Defenders of parliamentary government seem to have come unglued

President Leonid Kuchma has decreed to hold a public-initiated all-Ukrainian referendum on April 16, 2000. The ballots will include six questions and possible answers to them:

1) Do you express no confidence in the 14th Verkhovna Rada and support in this connection the following amendment to Part Two of Article 90 of the Constitution of Ukraine: “... as well as in case of giving a vote of no confidence in Verkhovna Rada by an all-Ukrainian referendum, which empowers the President of Ukraine to dissolve the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine?”

Yes. No.

2) Do you support the proposal that Article 90 of the Constitution of Ukraine be amended with a new Part Three in the following wording:

“The President of Ukraine can also terminate the powers of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ahead of schedule if the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has failed to form a standing parliamentary majority within one month or if it has failed to approve, within three months, the state budget of Ukraine prepared and submitted by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in the established order,” which would provide additional grounds for the President of Ukraine to dissolve the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and that Item 8, Part 1, Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine be complemented with the words: “and in other cases stipulated by the Constitution of Ukraine?”

Yes. No.

3) Do you agree to the necessity of limiting the parliamentary immunity of Ukraine’s People’s Deputies and to the deletion in the connection of Part 3, Article 80, the Constitution of Ukraine: “People’s Deputies of Ukraine may not be subjected to criminal proceedings, detained or arrested without consent of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine?”

Yes. No.

4) Do you agree to the reduction of the total number of the People’s Deputies of Ukraine from 450 to 300, the resulting replacement of the words “four hundred and fifty” by the words “three hundred” in Part 1, Article 76 of the Constitution of Ukraine and making respective amendments to the election law?

Yes. No.

5) Do you support the necessity of forming a bicameral Parliament in Ukraine, one of whose chambers would represent and promote the interests of Ukraine’s regions, and the introduction of respective amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine and the election law?

Yes. No.

6) Do you agree that the Constitution of Ukraine should be adopted by an all- Ukrainian referendum?

Yes. No.

Ukrainian citizens are to express their will by crossing out the word no in the case of a positive answer and of the word yes in the case of a negative one. This decree has entrusted preparatory work for holding the referendum on these questions to the Central Election Commission and the respective territorial and local commissions. The Central Election Commission will also approve the funds to be allotted by the Cabinet of Ministers for holding the referendum.

It is quite noteworthy that all the first repercussions about and comments on the President’s referendum decree (both from supporters of and objectors to it) claim that results are a foregone conclusion. They only discuss the various ways the President may use the six yes votes in his further actions.

On the other hand, Communist leader Petro Symonenko has said KPU will continue its efforts to hold its own an alternative referendum in order to demand that the President declare it by decree. He earlier said that KPU intended to initiate an all-Ukrainian referendum on the abolishing the institution of the presidency and enhancing the role and functions of representative bodies of power (local councils and Parliament — Interfax- Ukraine), as well as on state guarantees to protect the social rights of citizens.

The KPU leader thinks Leonid Kuchma issued the decree on holding a referendum on April 16 “with the sole purpose of distracting public attention from the burning problems our society is now facing.”

Serhiy Dovhan, leader of the Peasant’s Party of Ukraine, has said the leftist parliamentary factions are certain to go to the Constitutional Court over the unconstitutionality of the President’s referendum decree. In his opinion, “this decree not only goes beyond the limits of the existing legal field, it also grossly violates this country’s laws.”

The Peasant leader has also stressed that the Left factions are also prepared to form an opposition bloc. “There is no Right majority in Parliament, and I don’t believe there ever will be one,” he said. “The repressive machinery simply forces Deputies to put their signatures under the so-called document on a majority.”

However, there has been a crack in the Left bloc for a long time. Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz, though thinking that deputies can file a petition to the Constitutional Court about illegality of the referendum decree, does not intend himself to participate in the drawing-up of such a petition. “I am not dealing with this matter and don’t think I ever will,” Mr. Moroz announced.

What may be called Right parties — Rukh, Reforms and Order, and the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists — do not agree that the all-Ukrainian referendum should decide upon the formation of a bicameral Parliament and adoption of the Constitution of Ukraine at a national referendum. A statement of these parties notes that the questions about the formation of a bicameral Parliament and especially the factual recognition of the current Constitution as illegal could lead to further curtailment of democracy and activating separatist sentiments and might plunge the state into a legal chaos. At the same time, it stresses that these parties “are prepared to initiate and vote for an ahead-of-schedule termination of Verkhovna Rada’s powers if the parliamentary majority fails to make the legislative body work constructively.” The statement also points out that the current “leftist leadership of Verkhovna Rada has completely discredited itself and must be replaced.”

However, political scientist Mykhailo Pohrebynsky thinks that “Parliament is doomed, whether or not the referendum initiators want or need this, or whether the Deputies work well or badly.” He does not rule it out that, if the parliamentary leadership is changed, the majority will be really a working one and “in general, Verkhovna Rada will functioning ideally: this may even make an impression that there is no need to dissolve Parliament.” But in this case, the political scientist says, the referendum initiators will find themselves in a tough situation after it has been held, for they will in fact be ignoring public opinion.

Yet, the analyst noted that, since the referendum questions are not binding, “this leaves a certain freedom of action: you can put the referendum results into practice, or you can use them as a sword of Damocles, for example, to force deputies to work more effectively.”

In Mr. Pohrebynsky’s opinion, the referendum is being used for “a political reform that changes the essential principles of power system formation in Ukraine... A part of the political class, including those who supported Mr. Kuchma in the elections, being aware of the readiness of voters to support some of the submitted questions, sees no other method for carrying out the political reform so they resorted to a referendum,” Mr. Pohrebynsky believes.

Nevertheless, representative of the Hromada faction, Oleksandr Yeliashkevych, thinks “it is too early to speak today about whether and when the referendum will take place.” Forecasting further developments, Mr. Yeliashkevych expressed the opinion that the deputies “are sure” to turn to the Constitutional Court, while the Supreme Court will begin hearing the appeal of a Pechersk District Court ruling which obliged the Central Election Commission to register all-Ukrainian referendum pressure groups.

He also noted that under the Constitution “nobody has the right” to deny registration to such groups if formed in accordance with the law on national and local referendums. In his opinion, “there are serious legal obstacles to the further ability of citizens to exercise their right to hold an all-Ukrainian referendum.” In this connection, he thinks it necessary that the highest judicial authorities, the Supreme and Constitutional Courts, “set in motion” the legal mechanism of a free public expression, for, in his words, “answers to the referendum questions can be interpreted differently.” In addition, the People’s Deputy pointed out, the CC should also hand down a ruling about the referendum questions intended for making amendments to the Constitution.

If the all-Ukrainian referendum is held, Mr. Yeliashkevych thinks, it may be treated as a referendum on supporting the President’s course. He explained that the people, answering the confidence question, will thus have to voice their opinion about the parliamentary majority that supports the President and his course. “The first question put for the referendum (on confidence in Verkhovna Rada —Ed.) is a gift to the opposition,” Mr. Yeliashkevych noted. “The opposition will hardly ever get a better opportunity to come out against the President’s course,” he added.

According to Mr. Yeliashkevych, it is also difficult to speak about the President’s true goals because, in his (the President’s —Ed.) opinion, “the ideal decision is the adoption of a new Constitution, so that he could not only restrict the powers of Verkhovna Rada but also lift the temporary restrictions on his own powers.”

Observers note that after the referendum this country will turn from a parliamentary-presidential into a presidential republic.