The first days of the new Verkhovna Rada’s session showed that many deputies were unprepared for a civilized compromise: out of sheer fear of being dumped, they seem to be only thinking about how to dump somebody else.
The decision of the so-called Four to elect the parliamentary leadership by secret ballot (at first regarded as a great victory) played a sick joke on these factions. You cannot possibly find out now who dropped what ballots into the box! Now, again, a new attempt by Our Ukraine (OU) and the Communist Party (KPU), which make up part of the parliamentary Four, to make a join effort without losing political face has come down to banal accusations against each other of breaking the deals allegedly made. According to Petro Symonenko, while voting on the package that proposed Adam Martyniuk as speaker and Roman Bezsmertny and Yuliya Tymoshenko as vice speakers, the Our Ukraine faction “did all it could, in terms of organization, to nix the voting.” Our Ukraine, in the person of Mykola Tomenko, in turn suspected the Communists of a breach of faith, for it was allegedly “in their narrow-party interests to put off true voting till the next week.” This resulted in the failure of the second troika put to a vote on the same day (Bezsmertny-Martyniuk-Socialist Stanislav Nikolayenko): in protest, Viktor Yushchenko called off the candidacy of Roman Bezsmertny, thus denying his loyal follower a chance to try his luck at this kind of work (Incidentally, experts believe luck was very close and attainable). Mr. Symonenko was quick on the uptake, telling the OU leader that he himself would have called off the candidature of Martyniuk... It is small wonder that the four factions’ decision to put both packages to a vote again on Friday was dead in the water. Moreover, Mr. Symonenko announced the Communist faction was ready to continue consultations “in any format” but demanded that he be treated “fairly and respectfully” and that Mr. Yushchenko publicly apologize to him for “groundless accusations.” Mr. Symonenko also berated Mr. Yushchenko for jumping to conclusions after being told “God knows what”: the OU leader should have first “personally checked all the circumstances” and only then made accusatory statements to mass media representatives. According to the KPU leader, obviously hurt judging by the emotional pitch of his statement, Mr. Yushchenko’s accusations against the Communists showed his level as a politician and the way “things are done in politics...”
In reality, it does not matter very much who violated what. What does matter is not even the crisis but the absence of mutual trust in the Four. It is not accidental that the heated parliamentary debates invoked the ghost of another – Kaniv – Four: Ms. Tymoshenko suggested with a touch of sarcasm on Friday that the OU, KPU, SPU, and her own bloc leaders get together in Kaniv because this is “the most suitable place for all kinds of Fours to meet.”
The witticism of this allusion further proves that Ukrainian politicians still ignore the lessons of our modern history. Setting up the Kaniv Four was an interesting and quite promising pre-election technology aimed at showing the electorate that civilized standards are also possible in Ukrainian politics. However, the road paved with good intentions does not always lead to the temple: Oleksandr Moroz, one of the Kaniv Four, defied, at the most crucial moment, the joint decision to nominate Yevhen Marchuk as a single candidate and ran for president on his own. We know the result.
The subsequent events, particularly the tapegate, took the sting out of the presidential campaign passions, thus relegating many things into oblivion. It is apparently for this reason that today, too, the new parliament displays the same symptoms and the same “principles of lack of principle.” Alas, the cause of Moroz lives on and triumphs. On the other hand, while the Four leaders are bickering, the United Ukraine and United Social Democratic factions still have time to muster forces for the crucial blow. So who will then have to bite the dust?
Serhiy Udovyk, one of The Day’s contributors, once came to an extremely correct conclusion, “Mistrust is an additional tax on society.” The tax on the inconsistency and perfidy of deputies is to be paid by the electorate who look forward to the elected beginning to do what they are in fact supposed to, i.e., make laws rather than probe the level of one another or “the way things are done in politics...”
Searching for a Place to Stand
Last Friday, when the former head of the Presidential Administration, now leader of and candidate speaker on behalf of United Ukraine, Volodymyr Lytvyn, talked to journalists, his weary eyes beamed with joy. Quite impressive was the confidence with which he told The Day about satisfying his “main ambitions” in the immediate future. Yet, Mr. Lytvyn was talking – perhaps to keep the evil away – not about the prospects of his political career (it turned out that his “ambitions had already been satisfied” in this aspect and “the seat of an ordinary deputy quite suited” him) but about the book Essays on the History of Terror and Terrorism in Ukraine to be published under his editorship “someday.”
Conversely, Mr. Lytvyn’s growing chances to take the most honorable chair on the parliamentary stage was the subject of endless gossip in Verkhovna Rada antechamber. The failure of talks between the opposition quartet members (SPU, BYuT, KPU, Our Ukraine), already evident last Thursday, reached its climax on May 24. The Day asked some people’s deputies to comment on the current situation and the likely further development of the new Speaker Saga.
Oleksandr VOLKOV, United Ukraine faction:
“That the Four had reached the moment of split was clear even yesterday (May 23 — Ed.), when the second package was put to a vote. It was absolutely illogical: if the Communists made a deal with Our Ukraine to vote on the first package, then why did OU need to put forward a second one? It is clear that one of them is playing around. In all probability, it is Our Ukraine, for if it promised to support the Communists, the second package was simply doomed to failure. So the two politically opposed forces are playing a simple game, which today’s voting finally confirmed. I believe both of them should think over joining our fraction. This is the most logical way to solve the problem the deputies are facing. We have also received some additional trump cards. I said at very outset and still say that Volodymyr Lytvyn will be the speaker of Verkhovna Rada. Further distribution of portfolios will depend on who (KPU or Our Ukraine — Ed.) will be the first to join the talks. In my opinion, it would be easier to make a deal with Yushchenko.”
Yuliya TYMOSHENKO, BYuT faction:
“I saw no earnest desire to reach concrete results on the part of either the Communists or Our Ukraine. Negotiations inside the Four were very far from smooth. The Communists say now that Our Ukraine fulfilled all its commitments only three minutes after the voting. The latter say in turn they fulfilled their commitments five minutes earlier. I must say this is a serious mistake of all the participants. Had I been Viktor Yushchenko, I would have found words to defuse the situation and put it back into a constructive vein. And there is nothing surprising in there being two packages at the same time. This was to have saved the Communists’ political face. For it is an open secret that Our Ukraine’s package stood better chances. Roman Bezsmertny was to have become speaker, while the Martyniuk package was clearly deficient of votes. Now Volodymyr Lytvyn’s chances have risen substantially.”
Oleksandr ZINCHENKO, SDPU(o) faction:
“We have seen again today (May 24 — Ed.) that the Four are torn apart by serious contradictions. Everybody seem to be equal, but somebody wants to be more equal. Everything is OK until it comes to working out concrete forms. In essence, the Four lack a constructive approach and do not weigh their further actions. Let us imagine that the newly-elected leadership consists of the Four nominees. Then tomorrow, when foreign and domestic policy documents are put to a vote, the Four take so different stands on all the key points (NATO, market-oriented reforms, social policies, the language problem, privatization, etc.) that they will never gather 226 votes. Shall we reduce all proceedings to confrontation with the president? This is clearly not enough for normal lawmaking. The current situation is highly favorable for United Ukraine. It is so far difficult to say who they will cooperate with. United Ukraine being a megafaction, there are absolutely different views on the problem in question. I think this is why a break was announced until Tuesday, so that all these approaches could be reduced to a common denominator.”
