The President’s traditional annual message to this Parliament could perhaps be described as nontraditional, considering that the chief executive proclaimed a new course (something that had to be reflected in the message, of course), addressing the parliamentary majority formed in support of the President’s course. In other words, the situation in which the President delivered his 2000 message was fundamentally different from that of all previous messages. Today, the President, Parliament, and Cabinet are on the same political plane. Or in the same boat, to use the old clichО. “For the first time the President’s message is practical, aimed at buttressing the parliamentary majority interested in making laws to support the President’s course,” said Oleksandr Zinchenko, one of the majority leaders.
People’s Deputies’ views on Mr. Kuchma’s message varied, depending on how they understood its basic concept. Some of the Solons believe it had to represent a clearly formulated action plan; others think it should boil down to guidelines. In fact, the draft message and the President’s speech in Parliament seem more in the latter vein.
The President’s message was aimed at defining strategic trends in Ukraine’s development for the next several years, as is obvious from its title, Strategy of Economic and Social Policy for 2000- 2004. It should be noted, however, that the document read by the head of state has a number of distinctions compared to the draft carried by the Ukrainian press. Oleksandr Lavrynovych believes that “the President’s message delivered in Parliament differed from the draft published by the press, but it had no internal discrepancies. It was an integral, sufficiently balanced comprehensive approach to the problems facing Ukraine.” This opinion is shared by Leonid Kravchuk who told The Day : “In the President’s program I saw an obvious orientation toward overcoming those negative phenomena present in the current situation — specifically, at uniting the Verkhovna Rada’s and President’s efforts, Leonid Kuchma’s reliance on his own experience, negative as well as positive, and a new understanding of the administrative reform. This message is also marked by the presence of specific measures to get this country out of the crisis.”
People’s Deputy Anatoly Matviyenko noted, “The message could be the platform for subsequent efforts; regrettably, no such platform was evident in today’s speech by the President or in the draft published earlier.
“Today, we have an opportunity to concentrate the efforts of all branches of government and guide this vector to improve the situation in the country, rather than someone’s desire to get over and above any such branch.”
By and large, the President’s message gave the legislators cause to celebrate. First, Mr. Kuchma declared that “parliamentary elections will not take place soon” (met by the parliamentary audience with an ovation, to which the President said, smiling, “Right, clap a little while”). In a roundabout way he seemed to hint that he would not force the issue of early elections. Secondly, Mr. Kuchma announced he did not mind “signing an agreement between Parliament and the government, subject to the condition that it is based on a real legislative action plan.” Thirdly, he stated he “would like to see this Parliament as a single united [legislative] body, without the majority’s diktat over the minority or vice versa” (a thesis eagerly gripped by the Left minority and used versus majority in the next sitting). Fourth and last, Mr. Kuchma gave the minority another present when he said a political opposition bill had to be passed.
Having thus boosted Verkhovna Rada’s fighting spirit, the President ended his message telling the legislators, “I count on your support; a nation can be glorified only by lofty objectives and great deeds.”
INCIDENTALLY
In his message, Leonid Kuchma also outlined the main tasks in solving the problem of corruption which, in his words, “is one of the main reasons for economic hardships and social tensions,” along with the crime rate.
The President declared that it is necessary “to clearly distinguish between government and business, and to force every civil servant to really serve his state, by depriving him of the functions of an omnipotent regulator and distributor in the economic realm.” Task number two, he said, was “securing full transparency in every economic process” — primarily in terms of privatization, land reform, the energy market, and bank system.
Referring to “a separate problem, the need to legalize shadow capital,” Leonid Kuchma stressed that he was talking “legalization, not amnesty.” Actually, the latter thesis became a topic most actively discussed in Parliament after the President’s speech.
Oleksandr ZINCHENKO:
If one were to analyze the President’s speeches beginning December 1999, the obvious conclusion would be that a process is underway of transferring business to the legislative field. This is necessary so various business entities could interpret business conditions in Ukraine as best serving their interest. As for the President’s thesis about legalizing shadow capital, one should to distinguish between legalization and amnesty. In the latter case, it means actually okaying such investment in Ukraine’s economy.
Mykhailo SYROTA:
We have constantly been told about the need to return shadow capital to Ukraine. We would rather hear about a specific vehicle: how do we go about getting all this money back to the Ukrainian economy? We have none to date. I am convinced that such vehicles cannot be developed, for getting such capital back requires adequate economic and legislative conditions.
Leonid KRAVCHUK:
To return capital, we need guarantees provided by both sides; the owners of such capital must undertake to use their own funds in Ukraine and the state must guarantee that this capital will never be expropriated under any circumstances. The latter is especially important. Should the state nationalize any part of this money, shadow capital will never return to the Ukrainian economy.
Viktor PYNZENYK:
No social decisions should be made to return this capital to Ukraine. The problem is that we have an unfavorable investment climate. If we want to return that shadow capital to the Ukrainian economy, we must meet two conditions: first, we must have a stable currency, and second, we must work out a favorable investment policy. The latter implies guarantees to investors from the state and transparent mechanisms for using this money.
