What the “Regionnaires” failed to do in parliament on the first day they did on the second one. The Verkhovna Rada finally voted for the speaker, his deputies, and the head of government. As it was expected, the Party of Regions’ Volodymyr Rybak was elected as parliament head. His deputies are First Vice-Speaker Ihor Kalietnik (the Communist Party) and Vice-Speaker Ruslan Koshulynsky (Freedom). Mykola Azarov was reelected Prime Minister.
Volodymyr Rybak is the former chairman of Donetsk’ Kyivsky District Council and secretary of the district Communist Party Committee, Donetsk Mayor, Vice-Prime Minister, and Minister for Civil Construction, Architecture, Housing and Public Utilities. A longtime member of parliament, he is one of the Party of Regions founders. Rybak is, of course, the result of a compromise. He is widely regarded as an unconflictive person, but on the whole, as we can see it from his life story, it is a figure from a different historical era.
Still more controversial is the candidature of Ihor Kalietnik. The Communists are in the presidium again. Like in the previous parliament, the “Regionnaires” will have nothing to do but make deals (share power) with the KPU – otherwise they will be unable to appoint their people to the key offices for lack of votes. Kalietnik has been member of the KPU faction since 2007, when he was first elected to parliament. Before that, he had been running – unsuccessfully – on behalf of Natalia Vitrenko’s bloc People’s Opposition. Naturally, he is also known as the last head of the State Customs Service of Ukraine – this office was the Communists’ condition for cooperation in the previous-convocation parliament.
Incidentally, when Kalietnik was voted on, the “Regionnaire” Hanna Herman reminded the Communist of what his fellow party man Yevhen Tsarkov said in the Shuster Live talk show last September: “NKVD should’ve bashed more nationalists.” “I deeply respect your professionalism, sense of responsibility, and active citizenship, but a Communist Party member, who was not elected to parliament, made a very crude statement in a live TV show,” Herman said. She urged Kalietnik to dissociate himself from his fellow party man’s words. “It is important for every MP to see to it that human rights and freedoms be observed. Our common goal is to make sure that every Ukrainian can enjoy the freedom of speech,” Kalietnik said in reply. In essence, he dodged the answer, which did not, however, prevent Herman from voting for him.
Ruslan Koshulynsky is deputy leader of Freedom, who headed the Freedom faction in the Lviv City Council from November 2010 until he was elected to parliament. It will be interesting to watch a Freedom representative in the presidium, all the more so that this party attracts so much attention today. Freedom may have been trying to win this office because it is an opportunity to show itself to advantage. But the very first days of Freedom are already supplying fodder for many news-hungry media. They are forcing the “Regionnaires,” albeit in a somewhat rude manner, to stick to the time limit and speak in the official, Ukrainian, language, even though this may seem to be a natural thing. “Even if you do not believe in the most intricate explanations of Freedom’s actions, the absence of the president in parliament and the presence of this party noticeably distinguish this parliament from the previous ones. There has never been a force like this, also in purely physical terms, in the Verkhovna Rada before,” journalist Saken Aimurzayev says in his Moscow Echo blog.
That there would be a lot of extremes in this parliament was forecast immediately after the parliamentary elections. Today we can see representatives of the two “extreme” – left and right – camps even in the presidium. This particularly illustrates the situation in our society which elected a new Rada.
The unlearned lessons of modern-day history have resulted in a very low level of parliamentarianism in this country. The unresolved issues are backlogging. An opaque formation of opposition lists, of which we wrote the other day, prompts the Verkhovna Rada to repeat the old mistakes: we can see defectors again – today, they are the Tabalovs, and there may be others tomorrow.”
COMMENTARIES
Volodymyr FESENKO, political scientist:
“Staking on Rybak is a consensual decision. Like Azarov, Rybak is an equidistant figure who stays clear of conflicts between various business and political groups in the president’s inner circle. The attitude to Rybak is in fact quite good, even on the part of many oppositionists who worked in the previous parliaments. He is treated with respect because he is a non-conflictive person inclined to maintain constructive relations with the opposition. Even his somewhat phlegmatic manner of behavior may be useful in the current too nervous, emotional, and rather aggressive Verkhovna Rada. What is needed is a judicious individual who can pacify. From this angle, Rybak is a good choice.
“But all those in the parliament presidium have the same downside. They have no hands-on experience of working in a parliamentary presidium, so they will have to adapt to their offices and functions, and gather the necessary experience. Rybak’s both deputies – Kalietnik and Koshulynsky – are also the result of a compromise. The two have no serious parliamentary experience at all. They all have to learn. This adaptation will take some time and may bring about some faults in the presidium’s work.
“We have seen two faces of the Verkhovna Rada in the past two days. One face is conflictive – there must have more conflicts than in the several years of the last parliament. And we can forecast that the new Rada will continue to be very conflictive. The other face is compromissory. Whenever it is necessary to coordinate the interests of some groups, parties and individuals, even such radicals as Freedom will be ready to make deals, even with the ‘Regionnaires.’ It is very telling that 126 Party of Regions members voted for Koshulynsky. Both the Party of Regions and the opposition, including Freedom, needed a compromise because each of them was to benefit from it. By all accounts, the new Rada will be working in these two formats: some periods of compromises will be followed by conflicts full of tough confrontation.”
Kostiantyn MATVIIENKO, political scientist:
“No one had any doubts that Azarov would again assume the office of prime minister. As for Rybak, the candidature of Lavrynovych would have been acceptable to all, including the ‘Regionnaires,’ but the Communists would have never voted for him. Rybak is a compromise. But he (by force of his experience and age) is not fit for modern-day communications. The appointment of Rybak will utterly destroy Ukrainian parliamentarianism. Azarov looked like quite a funny character as the head of government, and now, with Rybak as speaker, the leadership makes itself look funnier.
“As for the appointment of Kalietnik, I never thought that the leadership could resort to some elements of ‘foul play.’ Kalietnik is, of course, talkative and businesslike. He will be making his way up. Naturally, he is as suitable a candidature for the Communists as Martyniuk was.
“The appointment of Koshulynsky is, without an exaggeration, an interesting step. One can think up various, including conspiratorial, versions. For example, the European Parliament has already called for non-cooperation with Freedom, but it is an opinion of its own. As for me, the election of Koshulynsky is a positive fact.
“We must give credit to the Communists and Freedom for having ideology-minded voters who cherish their values. Koshulynsky will undoubtedly be a brilliant representative of the opposition. These two extremes mirror a societal rift. On the other hand, the Communists are in fact in cahoots with the Party of Regions. Koshulynsky was the only nominee supported by the entire opposition. From the angle of European parliamentarianism, the Rada’s presidium looks adequate. I am so far speaking not about personalities but about the political forces they represent.”
Oles STAROVOIT, political expert, Lviv:
“Undoubtedly, the election of Koshulynsky as parliamentary vice-speaker crowns Freedom’s successes on the national level, i.e., in the latest Verkhovna Rada elections. It is a very serious office agreed upon with the opposition partners, which means they recognize Freedom’s certain advantage in this field. On the other hand, this has brought about a very important thing: the parliament’s presidium is, as a matter of fact, in the hands of two political forces – the Party of Regions and Freedom. These parties are antagonistic, on the one hand, but, on the other, they both rely on authoritarianism and force in decision-making. Only time will show whether the other political forces in parliament will feel comfortable under this leadership. But it would be right to say at the moment that it is an absolutely correct and justified step of Freedom and the opposition.”
