17 November Ukrainian society witnessed a questionable, but practically unanimous vote for a new edition of the law on Elections of People’s Deputies. An agreement between the government and parliamentary opposition is a result of so-called compromise. The bill 9265-D, prepared in emergency conditions, received 366 votes. So, the constitutional majority legitimated new rules for 2012 electoral struggle without the second reading. From the one side, changed procedural norms are much better than proposed by the ruling majority in the bill developed by the group of deputies headed by Oleksandr Yefremov. However, a more critical analysis of the process leads to a conclusion, that the party in power successfully imposed its rules on the public and the opposition, and has won in a long-term perspective.
The party in power successfully imposed its rules on the public and the opposition, and has won in a long-term perspective
For its part, the opposition won a battle, but has lost the war, totally yielding political issues: the electoral system, threshold and participation of blocs. Besides that, joint voting of parliamentary majority and minority has led to a split in the opposition itself. We should remember that political perspectives of Klychko Bloc, Civic Platform, "Svoboda" (Freedom) may be cancelled by the high threshold. Thus, 2012 – is only, with few exceptions, a stage of self-reproduction of the current Verkhovna Rada. The society also received a dangerous signal of possible violation of the Constitution for the sake of temporary political compromise. The adopted law contains some statements which in 1998 were recognized by the Constitutional Court as contradicting the Basic Law. A decision on the possibility to nominate candidate by the party lists and in single-mandate majoritarian constituencies was taken (according to informational sources from VRU) in order to insure voting of CPU. In the civilized world to the parliament, which obviously violated the Constitution its Guarantor would have taken the absolute decision to dissolve. In our reality, such law may be signed by the President. Moreover, in order not to discredit Viktor Fedorovych, the Constitutional Court could have reconsidered previously adopted resolution.
It turned out to be a Kalashnikov rifle
One year ago almost all reputable international missions and some Ukrainian monitoring organizations harshly criticized the inconsistency of local elections with international standards. The lion's share of troubles occurred in a law that even the President recognized as "imperfect." Thus, in order to get over the negative impact on reputation, first of all, personally for the Guarantor, Viktor Fedorovych announced the beginning of а comprehensive reform. The aim of it should have become the codification and improvement of election legislation. The President also assembled a correspondent working group, which at first seemed to be working on the Code, but then it turned out to be working on the law on elections of the people’s deputies. The situation is simply anecdotal: no matter what is assembled, it turns out to be a Kalashnikov rifle. Here is the same situation. Codification, besides bringing the legislation on elections of different levels to unified standards and procedures, should enhance its stability before every new campaign. Instead, the reform was aimed on the new wording of the law, which basis was traditionally formed for the tactical purpose – the party in power should win the elections. An instrument for its implementation became new old mixed system: 225 deputies are to be chosen by closed party lists, and another 225 - in single-mandate majoritarian districts. This method assists getting percents from sustainable electorate through lists and complementation of fractions with majoritarian deputies or self-nominated deputies which took the side of factions.
That’s why working group could improve procedural part of organization and conduction of elections, but system, threshold and bloc participation issues became tabooed. The Venice Commission and International Foundation for Electoral Systems in short time considered the document without legal status. Soon after the expertise 10 October this year it was introduced to the Verchovna Rada not from the name of the Guarantor, but from a group of deputies headed by Oleksandr Yefremov. However, the bill was supplemented in lobbies by different odious norms, some of which are clearly unconstitutional, and other have led to the criticism of 2010 local elections (principle of election commissions formation, territorial organization of elections, plenty of grounds for cancellation of registration etc.) Nevertheless, there is no answer to the question why to the Venice Commission, OSCE and International Foundation for Electoral Systems was submitted the bill, which authentic text was not registered in the parliament. Maybe, in order to withdraw falsified statements and declare political concessions to opponents as a compromise? The real situation proved that only returning of many norms from the basic document, developed by the working group, was gladly accepted as a successful compromise. Here worked a psychological method: worsen somebody’s situation, then return to the previous state, and a person will be happy.
Open lists provoke internal party competition, and results of elections depend on voting
Why did the opposition give up?
It’s interesting, that more progressive proportional election system with open regional lists, which was openly supported even by regional politicians (Vadym Kolesnichenko, Volodymyr Oliynyk, Yuriy Miroshnychenko and others), wasn’t seriously supported by the opposition. Although its representatives developed an alternative bill (9265-2), which proposed to introduce this rather popular electoral system. From the one side, support of this method guaranteed a positive image in the eyes of Ukrainian and international expert community, and from the other – it is extremely dangerous for parties of old-type formation and their archaic management system, to which belong both government and opposition. Open lists provoke internal party competition, and results of elections only depend on voting. Parliamentary oppositionists who voted for a compromising bill see the system with open lists as entirely unprofitable. As for 5% threshold, it’s equally advantageous for the “Fatherland”, “Front for Change” and the Party of Regions. Two first mentioned political forces will get rid of their sworn ideological partners, including extraparliamentary opposition; the party in power will get additional bonus mandates due to the redistribution of votes which citizens would give to outsiders of elections. So, by virtue of this compromising concession, the Party of Regions is going to win twice, and among reasons will be potential conflicts between the parliamentary and extraparliamentary opposition. The question of blocs and their non-participation in the next elections has a very low social importance. It’s worth to soberly estimate their weak cooperation in the Parliament and low potential for enhancing electoral support through uniting. Thus, a part of parliamentary opposition, according to its belief, hasn’t lost anything special after giving up the struggle for the matter of political bloc. However, strategically it has lost everything: and the purity of its role, its potential partners, and election system with little possibility for corruption. Instead, it received relatively fair rules, through which expects to win the next elections.
The politicians should remember a common rule for preservation of the power: “To friends - everything, to enemies - the law." If deputies were not stopped by the decision of the Constitutional Court on inconsistency with the Basic Law, for example, concerning double balloting, will the norm of a less significant law became an obstacle for organizers of elections? The question is rhetorical…
The material is prepared specially for the online edition Livyy Bereh (“Left Bank”)