Dr. Oleh Soskin,
Director of Institute of Society Transformation,
Head of the Department of International Economics and
Entrepreneurship of the National Academy of Management, Professor

Political situation in Ukraine is not fixed up and incandesce continuously. This is conditioned by the unresolved problem of Verkchovna Rada of Ukraine (VRU) activity and off-year election conducting restitution to the legal, and first of all constitutional, frameworks.

If to analyze political situation in Ukraine retrospectively and to explore it through the prism of early elections to the VRU, it could be affirmed that presently the biggest financial-political groups are fighting for this question. Giving the complex characteristics of current political situation, some key points can be marked.

Firstly, it is important to give an answer to the question, whether the first Edict of the President of Ukraine (№ 264 from April 2, 2007) about VRU dissolution and off-year elections conducting was necessary. We consider that Presidential decision was right and this Edict played an outstanding role for Ukrainian society. Whereas ruling parliamentary coalition consisted of Party of Regions, Social Party of Ukraine and Communist Party of Ukraine, with no doubts pursued a line to the Constitution of Ukraine revision and had a wish to achieve that using unconstitutional, illegal instruments – by involvement to the coalition deputies from the oppositional fractions.

At the end of March – beginning of April, 2007 leaders of ruling coalition have stated publicly that they are to begin Ukrainian Constitution review, namely: giving to the Russian language a status of the second national language; support of Ukraine’s enter to the Unite Economical Space (UEP) and Tashkent Defense Treaty (the main figure of both mentioned international initiatives is Russia); considerable reduction of Ukrainian President’s empowerments, in particular election of the president by the parliament instead of current direct national voting. Mentioned novellas are absolutely prohibited and dangerous for Ukrainian public peace and future development of our country.

Thereby, the first Edict of the President of Ukraine was needed for prevention of the state power usurpation by the ruling coalition and Ukraine’s passage to the route of totalitarianism.

The first phase of the political crisis ended with the agreement between leaders of coalition and opposition about off-year elections to the Verkchovna Rada of Ukraine conducting. As a result the second Edict of the President of Ukraine (№ 355 from April 26, 2007) appeared. It meant a certain compromise achievement and had a positive impact on the political situation reconciliation. President of Ukraine and his team won that round. And not in the last matter thanks to the support of state force structures: the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Security Service of Ukraine, State Safeguard Service of Ukraine, Internal Forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. This played a key role in the trial of ruling coalition to realize Constitution revision and state power seizing preservation.

As the negative consequences of the first phase of the political crisis actual disorganization and shut-down of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) and the Central Election Commission (CEC) of Ukraine can be named.

Secondly, on the May 2, 2007 a facedown between coalition and opposition near the General Prosecutor Office took place. Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine O. Cushko wished to enter the building with the support of “Berkut” special internal forces. Fortunately, different political camps – participants of the conflict – didn’t turn it to the power-operated one, and open civil conflict was avoided. Gradually the conflict got the civilized form, and one of its key figures, O. Cushko, went out of the Ukrainian borders (for the reasons of medical treatment or wishing to avoid juridical responsibility).

Thirdly,to destroy enemy and confrontation stereotypes, President of Ukraine started complex negotiations, participants of which from the coalition were Head of Party of Regions, Prime-Minister of Ukraine V. Yanukovich, Head of Socialistic Party of Ukraine, Head of VRU O. Moroz, and from the opposition – President of Ukraine V. Yuschenko, Head of Block Yuliyi Tymoshenko Y. Tymoshenko. Sides formed the statements of new political agreement that were put in basis of the third Edict of the President of Ukraine (№ 497 from June 5, 2007). In this document main ways of legal powers crisis overcoming were notified. This concerned, first of all, CEC and CCU, and also VRU. In the third Presidential Edict more or less legitimate mechanism of early elections to the Verkchovna Rada of Ukraine conducting on the base of article 82 of the Constitution of Ukraine is mentioned. It the article 82 is stated that “Verkchovna Rada of Ukraine is legitimate on condition that no less of two third of its constitutional composition is elected”. It means that VRU is legitimate when consisted of no less than 300 deputies. Nowadays VRU has fewer deputies than required, so the necessity of the highest legislative body of Ukraine dissolution and new elections conducting appears.

Thus, way of constitutional and political crisis overcoming in Ukraine was chosen in general rightly. Though, as usually, on the score of law qualification, strategic thinking absence and principles of governing understanding by Viktor Yuschenko and his team, they were unable to take into account all legislative factors that make Verkchovna Rada of Ukraine dissolution possible.

While negotiations were conducted, in unclear reasons – which were subjective factors or aware planned political game of all other negotiations’ participants – to those negotiations a quite important political figure who is A. Kinah (Head of Party of Industrials and Entrepreneurs of Ukraine) was not invited. Party of Industrials and Entrepreneurs of Ukraine (PIEU) is a part of Political Block “National Union Our Ukraine” (NUOU). As a result, PIEU didn’t participate in the congress of Political Block NUOU where the decision of election deputy list cancellation was made.

Basing on that fact, Central Election Commission leaded by S. Davydovych adopted on April 30, 2007 a Decree № 23 “About refusal of candidates to the national deputies of Ukraine exclusion from the election list of Political Block “National Union Our Ukraine” and decision about illegitimacy of Political Block congress where Party of Industrials and Entrepreneurs of Ukraine didn’t participate. These two decisions, as CEC asserts, are right, legal, in accordance with Ukrainian Constitution and Ukrainian Law “About the elections” that have direct action. CEC Decree is juridical competent, lawful document and, due to national law, it can’t be abrogated by any court.

Thereby, in accordance with CEC decision (signed by its Head S. Davydovych), resolution of Political Block “National Union Our Ukraine” congress about its election deputy list cancellation is illegal. New staff of Central Election Commission didn’t abrogate the Decree № 23. It means automatically that elections to VRU, appointed by the President of Ukraine on September 30, 2007, don’t have legal base and are unable to be held. All political forces, and first among them Political Block “Our Ukraine – National Self-defense”, are obliged to execute mentioned CEC decision which didn’t need any additional confirmation. Instead of this National Union Our Ukraine neglected CEC decision, created new political block “Our Ukraine – National Self-defense” and started preparations to the election campaign. That means, in fact, functioning in illegal space.

Taking into consideration information above, in Ukraine can be expected following events: CEC will confirm status of Party of Industrials and Entrepreneurs of Ukraine candidates to the national deputies in the election list of Political Block “National Union Our Ukraine” and will make a decision of achieving by them Ukrainian national deputies status. As a result, amount of Verkchovna Rada of Ukraine deputies will be more than 300 persons, and it will become legitimate empowered structure again. Moreover, VRU will be politically homogeneous and able to adopt laws by constitutional majority, so that the signature of Ukrainian President won’t be required. In such situation occurs obvious that President and oppositional forces won’t have legal reasons for VRU legislative activity counteracting, because legitimacy of VRU of fifth election will provided in the frameworks of Ukrainian Constitution and laws.

Viktor Yuschenko is to find immediately a compromise with ruling coalition for avoiding negative development of the situation by the characterized above scenario. If the compromise won’t be achieved, political crisis in Ukraine can turn into phase of double-power and chaos. Two power centres of full value will occur: one of President and oppositional forces and one of Verkchovna Rada of Ukraine and Government of Ukraine. Both centres will be legitimate and lawful. Such double-power is a way to the open social conflict with unpredictable consequences. Unfortunately President and his aliens interact short-sightedly and use strategically wrong instruments for pressure on their opponents.

It could be asserted that President of Ukraine, his Secretariat and them Political Block “Our Ukraine – National Self-defense” didn’t pass an exam on democracy. Claiming for democracy, they, in fact, constantly break Ukrainian Constitution and Law, support interests of own financial-corporate groups. Moreover, they turned to the route of power usurpation and are ready for the extremist actions, among existing examples are following:

• taking by storm of newspaper “Uryadovyi kuryer” (“Governmental courier”) redaction office ostensibly according to the Presidential Edict about publishing of VRU decisions in mass-media interdiction;
• antidemocratic approach to the Political Block “Our Ukraine – National Self-defense” first ten of election list forming; crisis situation took place inside the party “National Union Our Ukraine” – quit of B. Bezpalyi, refusal of his post by the Head of party executive committee R. Bezsmertnyi, to leaders of the highest stage of the party discharging, namely Y Artemenko and M. Sokyrko (Heads of Zaporizhzhya and Vinnytsya regional organizations) who consider that antidemocratic tendencies in the party become more and more stronger;
• Minister’s of defense of Ukraine (A. Grycenko) menace погроза to use force against demonstration participants disagreeing with Ukrainian participation in „Sea Breeze” trainings together with USA and other countries – NATO members;
• non-execution by the party “National Union Our Ukraine” leaders decisions of CEC from April 30, 2007;
• separate negotiations with the leader of Donbas corporate group R. Ahmetov about forming of new ruling coalition consisting of Political Block “Our Ukraine – National Self-defense” and Party of Regions after planned to the September 30, 2007 parliamentary elections.

Thus, it is obvious that route on which V. Yuschenko and his team turned will bring pointing of the political and economical situation, two parallel political power centers forming in Ukraine. It is mostly evidential that they will start an open war between themselves, turning into it more and more Ukrainian citizens. Phase of revolution crisis can be seriously burdened by the economic and energetic collapse. This is the most dangerous scenario for Ukraine, and to avoid it is a crucially important task of responsible political forces and leaders of the state.

How the political crisis could be overcome and the processes be turned back to the legal constituently space? Two positive variants exist.

First: Verkchovna Rada of Ukraine loses legitimacy if the ruling parliamentary coalition is broken, and to this reason new parliament elections will be appointed. For this purpose the Party of Regions and its leaders V. Yanukovich and R. Ahmetov should make a decision about party’s escape from the coalition. Party of Regions deputies should refuse from their deputy status. So the congress of Party of Regions should be held where decision about escaping from the coalition and election deputy list cancellation is to be made. In such circumstances VRU finally looses legitimate status and early elections conducting becomes inevitable. But they must be held not on September 30, 2007, but later – in the end of October or in November, 2007. These actions will result legal and peaceful change of power in Ukraine.

This variant of Ukrainian political situation development can be concerned as the most positive and desirable for our country.

Second: Party of Industrials and Entrepreneurs of Ukraine headed by A. Kinah participates in united congress of Political Block “National Union Our Ukraine” and delegates to this congress from PIEU together with delegates from other parties make a decision about Political Block NUOU election deputy list cancellation. To achieve such a result it is needed to give to PIEU strong guaranties that its members will be included into election deputy list of Political Block “Our Ukraine – National Self-defense” or Party of Regions.

Coming to conclusion, we can say that today Ukraine faces a choice for of her future, and high responsibility onto the President of Ukraine Viktor Yuschenko, Prime-Minister of Ukraine V. Yanukovich, Head of VRU O. Moroz and such persons as Y. Tymoshenko and R. Ahmetov is put. A. Kinah today also plays an important role as a leader though small, but key political force that, in fact, became a main factor of future political situation in Ukraine development.