Ihor Koliushko, Director of the Centre for Political and Legal Reforms:
The results of this vote mean that amendments to the Constitution can now indeed take place. The vote demonstrated that, firstly, the agreement of the majority with the communists is working, and, secondly, that everyone, including the majority deputies-Bolsheviks who repeatedly spoke out against the proportional law, were nevertheless forced to vote "For". This is the main result today - a projection onto the consideration of the draft law on amendments to the Constitution.
Regarding the law itself, of course, I consider the transition to a proportional system positive. Although the draft law in this form is too simplified and beneficial for the party bureaucracy, for the party leadership. Therefore, on the one hand, it is positive because it will lead to the stabilization of party structures. On the other hand, the fate of regional and professional representation in parliament will be sad.
Another obvious negative is the introduction of a 3% threshold for passing into parliament. This means party fragmentation of parliament and an increase in blocs and factions, which is a step backward for our parliamentarism.
Viktor Yushchenko, people's deputy, "Our Ukraine" faction:
I think that this was the penultimate step toward a state coup, because the proportional law was, in essence, the last gateway to prevent the adoption of changes and additions to the Constitution in the wording in which they were submitted to parliament by the Presidential Administration and the communists. Today, in essence, a prelude to this consideration took place, which will evidently make it possible in the coming few weeks to approach the adoption of the law on changes to the Constitution.
This is a great betrayal, this is a day of shame. I am convinced that the people will pay a very high price for this political mistake.
Oleksandr Moroz, people's deputy, SPU faction:
Strictly speaking, both "Our Ukraine" and BYuT, which previously voted for this draft, could in total have added the necessary number of votes, and we would have had 360-370 votes for this draft.
This shows that society is ready for this change. It is good that the draft law has been adopted in the first reading; we have the opportunity to refine the draft for the second reading, taking into account all rational proposals.
The bad thing is that there was essentially little discussion of the draft itself, because today everything resembled a political discussion.
As for whether we agreed to lower the passing threshold to 3% — I think that consideration of the draft in the second reading will provide an answer to these questions. We plan 4% in the draft; this is better for society.
Viktoriya Podhorna, Centre for Social and Political Design:
Today's vote on the Rudkovsky-Kliuchkovsky election draft law points to two fundamental points. Firstly, the fact that this very draft law was taken as the basis in the first reading indicates that the so-called compromise strategy was chosen in order to obtain the votes of the CPU and SPU for constitutional reform. This can also explain the non-voting for the draft by "Our Ukraine" and BYuT, which oppose the constitutional reform being carried out by the current authorities. Secondly, the vote testifies to movement in the direction of political reform, to the fact that constitutional changes will be seriously considered, and possibly even adopted. Because the main conditions that the socialists and communists set as threshold conditions for advancing constitutional reform have already moved off dead center. Therefore, if we assess the chances of this draft law passing entirely — they do exist. Although there are also doubts that in the second reading everything will go as smoothly and quickly as it did in the first reading.
On the other hand, an interesting point arises regarding the substance of the draft law. A formula is proposed not for raising but for lowering the threshold. The nuance that the draft law builds into the electoral formula for the election of people's deputies indicates that a trend has emerged toward strengthening the role of political parties in general, as well as toward strengthening precisely those parties that have a strongly developed infrastructure. If one looks at the provisions that the draft law puts forward, it is clear for whom it was made. In reality, it is about those parties that have serious regional representation. It is clear that the number of parties with serious representation is limited. On the other hand, a proportional formula in general always favors parties that have a long history. There are also not many such parties. These are primarily left-wing parties (communists, socialists), as well as the NRU. It is no accident that the author of the draft law is Kliuchkovsky — one of the leaders of the NRU. This is also good, because political parties as a long-standing institution of democracy should contribute to the development and strengthening of democratic institutions. On the other hand, a serious threat is also embedded here. If the list is closed, this always reduces the level of contacts between political parties and voters, which majority deputies have repeatedly emphasized. This problem remained unresolved in this draft law.
It is worth adding that in general, lowering the threshold (although it is not 1%, as Shufrych proposed, but 3%) means that in the next parliament there will be at least 2-3 extra factions that will hinder coalition-building. In connection with the fact that some constitutional changes will be carried out, it is very difficult to imagine that it will be easy to form a ruling majority coalition in parliament. Because the threshold always works either to facilitate or to reduce the chances of building a stable majority coalition. In this case, it is a vector toward reduction.
There is also a third negative point. Lowering the passing threshold always contributes to reducing the role of centrist parties. Because the higher the threshold, the higher the role of centrist parties. Lowering it facilitates the entry into parliament of parties located on the extreme flanks — with more radical polarized views. That is, one can say that the next parliament may be even more polarized than the current one.
Leonid Kravchuk, people's deputy, SDPU(o) faction:
I think that the Rudkovsky-Kliuchkovsky draft law corresponds to the civilized structurization of society and to all the requirements envisaged in a democratic state. Society elects parties, parties are responsible to society for the organization of power.
Valeriy Asadchev, people's deputy, "Our Ukraine" faction:
I consider today's decision not a defeat but a victory for the democratic forces. Firstly, a law on a proportional basis has nevertheless been adopted, so that, from the point of view of the law, in principle, this is better than if there had been a majoritarian system. The only minus is that this became a bargaining chip in voting for constitutional reform.
Secondly, the law has not yet been adopted, although it was planned to adopt it as a whole. So, according to the rules of procedure, it will be adopted somewhere only in April, and besides, by the way, it is still unknown how all this will end.
Thirdly, what pleased me very much: with the participation of the communists and socialists, the Rudkovsky-Kliuchkovsky draft law adopted in the first reading gathered 261 votes (according to official data — 262 votes — ForUm). If this number is projected onto the changes to the Constitution, for now something is slightly falling short for them...