Merciless fight for peace

On the 11th anniversary of the Constitution, Communist leader Petro Symonenko announced its “untimely death”. There is some cynical sarcasm in his words, but at least he never voted for this document. It is harder to explain the zeal of Socialist leader [and Parliament Speaker – A.B.] Olexandr Moroz who proudly calls himself “the father of the Fundamental Law”. Anyways, all means will pay during this election race and the rivals are going to resort to all manner of technologies – from cell phone SPAM to the spreading of rumors.

SMS Technology

Moroz sent a message to his political colleagues, announcing at a congress of  Young Socialists that he already had 162 signatures of MPs who demanded an extraordinary session of the parliament. His explanation was simple: to prevent an attempt at the “sanctum sanctorum” – the Constitution of Ukraine. His method was eqally simple: “to fight fire with fire”, i.e. by rewriting this very Constitution. Moroz terms it as a “continuation of political reform” aimed at “handing power over to the people”. According to him, it is going to be the Socialist Party’s canvassing slogan.

Moroz has registered his draft bill on amendments to the Constitution with the Verkhovna Rada secretariat, and now we know to whom he wants to hand over power in this country. Naturally, he wants to place the Parliament Speaker on the top of the Ukrainian totem pole. If the amendments are adopted, the Speaker will be empowered to endorse legislative acts (unless vetoed by the President) and nominate candidatures for premiership (unless the President meets his deadline).

The second highest man will be the Prime Minister, empowered to appoint all ministers, including the Foreign Minister and law enforcement chiefs. The role and powers of the President and his apparatus will be reduced to naught – actually to appointing the chief of his chancellery (the new name for the Presidential Secretariat offered by Moroz). In fact, Moroz wants a parliamentary republic. Of course, President Yushchenko and his chief of staff Viktor Baloga do not. Yulia Tymoshenko promises to support the parliamentary model (provided that the parliamentary model is supported in a national referendum). Moroz is dead set against any referendums (though he cannot say where he is going to get 300 votes for his amendments).

The leader of the Socialist Party stands his ground, but the Regions Party bosses will hardly let him play first fiddle, being sure that he has driven a wedge between Yushchenko and Yanukovych with his facile statements.

The amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Communists look far more provocative. They do not narrow presidential powers – they simply liquidate the institute of presidency as such, vesting them in the Parliament Speaker. According to several sources, Symonenko wants to occupy the Speaker’s chair after the September election. He must be aware, however, that the Communists can hardly collect 300 votes for his amendments. Therefore, his draft of the amendment bill looks more like an SMS to voters, allies in the coalition, and the Presidential Secretariat.

“Consistency”

The day the Presidential Secretariat got the message from the leftists (about 162 signatures for convening an extraordinary session), Presidential Representative to Parliament Roman Zvarych stated that Moroz was not speaker anymore and that he could not convene the dissolved parliament. Regrettably, Zvarych was not as consistent as Andrei Portnov, chief lawyer for the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc. Commenting on President Yushchenko’s initiative to amend the Constitution through a national referendum (which Tymoshenko supported), Portnov reminded that the adoption of the Constitution at a referendum alone, without endorsement by the parliament, would contradict the letter of the Organic Law and two rulings of the Constitutional Court. Otherwise, Leonid Kuchma would have amended the Constitution to his liking seven years ago. It was the opposition faction of the Our Ukraine [led by Viktor Yushchenko at the time – A.B.] that frustrated Kuchma’s plan. Seven years ago Yushchenko argued that it was unlawful and inadmissible to amend the Constitution through a referendum.

Of course, a lot has changed after seven years, but Yushchenko’s position of 2007 is strikingly similar to Kuchma’s position of 2000… Yushchenko insists on abolishing MP immunity, cutting the number of MPs [from 450 down to 300 – A.B.], dividing the parliament into two houses, and adopting the Constitution and other laws through popular vote. These are exactly what Kuchma submitted to a national referendum seven years ago.

It doesn’t mean, of course, that these initiatives are altogether bad just because they replicate Kuchma’s and that they lead to restitution of authoritarianism in this country. There is nothing bad about a two-chamber parliament, but there is one important historical fact: seven years ago this idea was strongly opposed by [the then Presidential Administration Chief – A.B.] Viktor Medvedchuk, by Olexandr Moroz, and by Viktor Yushchenko. In 2003 Yushchenko called Kuchma’s initiative “a coffin for Ukrainian democracy”, telling everybody that two-chamber parliaments were only in monarchical and federative states. In 2005 he labeled supporters of Ukraine’s federalization as “separatists”. How come that he made a U-turn in 2007? As it turns out, nothing lasts in Ukrainian politics – even convictions…

Death on Constitution

The value of the Constitution, like of any law, consists primarily in the stipulation of universally accepted rules of the game. Those left out of the game claim the right to ignore these rules, and the more influential they are, the weaker the structure. There have been examples of this in both domestic and international politics. The League of Nations fell apart after the United States refused to join it, the USSR was expelled, and Germany and its allies seceded. The United Nations that succeeded the League of Nations is far from perfect, but at least it is more effective because the major players are there.

The Ukrainian Constitution of 1996 was recognized (even though too often ignored) by the President and the Parliament, the majority and the opposition. The amended Constitution is recognized and referred to by everyone but is openly spurned by many big players, especially from the opposition team.

The Communists, the Socialists, the President, and the Tymoshenko opposition offer their versions of a new Constitution which they claim to be the only right ones. However, their attempts discredit the Organic Law as such: everyone rejects its provisions as “unusable” but none of the offered versions stands a chance to be accepted by all.

Under such circumstances, the constitutional referendum appears to be a trump card, but even this card can hardly outplay the opponent: after all, the referendum ballot form has to be approved by the Central Election Commission whose work may be blocked by any side very easily.

There is a radical “last resort” – to act exclusively by political agreement instead of rigid constitutional norms, like Yushchenko, Yanukovych, and Moroz did on May 27. It is unclear, however, how the rivaling political leaders who are unwilling and unable to abide by written norms will abide by verbal agreements.

There used to be a popular joke in the Soviet times: “There will be no war, but there will be such a fight for peace that not a stone will be left standing.” By all appearances, the fight for justice and law among the Ukrainian politicians is coming to that point. It has already victimized the parliament and the Constitutional Court. Who’s next?