The second session of the Verkhovna Rada ended on Friday and the parliament is in recess. This session started in September 2006 and dealt with more then 200 various issues. Even though the parliamentarians have set no lawgiving records, they succeeded in passing a number of extremely important bills despite regular coalition-opposition squabbles. Among the especially significant decisions made by the second VR session is the recognition of the 1930s Holodomor as an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people and timely approval of the 2007 budget bill.
It should be noted that the Verkhovna Rada of the fifth convocation has turned into a proving ground for constitutional innovations. At the same time the status of this legislative body has increased considerably, because the Ukrainian parliament has the leading part in both forming and disbanding the government.
BUDGET SAGA
The budget-approving process was actually the most important issue on the second VR session’s agenda. The main difference in the 2007 budget bill scenario, compared to the previous ones, was the unanimous stand taken by the ruling majority and cabinet. Whereas in previous years deliberating a budget bill resembled a contest between the cabinet and parliament vying for certain provisos, this time (considering that the cabinet was formed by the coalition), the parliamentary majority actively sought to find an adequate model of Ukraine’s most important financial instrument. In view of VR-cabinet’s orchestrated effort, the president turned out the main vis-a-vis in the budgetary process. Proposals submitted by the guarantor [of the constitution] served to introduce tangible corrections in the government’s plans.
First Deputy Prime Minister Mykola Azarov described the original 2007 budget bill as one aimed at progress. The president emphasized its social component and demanded that social guarantees for the population be considerably expanded. The cabinet refused to make concessions and President Viktor Yushchenko vetoed the budged bill for the first time in independent Ukraine’s history. The stumbling block between the stand of the head of state and that of the authors of the 2007 budget bill was what the bill had actually to serve: economic growth or social sphere.
After Yushchenko vetoed the budget bill VR lobby forecasts increasingly often pointed to the possibility of Ukraine entering the New Year without a central budget. However, neither the president nor prime minister were interested in this scenario. After Yushchenko and Yanukovych had a closed-door meeting, the former signed the bill and the latter agreed to certain social concessions the head of state insisted upon.
LONG-SUFFERING BILLS
Legislatively asserting the status of the government and opposition was indeed one of the hot points on the second VR session’s agenda.
Parliament accept the cabinet’s bill and passed it shortly afterward. Experts predict that the president will veto this law on the cabinet because it substantially restricts his powers. Viktor Yushchenko is known to have repeatedly criticized it. Therefore, the only solution to this problem is a compromise achieved by Yushchenko and Yanukovych. The second VR session marked the opposition’s failure to push through their cabinet status bill. A quest for an optimal legislative model of the opposition status failed. The bill was voted down by the factions of the Party of Regions, communists, and half that of Our Ukraine. The OU vote shocked the BYuT opposition. Immediately after the vote, one of BYuT leaders, Oleksandr Turchynov, said the stand taken by his OU colleagues could only be described as an act of treason. OU Lilia Hryhorovych explained to The Day the stand of the Orange faction as follows: Yulia Tymoshenko (a co-author of the opposition status bill) is trying to shape up the opposition as best serves her own purposes. Ms. Hryhorovych believes that this smacks of authoritarianism, so Our Ukraine will not support any such endeavors.
PARLIAMENTARY UNDERCURRENTS
Despite scandals, differences, ultimatums, sieges of the VR podium, even fistfights, the fifth convocation MPs have succeeded in adjusting to the new conditions after half a year of political deliberations. The productive collaboration between the coalition and Yanukovych’s cabinet is getting systematic. There are arguments between the president and parliament, but during its second session the Verkhovna Rada adopted the WTO regulations lobbied for by Yushchenko (by passing some 40 bills). This is proof that the main players of this political game are prepared to achieve compromises when dealing with global issues.
Opposition reveals a somewhat more complicated situation. It is currently divided into two camps: BYuT and Our Ukraine. Each faction wants to be the leader in the opposition slot, the result being some tangible differences within the parliamentary minority. This, of course, serves to weaken the opposition. At present the latter’s main objective is early parliamentary elections, but most experts agree that the year 2007 will not witness such ahead-of-schedule manifestation of the will of the people, simply because this kind of scenario would not play into the hand of President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.
WHAT PEOPLE THINK
According to a poll carried out by Oleksandr Yaremenko Institute for Social Studies, in collaboration with the Social Monitoring Center, the Ukrainian population trusts the media and armed forces in the first place: 65 percent of the respondents believe what they watch on television screens; 56 percent, what they read in newspapers; 52 percent, what they know about the armed forces.
Also, 45 percent stated they trust religious organizations; 41 percent trust the SBU; 39 percent trust local authorities.
Likewise some 30 percent Ukrainians trust the cabinet, national bank, courts, and prosecutor’s offices; 25 percent trust parliament and 21 percent do the political parties.
Despite the noticeably low degree of public confidence in parliament and political parties, 43.9 percent of the respondents do not support the idea of dissolving the Verkhovna Rada and that of early parliamentary elections. Proof of this is found in the results of a poll carried out by FOM-Ukraine Co., involving respondents from 160 populated areas in Ukraine. This poll also made it clear that only 28.2 percent of the respondents favor the idea of dissolving parliament and early presidential elections.
Obviously this unwillingness of Ukrainian citizens to once again plunge headlong in the election campaign swamp is to be explained by their elevated attitude toward last year’s parliamentary elections when almost every fourth respondent described them as the most important event of the previous year. Proof of this is also found in this sociological study.
