\nThe socialists' vote together with the Bolsheviks and the CPU on February 3 at an extraordinary parliamentary session became the day of the opposition's split. This is the first impression of those events, with which, however, the leader of the Socialist Party, Oleksandr Moroz, himself disagrees. \n \nThe socialists' position in recent weeks has been incomprehensible to many. Why the SPU acted this way, whether a united opposition exists, and what will happen next — this is discussed in an interview with Oleksandr Moroz for "Ukrainska Pravda." \n \n— After the events of February 3, it has become customary to speak of the beginning of a split in the opposition. What do you think happened then from the point of view of relations within the trio? \n \n— I would not dramatize the events of February 3. Carrying out political reform and voting to remove the norm on presidential elections in parliament — this line of the Socialist Party is consistent. Our position was quite readable by those who wanted to know it. \n \nSecond. The coordination council of the trio, which includes Stanislav Nikolayenko from the SPU, Roman Bezsmertny from "Our Ukraine," and Oleksandr Turchynov from BYuT, held a meeting on the eve of February 3. And there Nikolayenko stated: if the question of removing the norm on electing the president in parliament is raised — the SPU will vote for it under any conditions. \n \n— But do you still consider the December 24 vote illegitimate? \n \n— Yes, the December 24 vote was illegitimate. But the Constitutional Court does not think so. \n \n— So it turns out that on February 3 you legitimized, as your deputy Lutsenko says, the "cloven-hoofed vote" of December 24. \n \n— No. We consciously took this step, although we believed that some would perceive it as a form of legitimizing December 24. If the Constitutional Court thinks so — that is its right. \n \nBut I am not giving an assessment of the December 24 vote. I want the draft No. 4105, which will come from the CC for final approval to the Verkhovna Rada, to not contain the norm on electing the president in parliament. \n \nRemember the discussion at the session when Serhiy Holovaty spoke about reason and law — I joked with an anecdote. "A man suffered from persecution mania, said: 'I am a grain' — and was afraid of a rooster. When he was cured, he stopped considering himself a grain, but he is still afraid of the rooster. When asked what the matter is, the man says: 'I know that I am not a grain, but the rooster doesn't know that.'" \n \nThe same is true in the current situation. We know that on December 24 there was an illegal vote. But just as it was with the land code, with the election of Tyhypko as NBU head — the Constitutional Court recognized all of it as lawful. And it turns out that legal consequences arise from illegitimate decisions, by which society must live. \n \nTo avoid this, on February 3 we voted to exclude the norm on electing the president in parliament. \n \n— Tell me, does the Socialist Party after these events remain a partner of "Our Ukraine" and BYuT? \n \n— On what issues? \n \n— On issues of general political coordination, on issues of presidential elections? \n \n— Nothing has changed in our relations — if we continue to be guided by our signed agreements. After all, the leaders of "Our Ukraine," BYuT, and the SPU signed the revised draft law No. 4180, which repeats No. 4105 without presidential elections in parliament. \n \n— But let us recall — Yushchenko and Tymoshenko filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court to recognize the February 3 decision as illegitimate. Did you ask them to withdraw this submission? \n \n— No. That is their business. \n \n— But if their submission to the CC is granted — then the situation returns to the status quo of December 24. And we again have the previously approved draft law No. 4105 with the norm on electing the president in parliament. It turns out that Yushchenko and Tymoshenko are seeking what you voted against on February 3. \n \n— That does not interest me. What interests me is only — the urgent receipt of an answer from the Constitutional Court regarding the draft law on constitutional amendments voted on December 24. I am genuinely interested in having clear answers on both the December 24 and February 3 votes. \n \nIf these votes are illegal, then we arrive at different starting positions. And it will be clear to us what to do next. But the CC has no such answer, although I can foresee that it will be as before — that the CC will recognize the December 24 vote as lawful. So I am insuring the variant in advance — so that draft law No. 4105 does not contain the norm on presidential elections in parliament. \n \n— But you, Oleksandr Moroz, together with Yushchenko and Tymoshenko also filed with the CC, where you demand the annulment of the December 24 vote. So you are undermining your own position of February 3? \n \n— We have the fact of an illegitimate vote on December 24. For me this is a fact. But if the Constitutional Court agrees with this, then there is no sense in the February 3 vote. But if the CC recognizes the December 24 vote as lawful? Then the February 3 decision will be extremely necessary. And the only possible one to correct the situation. \n \n— How then will you comment on the position of Yushchenko and Tymoshenko that the president with the powers laid out in the draft constitutional amendments becomes a British queen? \n \n— I believe they are making a mistake if they say so. But I do not want to enter into a dispute regarding the substantive side of the matter. If they have claims about the president's powers, then I will remind them — they personally signed the revised draft law No. 4180, where the same powers are written as in draft No. 4105. \n \nTherefore let them figure out what they are opposing. \n \n— After February 3, Yushchenko accused you of almost treason, of opening the way to repression of opposition deputies, and then he went to Brussels. And then you went to Madrid. Have you spoken with Yushchenko since then? \n \n— No. But I have spoken with his colleagues. And we have no misunderstandings. \n \n— What state is the once-united opposition trio in now? \n \n— The trio and quartet have existed since May 2002. Relations between us were not formalized, we did not take mutual obligations that would restrict my actions. All agreements on coordinating actions have been fulfilled by us unconditionally. And the emotional assessments that came from Viktor Yushchenko's mouth — I am not offended by him, since emotions were at work here. And nothing more. \n \nSuppose, if we had not voted on February 3... What would have changed? \n \n— At least the trio would have preserved the face of unity before the public... \n \n— For the sake of what? \n \n— So that in the struggle against Kuchma the opposition would have stronger positions. \n \n— And what confirms this strength now? Is it our joint actions? Or the imitation of commonality in the form of non-voting? We did, in essence, the right thing. If someone who does not grasp the situation finds our act ineffective or suspicious — that is trifles and has no significance. Because in political life only facts matter, not assessments of these facts. \n \n— What is the current state of the opposition trio? \n \n— The SPU faction is open to cooperation in countering the regime in all aspects of such struggle. Nothing has changed for us. But our doubts have been confirmed that Viktor Yushchenko's bloc and BYuT see political reform somewhat differently than we do. And differently than they declared in the documents from May 2002. \n \n— And in what, in your opinion, is their vision of political reform? \n \n— In that the president must be elected first. Hoping that one of them can become one. And only then carry out political reform. I say right away that such a variant is utopian. \n \nFirst, where are the guarantees that Yushchenko or Tymoshenko will become president? No one can give such guarantees. \n \nSecond, where are the guarantees that, even having become president, they will change the political system? \n \nAnd third, what will change — if new people come into the same functions that the current ruling regime has? A system must be created that would not allow anyone to usurp power. \n \nThe sociology conducted by Yuliya Tymoshenko shows that no one gives guarantees that a representative of the authorities will not become the new president. Imagine, with these same powers this will be a second wind for the current regime. \n \n— But if political reform passes according to the scenario of draft law No. 4105, then we have no better situation: in 8 months there will be a new president who, under the new powers, will not have the right to dismiss this prime minister Yanukovych. We will have the same majority. And this majority will either keep Yanukovych or put Kuchma in the prime minister's post with new powers. Your opposition partner Yuliya Tymoshenko spoke about this very thing! \n \n— I do not want to consider the scare stories about Kuchma's premiership, which were developed not in parliament. Even this parliament will never elect Kuchma as head of government. It will not gather 226 votes. Because otherwise these 226 deputies will cross out their political future. Therefore no one can seriously consider the variant of Kuchma's premiership. I will not cite other arguments, of which I have enough. \n \n— But why? Does Kuchma suit the current Bolsheviks in everything? \n \n— Among them there are political forces that are not satisfied with the current situation... \n \n— The Donetsk ones? \n \n— Both Donetsk and non-Donetsk ones. \n \nBut let us look from the other side. After October 2004, will this composition of parliament remain? Yes. And if there is a president from the opposition, he would under the current Constitution form a government. But what comes out? That he would have achieved parliamentary support by the same forceful mechanisms that the current president has with the current majority. \n \nSo what is happening?! We should not entrench what we oppose! \n\nTherefore, I believe, in any case the current situation will persist until 2006. \n \n— But your associate Mykola Rudkovsky on Radio "Svoboda" stated that after political reform and the victory of an opposition president in the elections, "Our Ukraine" will increase to 150 deputies, the SPU and BYuT — to 50. How can this be explained? Perhaps the entire majority will reorient to the new president? And form a new government? \n \n— Why would they do that? \n \n— Because such are the principles of the Bolsheviks' life — to adapt to power. \n \n— I believe that the life principles of individual figures in politics should not cross out the principles of the state's development. \n \nOur position on reforming the political system is hard-won, reflected in our party program, election platform. And we are not saying anything new here, and are not making sudden turns that could put our opposition partners in a dead end. If they are ready to fight this regime, then we are ready for cooperation, as before. We have not made unrestrained statements or sharp public assessments. \n \n— But within the Socialist Party itself there are many people who believed that the SPU's vote on February 3 was wrong. At least three of those who were in the hall — did not vote: Lutsenko, Bokiy, and Karnaukh. In addition, according to our information, Shybko and Baranivsky were not in the hall, who also would not have voted — but their cards were with other socialists who voted "for" instead of them. \n \n— Keep your information to yourself. I know the decision of the SPU faction — they had to vote as the faction decided. Lutsenko did not vote for moral reasons — that is how he explains it. It was awkward for him to vote on February 3 after he had written a letter to the communists regarding what he considered the wrong actions of the CPU leadership on December 24. \n \nBy the way, regarding this letter the political executive committee of the SPU expressed dissatisfaction. \n \n— Is there a split in the faction around the topic of political reform? \n \n— There is no split. If you doubt it, then take the statement of Yuriy Lutsenko himself, where he clearly says: the February 3 vote was absolutely correct. And the fact that he did not vote means that he could not do so for tactical, moral reasons. \n \n— Do you not see a mistake in the fact that on December 24 you were in Truskavets, and the Socialist Party faction reoriented to a "foreign" scenario developed by "Our Ukraine"? \n \n— I do not see a mistake in the fact that I was in Truskavets. Moreover, I was there last year and the year before at this same period. And for the December 24 vote, 226 votes were needed, and my presence decided nothing in principle. \n \nAnd the SPU faction coordinated its actions with me. I had daily conversations with the faction leadership and other deputies. The fact that such a line of behavior was chosen by "Our Ukraine" on December 24 — that is their business. I believe only that, while blocking the session — and the majority would have provoked a blockade — the opposition should have, with all this, encouraged a negotiation process. I believe this was not done, and this is a mistake. \n \n— That is, if you had been in Kyiv in those days, would the events of December 23–24 have developed differently? \n \n— I do not know, I do not exaggerate my influence on the situation. But certain corrections in behavior would have been made. \n \n— There is an aspect suspicious to observers — your cooperation with Medvedchuk on political reform. Why did you go to meet with him at 8 a.m. before the February 3 vote? \n \n— Where did you get the information that this happened at 8 a.m.? \n \n— That is what was said in the parliamentary corridors after those events... \n \n— I do not want to comment on corridors. A lot is said in corridors — they said I had gas stations from Kyiv to Odesa, and then it turned out that this was not so. \n \nRegarding the meeting with Medvedchuk. On February 2 I was at a meeting at Lytvyn's and said that I would step out for 20 minutes. Before that, the president had to be explained that there was no way out. If he counts on political reform, then an extraordinary session must be held where the norm on electing the president in parliament is removed. The majority had to be given a command that it would vote for holding an extraordinary session. \n \nThe orders to the majority were given by Medvedchuk, and I needed to make sure whether he would give them. If he would, then there is sense in conducting negotiations. If not, then we wash our hands, and we must prepare for standard presidential elections with the existing powers. \n \nTherefore I stepped out for 20 minutes, met with Medvedchuk for 3 minutes, and posed one question: will there be an extraordinary session? I understood that such a decision had been made. \n \nAnd on February 3 I had no meetings with Medvedchuk. \n \n— Why then did you not go to the meeting of faction leaders with Kuchma on February 2 — to make sure precisely on the question you went to Medvedchuk about? \n \n— At that time I was busy. \n \n— Comment on the following information: before the meeting of faction leaders with Kuchma there were negotiations of the trio. Agreements were worked out there, agreed upon by all three leaders. And one of them amounted to the fact that the opposition would insist on bringing constitutional amendments into force from 2006. And this was a precondition for the opposition's vote on February 3. But the SPU did not demand that this requirement be taken into account. \n \n— The question of bringing constitutional amendments into force from 2006 has not been removed from the agenda. Regarding it, a discussion can be held during the consideration of constitutional amendments on the merits. \n \nBut let us return to the statements of the trio made on January 14–15. The joint statements of the "trio," Yushchenko's remarks on UT-1 boiled down to one thing: we are not satisfied that the Ukrainian people want to be deprived of the right to elect the president. And no other conditions were set. I am not saying this as a reproach to Viktor Andriyovych — I was simply surprised at how far he went in seeking compromise. \n \nIf you have reproaches regarding the fact that "Our Ukraine" or BYuT retreated from their convictions, then that is a question for them. \n \n— You recalled the broadcast on state television. During an internet conference, Tymoshenko was surprised at how it could happen that the leader of the opposition SPU was invited to the program "Same One" which airs on UT-1. And that you are going to be recorded for the program "Epicenter"? Supposedly, the fact of your appearance on state TV is confirmation that the authorities seek to use Moroz. \n \n— That is, she proposes that I continue not to be shown on television? \n \nThe authorities have their interests. The opposition has its interests. The authorities believe that by inviting me on TV they demonstrate to society: the socialists are on the side of the regime. They hope for that. Let them hope! I see interest in my appearance on TV, because I can explain my position to people. \n \nSecond: what about our appearance on television together with Yushchenko — was that a demonstration by the authorities that Yushchenko is on their side? Why is the question not posed that way?! Let us calm down and not give assessments. Over the course of my political activity I have already heard many assessments. \n\nThe fact that the regime is criminal — for me is a fact. The fact that it must be removed — is an indisputable fact. The fact that political reform must be carried out so that such things do not happen in the future — this is also an indisputable fact for me. I said long ago on this matter: the model of reform is one, but the goals of the authorities and the opposition are opposite. \n\nOur opposition has stood the test of time, it is many years old — when even those structures that consider themselves the true opposition had not yet been created. \n \n— There are two possible scenarios: political reform may happen, or it may not. If political reform happens, will Oleksandr Moroz run in the presidential elections? \n \n— We shall see. Until there is clarity on political reform, I cannot answer this question, since completely different preconditions may be created. I have answered this question many times: right now I am interested only in political reform. \n \n— If political reform does not happen, do you not rule out running in the presidential elections? \n \n— If political reform does not happen, I do not rule out my participation in the presidential campaign. \n \n— There is also a version circulating in the corridors that the joint business of a member of your faction, Mykola Rudkovsky, with Nestor Shufrych from the SDPU(o) largely generates the faction's position on political reform. \n \n— I believe that these are insinuations, but I do not accept an abstract reference to "corridors." Who is saying this? Let them name their arguments. Name examples where the Socialist Party would have abandoned its idea of political reform. This is what we declared several years ago, when Rudkovsky was not a member of the faction. \n \nThree years ago I said that the president would be forced to take our side on political reform — I did not ask Medvedchuk or Shufrych for permission for this. I did not know Shufrych at all. \n \n— Proportional elections are a mandatory precondition for voting on political reform. Do you agree to the variant developed by the majority: purely proportional elections, but with a 1-percent threshold for entering parliament? \n \n— Under no circumstances, because that is majoritarian elections. I think one can only raise the percentage. \n \nThere are many variants of a proportional system, but there is one condition — a party list is created, and there is no specific deputy in the ballot who runs in a specific district — there is only the name of the party. \n\nIn the transitional provisions of the constitutional amendments it is stated that parliamentary elections will be held in a single multi-mandate district by lists of political parties. How to proceed further — that is a topic for further discussions. \n \n— Recently you hinted to journalists that you had developed such a draft of proportional elections that would satisfy everyone. \n \n— Yes. I will first propose it to my opposition partners. The essence boils down to this: a party composes a list, and, having won a certain number of mandates in the Verkhovna Rada, half of them are given to candidates assigned by the party to specific districts. Those who receive the most votes enter parliament. And the other half of the mandates are received by participants of the pre-election list. This gives a colossal incentive to work in the districts. \n \n— Will it not turn out that from this half assigned to districts it will be easiest for those candidates to enter parliament who work in regions where the party's positions are strong. And those assigned to a problematic region will never get into the Verkhovna Rada. \n \n— This can be taken into account. A district where the SPU's positions are strong can be assigned to a deputy from a problematic region. And the one who initially represented this district can be placed on the party list. Or those who work conscientiously in a problematic district can also be placed in a winnable place on the general list. \n \n— Have you already proposed these ideas to anyone? \n \n— In our faction they were approved a year ago. With representatives of the majority I have had only preliminary conversations. \n \n— Last question: at the end of January Mykola Melnychenko was in Strasbourg at the European Court of Human Rights. He is challenging his exclusion from the Socialist Party's pre-election list in the 2002 elections. And it is expected that the verdict in his case at the European Court may be announced already in the middle of this year. Will any of the SPU deputies yield their seat to him, giving up their mandate? \n \n— Yes, we are ready to give Melnychenko the opportunity to be a deputy. \n \n