Objectively, changes are also needed in Ukraine. After all, despite the "optimistic" statements of certain representatives of the executive branch, the standard of living of the population and its social and legal protection are currently at a low level. Of course, many problems arise due to the poor functioning of the state apparatus. However, let us look the truth in the eye - perhaps these shortcomings are caused by non-compliance with existing laws...
I fully agree with the position of the "Our Ukraine" faction, of which I am a member, that we should not change the Constitution, but first of all, we need to unconditionally adhere to it. I believe that the changes and provisions that society expects and that our political force supports can be brought to life by adopting a number of laws, in particular: the Law on the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine; the Law on the President of Ukraine; the Law on Elections of the President of Ukraine; the Law on State Financing of Political Parties; the Law on Central Executive Bodies; the Law on Public Radio and Television; the Laws on Elections of People's Deputies and on Municipal Elections; the Law on the Prosecutor's Office; the Law on Referendums.
I believe that the Constitution is a "sacred" document, and if each successive president attempts to change this document "to suit himself," then we will never get a balanced and responsible government.
I am convinced that the political forces that won third and sixth places in the parliamentary elections, and President Kuchma, who is trusted by only 6 percent of the state's population, have no moral right to change the Constitution, hiding behind slogans about the transition from a presidential-parliamentary to a parliamentary-presidential republic.
It gives the impression that local officials do not read national publications such as "Holos Ukrainy" or "Dzerkalo Tyzhnia," on whose pages well-known legal experts and political scientists assure that the political reform proposed in the President's version has no future, leads only to the strengthening of the President's power, and has nothing in common with a parliamentary-presidential republic. At the same time, these same officials at all levels, from village to regional center, report on the active involvement of the public in the process of discussing the political reform. Thus, according to the words of the deputy head of the Volyn Regional State Administration, Stepan Rodych, in one of the latest issues of this newspaper, a figure of 200 thousand citizens of the region who took part in the discussion of the President's initiatives was cited, which constitutes about 20 percent of the region's population. I am convinced that these figures are significantly exaggerated, since I myself saw the minutes of meetings of labor collectives of budget-funded institutions where such meetings took place only on paper. On this matter, I have one rhetorical question. Why is the local executive branch, instead of solving the urgent social problems of the population, engaged in organizing a nationwide discussion? And the answer is simple - the authorities are afraid to let the people objectively express their own opinion regarding the activities of those same authorities, the authorities are afraid of democratic expression of will and are trying at any cost to control the discussion process. The goal of the authorities is to prevent a democratic change of power in 2004.
The next question is how much did such an expensive pleasure as a nationwide discussion cost Ukrainian taxpayers? We will most likely get an answer to this question only under a new president.
I, like my other colleagues - deputies and politicians, believe that submitting to nationwide discussion the draft law proposed by the President, on which there is no agreed position among experts, lawyers, and politicians, leads only to the President imposing his own opinion on the people. This is a movement toward dictatorship, not democracy. Such things should not happen in a democratic society. I absolutely agree that the people, as the highest bearer of power, should make decisions regarding the future of their own state, but at the same time I believe that a draft law agreed upon with all political forces, which has as few disputed provisions as possible, should be submitted to nationwide discussion, which is not characteristic of the document under discussion.
If we dwell on the provisions of the draft law proposed by the President of Ukraine, I agree that changes and improvement of Ukraine's political system are needed. But let us look - which ones exactly.
I absolutely agree that the President should remain the guarantor of the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens, the independence and territorial integrity of the state, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, and the representative of the state on the international arena, but the provision on the President appointing the law enforcement ministers, the head of the Security Service of Ukraine, and the heads of regional state administrations, in my opinion, contradicts the logic of a parliamentary-presidential republic. It is our deep conviction that the appointment of law enforcement ministers and heads of state administrations leaves the President with the right to administer the state at his own discretion, without any agreement with the ruling parliamentary majority, which will constantly generate an even deeper conflict between the branches of power.
The President, for the second time - if we recall the so-called All-Ukrainian referendum of 2000 by popular initiative - proposes to change the structure of parliament. Namely, to divide the highest legislative body into two chambers. According to his proposals, one is formed from parties and blocs that won the elections under the proportional system. The second - on the basis of equal representation of all regions - oblasts and cities of central subordination. The task of the chamber of regions will be to ensure reliable representation of Ukraine's territories.
By this provision, the President seeks to simultaneously satisfy the desire of opposition forces to elect parliament, or more precisely its lower chamber, under the proportional system, and to retain a mechanism of influence over the latter by creating an upper chamber, completely controlled by the president, whose formation method is unknown. The President constantly appeals to the population that the number of deputies needs to be reduced. By creating a second chamber, the number of deputies will indeed decrease, but the bureaucratic apparatus for servicing two chambers will significantly increase. Economic expediency is absolutely absent here.
Let us try to dwell in more detail on the principle of bicameralism of parliament and the electoral systems proposed for its election.
I uphold the opinion that a bicameral parliament does not meet the requirements of the times and the realities of Ukrainian society at this stage of its development. There is a global trend toward reducing the number of bicameral parliaments. The most appropriate and justified is the existence of bicameral parliaments in federal states where there are significant historical, economic, social, cultural, and religious peculiarities in the development of individual territories.
Today we already have a problem with the adoption of laws, and in the case of bicameralism, this problem will become even more acute, since the same law will have to undergo discussion in both chambers, etc. I am convinced that the Verkhovna Rada, at present, should remain unicameral, but it should be elected under the proportional system, which will ensure a clear party-political structuring of the highest legislative body of the state, and the political forces that form the ruling coalition will be responsible for the state's policy.
Undoubtedly, the existing majoritarian-proportional election system does not reflect the real state of affairs in society. It does not allow for the creation in parliament of a stably working parliamentary majority that would be formed on the basis of party-ideological views rather than temporary clan-oligarchic interests. It is necessary that the political forces enjoying support among the population form the working bodies of parliament and adopt effective laws - quickly and with quality.
The following three proposals of the President - namely, separating in time the elections to the Verkhovna Rada, local self-government bodies, and the presidential elections; holding elections within one year - for one term - five years; granting the results of the All-Ukrainian referendum direct effect without approval by any government body - contradict common sense, the principles of democracy and parliamentarism.
The above three proposals correspond more to the "Asian model of democracy" than to the "European choice" that L. Kuchma so often mentions. We regard these proposals as a maneuver for bargaining with the Verkhovna Rada in the future.
We absolutely agree that elections should be separated in time, but we are categorically against this happening within one year. First, this proposal does not fit into the scheme of checks and balances, which is an integral element of a democratic system. Second, in order for elected bodies to be more professional, political forces must conduct a certain analysis of their activities and train professional managers, and when all elections are held in one year, doing this is very difficult.
One term - five years for all elected bodies - we regard exclusively as an attempt by the President to bribe parliament and deputies of local councils.
As for granting the results of the All-Ukrainian referendum direct effect without approval by any government body, this principle completely humiliates the role of parliament, which in the proposed draft is assigned the place of a key body of state power. In addition, world experience shows that in states where civil society is not yet strong and where political culture is not high, referendums can be used to establish the power of demagogues, which often leads to dictatorship. And agree, not every citizen can know all the subtleties of political science and state-building - that is why professional politicians, deputies, and scholars exist.
From the above-listed provisions, a logical conclusion suggests itself that the President is leading Ukraine toward dictatorship, not democracy, making an attempt to "push through" changes to the Constitution in an illegitimate way, hiding behind the "will of the people."
As for the problem of local self-government in light of the political reform, the issue of the legitimacy of heads of local state administrations deserves special attention. Very often at the local level there is a conflict between the heads of local administrations appointed by the President and the representatives of local self-government bodies elected in accordance with the law. In my conviction, in the near future Ukraine must adopt a qualitatively new law that will resolve these contradictions and clearly regulate the relations of local self-government bodies.
Let me once again comment on the position of local officials who, when covering certain provisions of the political reform in the mass media, try not to touch upon the painful points of this draft law, such as the bicameral parliament, granting the results of all-Ukrainian referendums direct effect, and so on. This indicates that these gentlemen are afraid of angering the President by expressing an opinion different from his. Evidence of the above was the discussion of the political reform at the last session of the Volyn Regional Council, when the rules of procedure were grossly violated in order to pass the needed decision.
I agree that the existing form of state governance is not eternal and ideal, but in order to change it, one must first change the methods and approaches to implementing existing laws and introduce the basic principles of democracy in the work of the state apparatus. As long as reform initiatives come only from above, we will continue to witness manipulations of public opinion.
As a conclusion, let me remind readers of the fate of the All-Ukrainian referendum of 2000, which neither this nor the previous composition of the Verkhovna Rada ever implemented. Leading analysts agree that a similar fate awaits the results of the nationwide discussion of the political reform, as long as all disputed positions of the future political reform are not agreed upon within the walls of parliament. And from this follows the conclusion: huge sums of money from the state budget were spent on the discussion, and the fate of the document is the trash heap of modern Ukrainian history.
I am proud of the position of the residents of Volyn, who made the right choice in the 2002 elections, and I believe that this people will not allow the pseudo-reformers Medvedchuk and Co. to deceive them now.