In a recent interview Socialist Party faction leader Vasyl Tsushko tried to explain why the SPU withdrew from the Orange coalition. He said that the Socialist Party’s self-preservation within the coalition was possible only if Moroz became speaker: “After the Socialists were told that they would not have the post of parliamentary chairman, we found ourselves faced with prospects that were none too bright; we were actually becoming a branch of the Tymoshenko bloc.” Tsushko also believes that the decision of SPU leader Oleksandr Moroz “saved Ukraine from a cataclysm and kept the party on our country’s political map.”
During the SPU convention held several weeks ago Moroz pointed to what he regards as two significant circumstances that justified his about-face. One was the destiny of the party, and the other, the destiny of the political reform. In his opinion, the latter “is the only one capable of improving the life of the man in the street.”
As for the thesis about saving the party, an alliance of politicians and sympathizers under the acronym SPU can hardly be referred to as a party per se. It is just one of many Ukrainian political projects created in the leader’s image. So if the leader decided to sacrifice the project for a successful completion of his own political career, this was his choice.
Political reform is another matter. We asked The Day’s regional experts whether the political reform has improved the life of the proverbial man in the street. We also asked what kind of rule suits Ukraine better: parliamentary-presidential or presidential-parliamentary.
Ihor BURKUT, political scientist, Chernivtsi:
So far it is hard to foresee all the consequences of the reform, but today the y are mainly negative. All that fuss and procrastination around the creation of the
coalition caused mass disillusionment in society, and the struggle between the president and prime minister for powers is distracting the government from taking steps aimed at improving the economic situation. In the power play between
the prime minister and president it is the speaker who is suffering the most. Pro ceeding from the letter and spirit of the reform, the chairman of the Verkhovna R ada becomes the key figure in the political life of Ukraine. Now they are trying to curtail his powers, and this was especially evident in the prime minister’s statement about heads of regional state administrations being elected chai rmen of executive committees of regional councils. A claim has been made, but parliament has not adopted an appropriate legal act.
The concepts of presidential-parliamentary or parliamentary-presidential forms of rule are not practiced in classical political science. Instead, it talks about the concepts of a presidential, semipresidential, and parliamentary repu blic. Each has its pluses and minuses. A parliamentary republic might be more in sync with the Ukrainian mentality, but proceeding from objective conditions, we need several more years of a presidential republic. It is easier to manage, but there is a real danger that it can be transformed into an authoritarian dictatorship. If MP Kushnariov’s idea about the president being elected by the Verkhovna Rada is legally formulated, we will have a classic parliamentary republic, but Ukraine doesn’t seem to be prepared for this.
Volodymyr NAZAROV, lawyer:
I definitely support the political reform, just as I wholeheartedly support the need to implement its main provisions. This is crucial for Ukraine and every citizen. What was it like before? The president of our country had too many powers. Was that necessary? To manage a country normally, the prime minister and government must have more powers. I think the president should have representative functions. He can be the Guarantor of the Constitution and represent our country in the international arena.
Today there are actually two centers of power in Ukraine: the president and the government. Of course, this does not make for effective governance. Moreover, the confrontation between the Presidential Secretariat and the Cabinet of Ministers may have negative consequences for Ukraine. In many civilized countries (Germany, Israel, and several others) the president has fewer powers than the prime minister. Life shows that this practice is justified.
I would also like to note another very important aspect. A party or a coalition that obtains the largest number of votes during a parliamentary election must have actual executive power.
I am sure that if this happens, the whole vertical of power will function more effectively than it is now and we, citizens of Ukraine, will become aware of this very soon.
If the political reform is not fully implemented, our country will remain unstable, the way it is today, and Ukrainian citizens will not be sure of their immediate future. Naturally, it will not serve anyone’s benefit.
Petro VOLVACH, Academician, Ukrainian Academy of Ecological Sciences and head of the Crimean branch of the All-Ukraine Shevchenko Society:
The fact of the matter is that Ukraine did need a reform of the state administration, but absolutely not the kind of reform that resulted from the changes introduced into the constitution under pressure from the former administration of Leonid Kuchma. This political reform has only made the lives of ordinary Ukrainians harder; it has made the political process more susceptible to conflicts and confrontations. I remember the amount of absurdity caused by vague laws in the Crimea when there were two prime ministers, two interior ministers, and two heads of the SBU chief directorate, two departmental heads of the justice ministry; when the speaker and the prime ministers fought over all kinds of trifles instead of doing coordinated work.
Now the so-called political reform has transferred these contradictions to the national level, and the same kind of war of ukases between the president and the prime minister is starting just like in the Crimea. This political reform was carried out by people who wanted to slow down Ukraine on its road to progress. Unfortunately, it must be stated that they succeeded. If not for this so-called political reform, we would have been much closer to the European community of nations and NATO. It has only filled our life with political chaos and squabbles.
I think the next action of the fathers of this political reform will be to demand that the president be removed from office, since impeachment procedures have become considerably easier, and either abolish the presidency or turn the president into a figurehead by replacing nationwide presidential elections with parliamentary ones. After that they will introduce a second official language and completely subordinate themselves to Russia’s interests instead of serving the interests of their own country. Therefore, this political reform has turned out to be essentially anti-popular and anti-Ukrainian. It has only damaged Ukraine as a state.
Volodymyr HROISMAN, mayor of Vinnytsia:
I believe that power must be decentralized within the framework of the political reform, a reform of local self-government must be carried out, and local authorities must be vested with certain powers. At the same time, the responsibility of local authorities must be enhanced because this is necessary for them to exercise such powers.
Will the political reform improve life in Ukraine? I think it will, depending on its content. The main thing is to preserve the functions I mentioned above.
Valerii DANYLEVSKY, political scientist, Donetsk:
I consider myself one of the exponents of presidential-parliamentary rule. I simply believe that it is a situation that has developed historically; this is our Slavic mentality, and the same applies to Russia, Belarus, and Poland. Our people have always needed centralized power and presidential power is precisely that. When power is centralized, it is possible to have a clear picture of the structure of the pyramid of power, and this can only benefit the people. Our people like it when there is someone to point an accusing finger at.
Therefore, I believe that Moroz is very wrong about the political reform. In fact, Moroz’s commentaries on the subject are his forte; the subject of political reform has been a favorite of his for years. I think that the political reform bodes no good; parliamentary-presidential rule will in fact provide grounds for irresponsibility in our country; it will be a kind of limited liability company on a nationwide scale. There is no doubt in my mind that it is a very bad mistake on the part of the Socialists — and the only opportunity of revenge for the Party of Regions.
