The draft law on slander has been eventually canceled. A total of 349 MPs pressed the “for” button. At least, this is what the screen showed. By the way, votes counting more than 300 are not so frequently to be seen at Ukraine’s parliament. Even communists voted.
Is it the upcoming election that had this magic effect on the legislators? This should not be ruled out. Other reasons should not be ignored either. The main of them is the influence of society, and the media environment in particular. On October 2, just like The Day before, journalists again rallied against the Party of Regions MP Vitalii Zhuravsky’s draft. As a reminder, the proposed legislation provided for criminal liability, including prison terms up to three years and huge fines, for slander. Now, after the vote, the draft is to be removed from the Verkhovna Rada’s law register.
“I would not blow up the role of journalists,” said MP Valerii Bondyk (the Party of Regions) in his comment to The Day. “The reason for annulling the draft was that parliament had acknowledged its mistake. The journalist rally is just a manifestation of your right to peaceful conventions. Yet for me it was not the key reason. The Verkhovna Rada did well in canceling that draft. I would refrain from commenting on my colleague Zhuravsky’s proposed legislation. Instead, I would rather share my own point of view. As our society is going further on the path of democratization, we must have a balance of interests. Journalists must not be subject to criminal liability for slander, but they should present their materials in an ethical manner.”
With zero reaction from society, we would have hardly seen the cancelation of the Regions’ draft. The vote for its return in the first reading is a test of sorts (we have taken such tests more than once with other drafts). Had there been no public response, we would most likely see the draft pass in the second reading as well. Therefore the consolidation of journalists against the “comeback” of the Soviet-era norm is a kind of achievement.
The opposition shares this view. “In my opinion, this is a victory, albeit a small one, of citizens, journalists, and of the entire society, over the dictatorship imposed over the country,” says Andrii Senchenko from the BYuT. “It is crucial not to stall after the first step was made. We have the chance to bring about a cardinal change in a month’s time, in the election. If we let this regime stay, it will doubtlessly come back to the slander matter and keep crashing down on media and citizens alike. They only have a one-way thinking, so they are building a completely different Ukraine, far from what our citizens envisage.”
This certainly can be considered a victory, yet only a local one. Can journalists consolidate not only around threats to their profession, but also around other socially important matters? According to Sviatoslav Tseholko, presenter of Chas (Time) Program at Channel 5, they are ready for it. “Another thing is that there is a problem of organization and coordination of journalists’ actions,” says Tseholko. “Unfortunately, so far journalists have done little to let the average Ukrainian understand, that the slander draft, just like others, including the ban on conventions, affect not only journalists, but each and every Ukrainian citizen.”
This might be why the Party of Regions would not “blow up the role of journalists,” and even adds that “only the strong can admit their mistakes.”
“However, off the record the Party of Regions MPs said that the draft law on slander had arisen as a reaction to the rating published by the civil movement Chesno,” said Tseholko. “They were so scared by the published information that they decided to respond in this way, by threats of imprisonment. The publishing of information related to stealing from the state budget, unfairly held tenders, etc. could be interpreted as slander and result in prison terms for journalists. That the draft was recalled in a record vote means only one thing to me: it is the effect of politicizing on the eve of the election.”
Of course, no one can guarantee that criminal liability for slander will not be brought up again in the wake of the election. “We are well aware that the major battle for power will be waged in 2014-15, with the start of presidential elections,” continued Tseholko. “There is nothing to stop the newly elected MPs from proposing this draft under a different name, with a different registration number, but with essentially the same provisions, which will make journalists criminally liable for as much as a hint at criticism, which may be considered groundless by one of its high and mighty targets.”
The defense of right to freedom of speech should become an example to follow in other situation. If we do not give up, and keep pressurizing the government, then we may speak of civil society in action. Conversely, amassing the unlearned lessons by journalists and society in general produces a cul-de-sac, and it will become increasingly harder to find a way out. According to the political scientist Viktor NEBOZHENKO, at the moment society is losing to government.
“The role of civil society and journalists in this situation should not be exaggerated,” said Nebozhenko. First, today the regime is desperately searching for a new type of politician that would replace the pro-Soviet Yefremov, the clownish Chechetov – something like a Ukrainian Zhirinovsky. Zhuravsky fits in the description fairly well. That is, they are looking for a bold-faced, radical type who would serve as the regime’s catspaw and do what the government will not do openly.
“Second, the regime was not going to pass this law on slander. It has to be passed by the new parliament, which is to discredit itself in the rigged elections (there will be no end to people who will worm their way into parliament despite the will of the electorate) and through passing undemocratic laws. In this way, the role of presidential republic will be enhanced, and so will Viktor Yanukovych’s political monopoly. The current Rada has been used through and through, from its backroom to the speaker. This parliament need not pass any more laws. The incumbent government is no longer interested in it.”
You mean that everything the government is doing today is just a game?
“Yes, it is. It is a test of strength. The society rejected the draft? Okay, no worries, we [the regime. – Author] will try and put this law through the next, new parliament. Once it passes this law, it will be hard for it to side with the people. The regime will start with trying to mar the new parliament, making it vote non-democratic laws. The role of characters like Zhirinovsky or Zhuravsky is crucial here. In Russia, this type appeared some 15 years ago, as a prop to the regime.”
Where is the society erring? How can it influence the government?
“Through simultaneous uproar from the opposition, mass information media, intellectuals, and citizens. But it is still to come. Only these factors, their consolidation and the division of the ‘elite’ will lead to changes.
“In this election campaign, which is more like a cold civil war, the regime has won over the people. The opposition offers as much resistance as it can. The process still continues. It should not be forgotten that this regime’s archenemy is not the people, but the global crises – and, consequently, the global bourgeoisie, the IMF, and suchlike. But they will not buy Zhuravsky’s cheap tricks. What worked well in Russia 15 years ago, need not work in Ukraine. However, the incumbent regime aspires at perfection. Today, the society does not influence the situation. Instead of the people rejoicing in democracy, the regime rules over its bones.”
