An anti-constitutional coup? So what happened on Friday? The answer is simple: the constitutional order of the state was changed. Moreover, this was done not by introducing amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine, but through the adoption of the Law on the Cabinet of Ministers, whose provisions, according to experts' estimates, contradict the country's Fundamental Law at least 11 times.

The legitimacy of the adoption of the law on the Cabinet of Ministers and the compliance of its provisions with the Constitution will certainly become the subject of consideration by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. This was stated by the President of Ukraine and representatives of "Our Ukraine."

So what will the enactment of the cabinet law lead to? It is clear that there will be a monopolization and usurpation of state power by the currently acting Yanukovych Government and the anti-crisis coalition. This can be verified by analyzing the main provisions of the aforementioned law.

Example one: anti-constitutional usurpation of the President's powers in the sphere of forming the Government

Paragraph 9 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine reserves exclusively to the President the right to submit a candidate for Prime Minister for consideration by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Instead, Article 8 of the adopted law on the Cabinet of Ministers grants anti-constitutional powers to the Verkhovna Rada and the coalition: "in the event that the President of Ukraine fails to submit to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine a submission on the appointment of the Prime Minister of Ukraine within the period defined by the Constitution of Ukraine, the submission on the appointment to the said position shall be made to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the coalition of deputy factions in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine."

This provision effectively blocks the President of Ukraine from exercising his powers to dissolve the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the event of the impossibility of forming a new government within 60 days (paragraph 2 of Article 90).

In a similar manner, the head of state's right to influence the activities of the Cabinet through the submission of candidates for appointment of ministers of foreign affairs and defense has been usurped. The President also has only 2 weeks to decide on their candidates from the time the coalition's proposal regarding the candidate for prime minister is received. If the head of state does not do so, the submission for appointment to these positions is made by the coalition of deputy factions. The Constitution of Ukraine does not grant such powers to the Verkhovna Rada.

Example two: blocking the constitutional powers of the head of state at the regional level

Article 25 of the law on the Cabinet of Ministers removes the issue of the activities of local state administrations from the sphere of competence of the head of state, and instead a government vertical of power is created. From now on, the heads of administration are "responsible," "accountable and controlled" exclusively by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. This does not correspond to the spirit and letter of Article 118 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which provides for their responsibility to the President of Ukraine.

From now on, not only the head of state but also the government can repeal acts of local administrations.

Example three: usurpation of the powers of the President of Ukraine in the sphere of directing the state's foreign policy

Paragraph 4 of Article 21 of the law on the Cabinet of Ministers grants the Government the power to ensure Ukraine's foreign policy activities, develop and approve state programs in this sphere, and coordinate the stay of official foreign delegations that include representatives of the Cabinet.

Thus, in effect, the President is deprived of the ability to influence the course of foreign visits by the prime minister or other members of the Government through the approval of relevant directives. The aforementioned law also limits influence on personnel policy, that is, the appointment of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as was already mentioned above. So the fate of Borys Tarasyuk has already been decided by the Yanukovych Government together with the BYuT.

Example four: the Government's assumption of the President of Ukraine's right of legislative initiative

The Cabinet even assumes the powers of the President of Ukraine in the sphere of legislative activity. According to Article 28 of the law on the Cabinet of Ministers, the Government "carries out the preparation of draft laws and acts of the President of Ukraine on matters belonging to the powers of the President of Ukraine." Based on the content of this article, the head of state cannot independently develop draft laws and, indeed, drafts of his own acts (!)

These are only the main provisions of the law on the Cabinet of Ministers that contradict the Constitution.

Instead, the "anti-crisis members" managed to take care of the social protection of government officials. The law establishes separate conditions for remuneration, pension, sanatorium-resort and other types of support for the activities of members of the government. This looks especially pleasant against the backdrop of the BYuT's fight against privileges and benefits. They talk about one thing, but themselves vote for this law. Because justice exists and it is worth fighting for?

In summary, it can be stated that changes have been adopted in an anti-constitutional manner which establish anti-democratic mechanisms of power in the country, the monopoly and usurpation of power by the Yanukovych Government.

The price of betrayal for the BYuT

The Party of Regions never hid its intentions to take revenge for Viktor Yanukovych's defeat in 2004. Last week, the regional members got the opportunity to revise the will of the Ukrainian people of 2004 through the usurpation of the powers of the President of Ukraine. However, the role of the BYuT in this story is not entirely clear to society. Today, the notorious crisis coalition has been joined by the BYuT faction, which declares its opposition status. And this is not the first principled vote by the BYuT together with the regional members and communists: let us recall the vote on the resignation of the orange Yekhanurov Government, the overriding of the President's veto on extending the moratorium on the purchase and sale of agricultural land, and the attempt to dismiss the Maidan field commander Yuriy Lutsenko from the post of Minister of Internal Affairs. The examples are far from accidental; they are examples that show the systematic nature of the BYuT's and the anti-crisis members' voting.

I am convinced that many of us ask ourselves the question: what is the price of betraying one's own ideological principles and promises to one's voters? Therefore, I cannot help but ask this question to many of my colleagues from the BYuT, with whom we went through the Maidan and the Orange Revolution together – what is the price of such actions, of the actual betrayal of the values we fought for together? I want only to remind that Kuchmism began with ignoring the Constitution of Ukraine.

Some may respond with arguments, saying that the price of agreements with the regional members is the laws on the imperative mandate and parliamentary opposition. On the other hand, I do not want to believe evil tongues who argue that such actions by the BYuT are merely the banal revenge of its leader for not being appointed to the post of Secretary of the NSDC.

In my opinion, the betrayal of one's own promises costs quite cheaply compared to the "carving up" of the constitutional powers of the head of state. Probably, strategically the BYuT is counting on the creation of a two-party system in the future: BYuT - PR. And dreams of ministerial chairs. Then it is clear for whom the law on the Cabinet of Ministers was voted.

In tactical terms, perhaps the main threat is the creation of a constitutional majority in parliament, where the BYuT will join the anti-crisis members. And then the provisions of the law on the Cabinet of Ministers, which provoke the monopolization of state power, will be reinforced by synchronized voting by the BYuT and the anti-crisis coalition for introducing amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine.

I am confident that the BYuT is counting on its victory, on the fact that it will form the future Government. But under anti-democratic conditions, the Yanukovych Government may come for a long time, and the status of a legalized opposition will be lifelong.

How can one not recall Yulia Volodymyrivna's latest article in "Dzerkalo Tyzhnia." Only the report she imagined may have a somewhat different character:

Ukraine, 2016. December 31. From reports of the UNIAN news agency President-Prime Minister-and Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Viktor Yanukovych congratulated Ukraine on the New Year, 2017. "There are 19 million of us," said Viktor Fedorovych, "and we will certainly live well once we finally clean out the Augean stables of the orange putsch." The leader's address to the people was broadcast by both central Donetsk television channels. For this purpose, for the first time since 2009, the lights were turned on in the homes of Ukrainian citizens. The leader of the legalized lifelong opposition, Yulia Tymoshenko, stated that the latest vote in the Verkhovna Rada together with the Party of Regions is not systematic in nature. "There can be no fundamental, consistent cooperation between us and the Party of Regions and Viktor Yanukovych," Tymoshenko said at a briefing. At the same time, Tymoshenko allowed for the possibility of continued simultaneous voting with the anti-crisis coalition on draft laws "that are needed to resolve certain issues." "If necessary, we will vote simultaneously for the same drafts, but this is precisely simultaneous, not joint strategic voting," she noted.