By Volodymyr Malenkovych
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, Ukraine, in Russian 9 Apr 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Apr 12, 2004

The following is the text of Malenkovych's article, posted on the Ukrayinska Pravda web site on 9 April and entitled "The defeat of democracy"; subheadings have been inserted editorially:

Yesterday my team - the team that wants to see the power system democratized - lost. Although it seemed that victory was quite close (we were only short of six votes), the defeat was not a matter of chance.

SELF-INTEREST TRIUMPHED OVER PRINCIPLE

Everything was natural. In our country there are no political forces that regard the interests of democracy as being more important than their own ambitions.

The most consistent people in conducting constitutional reform were, undoubtedly, [Oleksandr] Moroz's Socialists. I doubt, however, that that party's stance over the anti-Semitic items in the [opposition-leaning] newspaper Silski Visti can be regarded as consistently democratic.

When the question of proportional elections to parliament was being discussed, Moroz did, I think, make a mistake when he refused to support the amendment tabled by an PDP [People's Democratic Party] MP (on two party lists), saying that it ran counter to the overall blueprint.

The amendment received 214 votes. The Socialists too would have voted for it, and then yesterday's vote would have been quite different. At least some of the "offended" single-seat MPs whose votes were lost yesterday by the reformists would have voted for it.

As for Moroz's position at the last stage of the reform struggle, it seems to me to be impeccable.

Evidently, if the Constitutional Court was ready to agree to a change in the date on which the whole law came into effect, it would not have objected to the governors' being appointed by the prime minister after the [parliamentary] elections in 2006. The stipulation about the imperative mandate [when MPs are forbidden to swap factions] could have been shifted to the "Transitional Provisions" by restricting its application to a single convocation. The clause about the new powers of the Prosecutor's Office could have been deleted.

I think that the scenario whereby the Constitutional Court might have required a bill that had been voted on to undergo a re-examination by experts is unlikely, but its outcome is easy to forecast. The version of bill No 4105 proposed by Moroz is not at variance with Article 157 of our constitution.

But Moroz was let down by his erstwhile opposition colleagues, who had the most to gain from such amendments. They failed to back him and wrecked the vote. Why? Because wrecking the vote was all that they wanted - at any price.

Only the terminology of the "Our Ukrainians" [i.e. the members of Yushchenko's centre-right opposition bloc Our Ukraine] is democratic; in fact, they are not in the least opposed to Saakashvili-style authoritarian rule, so long as a "good" president (i.e. one from their own ranks) sits in the presidential chair. So they are pleased to greet yesterday's enemies as heroes simply because they did not vote for reform (for purely selfish motives), thereby giving their presidential candidate a chance of authoritarian rule.

But Yushchenko is, I stress, only a candidate at the moment, and it will certainly not be easy for him to win the elections. His opponent ([Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych, let's say) now has additional incentives to fight (all out!) for the president's chair: the winner's powers will be almost unlimited. What is more, the Communist electorate (some 20 per cent of all voters) will, under no circumstances, cast their votes for Yushchenko following the latest public battles between their MPs and the "Our Ukrainians". So the outlook is still vague.

Contrary to the view of those who support our present constitution, I think that it is completely lopsided. At any moment, the president can, without parliament's consent, dismiss the prime minister (Article 106, Part 9). Let us imagine for a moment that the president's chair is occupied not by Yushchenko but by Yanukovych, whereas the parliamentary elections of 2006 are won by the opposition (a perfectly credible scenario under a proportional electoral system).

Can anyone doubt that Yanukovych will not make use of his constitutional right to dismiss the prime minister and later to dissolve parliament too, if the government acts against his personal and clan interests?

It has to be said that the "Our Ukrainians" have not, to put it mildly, been very skilful in stringing along the politically unsophisticated man in the street with democratic blandishments. They started their speeches with statements to the effect that it was a great sin to modify our marvellous constitution, and ended by saying that they were prepared to amend it, but only when Kuchma was not in power.

I make no mention of the speeches of our Joan of Arc [reference to radical opposition leader Yuliya Tymoshenko, an ally of Yushchenko], since all the texts there are intended for consumption by the street crowd and by no one else. Yet one feels somehow embarrassed for [opposition MP] Anatoliy Matviyenko [of Tymoshenko's faction]. After all, he knows what's what and seems to be sincerely interested in constitutional reform.

However, Yushchenko and [ex-deputy prime minister Viktor] Pynzenyk still have the time to convince sceptics that they really want to change the power system and that Our Ukraine's behaviour when voting for a proportional electoral system and for bill No 4105 was just a tactical step and nothing more.

It will be a simple matter to make us change our minds. Yushchenko will have to put in his election manifesto not an abstract statement about his readiness to do everything that is recorded in the opposition foursome's memorandum, but a specific commitment to implement a programme for the transition to a parliamentary-presidential republic after the parliamentary elections in 2006.

In other words, if he wins the presidential elections, Yushchenko must initiate parliament's consideration of a new version of the constitutional amendments in the spring of 2005, so that the law is finally adopted at the autumn-winter session of that year.

That will be the best indication of his sincerity. It is extremely hard to believe in Our Ukraine's democratic spirit without it.

DANGER SIGNALS IGNORED

Now for the other members of the cast of yesterday's political show.

[Petro] Symonenko's Communists, undoubtedly, wanted reform to be carried out. But, believing in the Soviet tradition of a rigid vertical power structure, they were convinced that the master (in this case, the president) had issued an order and the party had to obediently carry it out. But times have changed. Even in his own party, one MP (Borys Oliynyk), after, evidently, inhaling too much of the tainted air of bourgeois democracy in Strasbourg, ventured to disobey the order from the politburo.

In the "majority" camp there were never any like-minded people at all. They were ready to submit only out of fear or for their own selfish interests. But Kuchma is no longer what he was. He is on his way out and so is not so intimidating, but the interests of the single-seat MPs have been dealt a crushing blow. So a reply from them was to be expected. Who would flee to another bloc, who would move aside completely, and who would try not to take part in the decisive vote?

Such are the realities. But our Communists live in the past and do not notice the realities of today even when they are staring them in the face. Accordingly, it was they who sharply resisted the amendments to the bill on proportional elections and so wrecked the vote on 8 April.

The Social Democrats, who also seemed to have an interest in reform, might have saved the day. If they had supported the amendment from [Viktor] Musiyaka's group or PDP [People's Democratic Party] MPs, the situation might have changed (the Communists would have had no choice but to vote for the bill they needed).

All the more so since they could have been made to understand the real balance of forces and could have been persuaded to see that, if no concessions were made, reform might founder. [Presidential chief of staff Viktor] Medvedchuk did not do that. He was certain (as, I think, was [Stepan] Havrysh [coordinator of the parliamentary majority]) that all the majority MPs could be lined up to order and made to vote "as required".

He was used to "getting his own way" and was unwilling to look carefully at life's realities or listen to the advice of sober-minded people. Medvedchuk and Havrysh lost out and wrecked a very important cause. Consequently, it seems to me that it might be no bad thing if the president took a look at how they "measure up to their job specifications", to put it bureaucratically.

In short, among those who had, apparently, vowed to vote for constitutional reform, convinced advocates of democracy were, clearly, in the minority. For the majority of them, there was nothing to be gained from political democracy. So the majority MPs, three-quarters of whom got into parliament via single-seat constituencies, endeavoured to avoid taking part in the vote under any pretext. Some of them pulled it off.

So a defeat in the vote was on the cards. This author has repeatedly written about that possibility (notably in Ukrayinska Pravda of 26 March). Ukrayinska Pravda has to be given its due: it even accurately forecast the number of those who would vote in favour - 294.

No natural victory could be assumed. But there was a chance. And I awaited the result of the vote with bated breath. I hoped. But it was not to be.

AMENDMENTS TO BE RECONSIDERED IN A YEAR'S TIME

Even so, the two-year struggle for political reform has not been in vain. Today the subject is on everyone's lips. All the leading political forces promise to reform the power system, and I do not think they will be able to renege on those promises.

There have been some very tangible successes. If the majority MPs had had nothing to gain from constitutional reform, they would never have agreed to vote for the democratic law "On the elections for the president of Ukraine" and for the proportional system for elections in the centre and in the localities, which is particularly important.

That is a very great success. I am certain that the proportional electoral law will prevent the current "parties of power" from gaining a majority in parliament in 2006. This means that a new stage in the struggle for democracy in Ukraine will begin after those elections.

As for statements from majority MPs to the effect that they voted for the wrong bill yesterday, so that another attempt can still be made to take a vote on bill No 4105, that is utter nonsense. Article 158 of the constitution states: "A bill to amend the constitution of Ukraine that has been considered by the Supreme Council of Ukraine and has not been passed may be submitted to the Supreme Council of Ukraine no sooner than a year after the day on which the decision on the bill was taken." [Quotation in Ukrainian]

Was bill No 4105 considered during this session? No doubt about it. The amendment that was made had no effect on the bill's real substance. So it will not be possible to return to a consideration of the draft law on redistributing the powers of the power structures before 9 April 2005. Lose with good grace, gentlemen. One cannot violate the law - even for the sake of a noble cause.