The Mechanism Has Been Put in Motion, And Public Opinion Now Plays Little Role

On public initiative, a national referendum will take place in Ukraine on April 16, 2000. The Day’s Natalia TROFYMOVA asked Oleksandr STEHNIY, head of the department of sociopolitical studies at the SOCIS center for sociological and marketing research, to comment on the most probable outcomes of the popular vote:

“Will the public give a vote of no confidence in its 14th-convocation Verkhovna Rada (this is the essence of the first question in the future referendum)?”

“Although parliamentary elections were held quite recently, the level of public trust in Verkhovna Rada as shown by empirical data still remains very low. Thus people are very likely to vote, on the crest of a wave of negative attitudes, for early dissolution .”

“The second question is about the President’s right to dissolve Parliament if it fails to form a standing parliamentary majority within one month or if it fails to approve the state budget within three.”

“This question is closely connected with the first because the subject of responsibility and Parliament’s incapacity allow the President to make such a decision. Most people will interpret it as putting things in order (a similar situation exists in Russia, our northern neighbor). In other words, there are the prerequisites for a positive solution to this problem. To understand that such a decision can lead to the infringement of democratic liberties and the establishment of ‘socialism’ in this country, the population needs a certain level of political culture.”

“In what way can the parliamentary immunity problem be resolved?”

“In this case, the solidarity of public opinion is extremely high. This dates back to the Soviet times, with their idea of leveling: deputies should also be like everybody else, and if they break laws they should be prosecuted. The ‘against’ voices proceeding from the right-wing parties which say this is dangerous and from those lawmakers who are afraid this might be used to make short work of recalcitrants are sure to drown in the hurrahs of the majority.”

“In what way do you think the problem of reducing the number of deputies from 450 to 300 will be solved?”

“From the viewpoint of common sense and expenditures (the fewer deputies, the less expense), the problem can be solved positively. But only if it is the question of a simple reduction, and not the reduction of the first chamber deputies alone. Much will depend on how this will be covered by the media.”

“What about the question of a bicameral parliament?”

“This is complicated. While the previous four points easily show the logic of mass consciousness, in this case very much depends on how the authorities explain the reason why a bicameral parliament is needed. If it is needed to improve the situation in this country and to make administration more efficient without increasing the apparatus, there will be a positive decision. But if the bicameral Parliament raises the number of deputies, a negative vote is quite possible.

“There is another interesting point here: the way voting will proceed in the regions. The regional elite will be interested in a positive decision because they will thus acquire a representative body of their own. In this case, voting in the capital and large cities may differ from that in the regions.”

“And what about a possible opinion of the voters that the Constitution should only be adopted by referendum?”

“Again, if this allows people to take part in the solution of such problems, the people will only welcome the fact that their opinion is reckoned with. This prepares the ground for a positive decision. But there is a counterargument: how much will the referendum cost? Some estimates put its cost at 80 million hryvnias, at least. Last Friday, when I was speaking to a diplomat, I was asked: ‘Where will you get such money from?’ This is a very tough argument against.”

“To what extent is the Ukrainian voter currently competent in these matters?”

“I think the competence level of our people is very low. Rather, we are dealing here with a prevailing emotional, temporary sentiment, and from this point of view the decision will not be constructive. The notion of political culture is a phenomenon of public life and social organization of society. We have no experience of democratic society. But this does not mean the authorities have no right to initiate a referendum. The question is different: to what extent will it be productive? To what extent is public opinion competent in general in this case? Here I am a pessimist, unfortunately: everything depends on how public opinion will be molded. Many of us vote by force of the given situation, rather than by the considerations of conviction or advisability. Moreover, the ‘mechanism’ has already been set in motion, and in this situation public opinion is no longer of great importance in this country.”