become different. This became particularly evident after the presidential elections. They understood the main thing: under these conditions they can’t compete with their powerful foreign rivals. They realized that they would be able to challenge them only later, after Ukraine becomes a strong state. For this reason now they are not trying to take everything but to garner political influence in order to secure Ukraine’s national interests. I won’t say all, but there is a certain segment, whose names have become well known through the media, who are. They are not absolutely certain how to do it, but they are moving in the general direction, along with politicians, parties, blocs, and alliances in order to find levers of influence to this end. And it is very important that they have come to understand that influence on the state exerted by state-building forces can make it possible to create a legal environment ensuring equal opportunities.
The Day: In other words, do you believe that the phase of primary accumulation is over and that we have begun a second stage with big capital trying to legalize itself through politics and create equal rules of the game for all?
S. H.: Absolutely. Poland, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic have gone through precisely the same stages. After the problem of legalizing capital will come that of economic amnesty. This is absolutely necessary. We cannot allow 45% of the national currency to remain outside our banks. We cannot allow $10-25 billion according to different estimates to stay in the shadow sector, which is over 65% of the Ukrainian economy. This is something all those “conditional Ukrainian oligarchs” understand only too well, because paying for shadow status costs much more than paying reasonable taxes. There is an intensive quest for an equilibrium in the tax sphere and laws governing the economy. This topic is fundamental for them today. I think that on this plane the interests of the Ukrainian people, overwhelmingly poor, now correspond with those of the business elite. Today business is conscious of the fact that Ukraine as a state is unthinkable without raising people’s living standards. It is no accident that we always describe the 2000 budget program as a social one. Although this term has still not become definitive, we have made a big step forward on this level. We have accomplished a breakthrough, and I think the President has played the decisive role in this breakthrough.
The Day: From the outside your political career looks meteoric. What made you go into politics? Personally rather than chronologically: was there a moment in your life when you told yourself, yes, I will be a politician? What factors led you to it?
S. H.: That’s a simple question for me to answer, because my very profession of being a lawyer is above all linked with the creation of laws. Since I very quickly defended my candidate’s and doctoral theses, then quickly created for myself my own professional niche, for me it was not enough to carry out basically laboratory tests in the sphere of state-building. I had a thirst for doing the building myself. I needed to carry out in practice what I had worked out in theory. After I became a professor and member of the National Academy of jurists, founded a law firm and was its acting manager, it was in fact my further search for self- realization that led me to politics. I understood that one had to go into politics to be able to influence the processes taking place in society. It was then that I decided to run for Parliament, and the decision surprised everybody except me. I made that decision two months before the parliamentary elections. I contested a perfectly Red district, where the CPU had very strong influence. Besides that, it was in the countryside, and I was, after all, from the big city. During those two months I had 200 meetings with voters and I succeeded in convincing 60,000 to vote for me. I led my rivals by 40,000 votes. This means just one thing: people notice my political and professional abilities.
