Sheering Off Another Branch of Government
God help us
Unfortunately, there's little good news on the political front.
A Cliffhanger So Dragged-Out It's Not Exciting Anymore
Foreign Minister Tarasyuk is still there on the brink, after months of shoving by the Party of Regions. They cut off his budget. Now it's back. Everybody's waiting on the Constitutional Court, which, I hope, will mean a more high-profile position for the court and some sort of arbitration to the endless squabbling of Ukrainian politicians.
It's all part of the uncertainty about power that's existed at least since the March elections. PACE recently said, among other things, that it "reduces to zero the hope of political consensus in making further decisions which will speed up the adoption of necessary reforms in Ukraine." (It can say this because it doesn't really have any power, and therefore can dispense with diplomacy in favor of straight talk. Refreshing.)
Tymoshenko And Yanukovych Star In Naked Ambition
Tarasyuk is probably losing ground, though, as Yushchenko loses it. On Jan 12, Tymoshenko joined with Yanu and crew to help strip Yushchenko of even more of his powers as President. Foreign Notes speculates that the move is calculated to try and push Yushchenko further into a corner where calling new elections is his only option. In essence, she voted to strip power from Yushchenko and vest it in Yanukovych. Both Zerkalo Nedeli and EDM believe that it was more a negotiated settlement, in which Yanukovych got his power, and she got her law protecting the opposition and law requiring local officials to dance with the ones who brung them (in other words, remain with the parties they got their positions through).
Even if the Constitutional Court breaks its long silence to overrule this (as it has every reason to do since it's a legal mess), the effort shows complete disregard of democratic institutions by both BYT and PoR. Should the majority in Parliament manage to enforce this travesty, they will have basically sawed off one of the branches of power. Forget about Tymoshenko trying for President in 2009: who'd want that figurehead position? Yanukovych recently said in Davos that "Neither the government nor the prime minister ever aspires to replace the president," which would certainly be true: why replace him when you can simply ignore him and rule alone?
[update: I said "another" branch of government in the title, but forgot to explain why. If you've been counting, this is the second branch of government to be broken off (the judiciary has long been ineffectual). That means it's basically a Parliamentary dictatorship with almost no checks and balances.]
I can hardly get my brain around how foul this is, and how awful for the country it would be. Oh, wait, now I've found the right words: Kuchma was better. Shame and degradation on all those who voted for this law, especially Tymoshenko.
![]()
Kushnaryov killed in a hunting accidentParty of Regions Deputies: Rising and Falling
To put it bluntly, Kushnaryov is dead (image: Reuters). He was on a hunting expedition with fellow PoR deputies and was accidentally fatally wounded by a shot to the stomach. While Foreign Note's entry, cited, mentions that the accident was perpetuated by a supposedly decorated marksman, it's being ruled an accident. Which couldn't be otherwise, because who would investigate the event? Unfortunately, none of the former orange groups look interested, and generally PoR tends to adopt a "devil take the hindmost" stance: if one of theirs falls, it's his own fault.
Not that I was a big fan, or anything (Kushnaryov was from the no-compromise wing of PoR), but it would have been nice to at least have seen an investigation.
Not all PoR deputies' fortunes are so dark. As Foreign Notes has been describing in detail, all the oldest, dirtiest politicians are returning to government, like rats pouring on to a ship that is, remarkably, still afloat despite its deplorable state.
In the midst of all of this, an anniversary few people are probably marking these days: two years of Yu.

Reader Comments (83)
Єдиною теоретичною можливістю до зміни ситуації, а це необхідно, хоч би для продовження глобальних демократичних тенденцій в країні, є самостійна політична соціалізація співтовариств громадян
http://ua.proua.com/accent/2007/02/13/164550.html
Isn't that what Lutsenko is trying to do?
And, to a certain extent, Tymoshenko?
By the way, I got a kick out of Yanukovych now proclaiming that the increase in tariffs is not well-grounded.
Shades of one-upsmanship!
Tymoshenko starts the ball rolling against increases in tariffs, and now Yanukovych gets on the bandwagon also, as if he and the Party of Rossiya are some kind of good guys, better than Tymoshenko.
This may turn into BYUT and the Party of Rossiya trying to outdo each other as to who is doing more for the people - or at least, pretending to do more for the people.
I'm surprised that it took them so long to wake up and smell the java. Reaction was much faster and the tide turned quicker re: inc. in pay in the 2007 budget.
---------------------
No, I do think that it is not quite the same. With the "March on Kyiv" the idea is to put intense pressure on all politicians in Rada to do right by the citizens and to produce immediate results.
http://www.epravda.com.ua/news/2007/2/15/52646.htm
any bets on how "transparent" the sale of shares will be, if and when sold?
http://www2.pravda.com.ua/news/2007/2/14/54509.htm
Double digit GDP is back (after all if u find something that works why change it? remember the GDP plunge from 12% to 5%? because the 'creative bookeepers' were ousted from office? Well, they are back!)
http://www.kyivweekly.com/?art=1171399248
Also, it really is not accurate to say that this law would saw off an entire institution, for the presidency would still have the veto... That's more power than the president of France has (for example)."
Great response, Matthew. You know, even as I was writing that bit, I noticed how angry I was and thought I might have gotten hyperbolic. And I applaud the comparison with France, because it reminds me that yes, my metric in this regard was the US, which has a particularly powerful president, by international standards.
But I still agree with it, I believe. Let me lay out the reasons:
1) BYT proved it would happily join up with PoR if it could gain power thereby, in direct contradiction to pretty much their party line since 2004. This is a breaking of their avowed words in a very substantial way, and it bodes ill for their activity in the future.
2) Since the 2004 law was rushed, it was vague in many places. The spirit of the law seemed to be that the President would retain power in the foreign affairs area, and so he continues to get to nominate those folks. However, Tarasyuk was basically forced out because PoR didn't like him. The new law will help cement this additional loss of power by Yushchenko.
3) Having BYT show this power-grubbing side now is a particularly bad sign, as Yushchenko has never been a strong president to begin with. As Taras Kuzio points out, this event is as much ominous for its future implications as it is in and of itself:
http://blog.taraskuzio.net/2007/01/31/tarasiuk-goes-what-remains/
In this regard the situation very much resembles the defection of the Socialists last summer. Yes NU had been a reprehensible negotiating partner, and folks came on the site saying "well of course he did that, what was in it for Moroz with the Orange team?"
But in going over to the PoR coalition, the Socialists proved once and for all that they distained their own voting base and would cheerfully betray that base in the pursuit of personal advantage. They're support has dropped below the amount needed to keep them in Parliament as a result, because Ukrainians were disgusted by this behavior.
But in the meantime, it helped Yanukovych gain greater and greater power over the course of the last five months, and Ukraine has, as a result, slipped further and further backwards towards the situation in the Kuchma years.
That's why I used the language I did.
I don't think it's exclusively a Ukrainian thing, though. With the saturation of news media and Internet-aided information flows, all untoward comments tend to snowball immediately. Politicians, as a result, have started covering their asses as they walk *in* the door, rather than on the way out.
This really hit home for me when I started paying attention to what poor jokers politicians are these days. There's few quick wits out there giving you something interesting on a regular basis, because that almost inevitably leads to misspeaking. (Tymoshenko excepting, of course)
It certainly doesn't make things any easier for PoR that they their unifying goals are to rip off their constituents, and stay out of any European clubs that will bring accountability for as long a possible, though.
===================
Cabinet pushed through another bill which on the surface looks like a move towards transparency but in fact gives Donetsk companies a very special advantage. (Crafty.)(The article also has the greatest pic regarding UA intergration with the EU!)
http://ua.proua.com/accent/2007/02/15/094455.html
I agree on the import of local organizations of Ukrainians needing to band together to force changes in the political parties.
Unfortunately, i do not read UA.
i don't mind as much as Dan if BYuT and PoR cooperate some. I think that democracy tends to require the main parties cooperating some inevitably. I am glad to see that BYuT has already put to good use some of the powers they gained when they sold out Yusch's presidency.
i personally believe the best thing Yusch could do right now for Ukraine is to take the bulk of the responsibility for the failure of the OR on his shoulders and apologize. I'd say resign, but I don't think the Orange Coalition could rally behind a candidate and I wouldn't want the presidency to go to PoR.
We'll see what comes of the rest of his presidency. TK gives it a 50% chance that Yusch could find the will to call for new legislative elections. That's looking like it would be a potentially decent development...
dlw
Help me translate, please, for dlw.
The article has to do with so-called "open auction companies" and "closed, or private, auction companies."
The bill introduced by the Cabinet of Ministers proposes to phase out closed auction companies over a 10-year period, by the end of which all closed companies are to convert to open companies.
The bill also has provisions lowering a quorum required for conducting business from 60% to 50%, and shortening the publication of meetings from 45 days to 30 days.
A previous version of such a bill was previously vetoed by Yushchenko, so it's not quite altogether new. And in 2006, the Rada prohibited banks from functioning as closed auction companies, for example.
The closed auction company was initially designed to protect it maximally from intervention by third parties, and allowed it to function on a closed, non-transparent basis.
At first blush, it seems very odd that the Cabinet is lobbying for such a bill, given that the majority of Donetsk activists function on the basis of this form of domestic company. Several Donetsk companies are specifically named.
But it seems that such a move really precedes a possible economic move by Donetsk companies to the west.
IIU - help me here with the last part, please.
As best as I can translate, the Donetsk companies can use the new law to sort of justify their conversion to more transparent forms of business, and their move to the west.
In truth, such a step could be used in the event that Donetsk FPG (financial-industrial groups) plan a powerful economic cast over the west.
Traditionally, increases in the transparency of a company preceed going out an IPO or foreign share market.
Thus, paying attention to the concentration of masterful authority, Donetsk FPG can at a legislative level secure increases in the transparency of subjective management via the prohibition of closed JSCs.
It will, on one hand, hide massive changes in the forms (patterns) of ownership and on the other hand, will demonstrate an European standard of economic-policy governance.
ЗАТ is Закрите акціонерне товариство translated as closed JSC - joint stock company
good but boring explanation (though does not inc. changes to law made by bill passed yesterday)
http://www.pwc.com/extweb/insights.nsf/docid/20152450A767318E80256F3C00418D10
and
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=35262
while ФПГ FPG stands for фінансово-промислових груп financial-industrial group
http://theukrainian.amt.kiev.ua/contents/1-2005/article:Rasklad
also see Foreign Notes October 2006 for more about closed JSCs and Donetsk
and re: the imp. of transparency
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/03/121703.asp
By not simultaneously prohibiting the creation of new ones and not forcing the current ones into change in a realistic time period (allowing for them to continue unchanged for TEN YEARS is ridiculous!), the playing field has been considerably stacked in favor of closed JSC of which Donetsk ФПГ dominate.
If u are a foreign investor and wish to invest in a UA company without people knowing pre-existing closed JSC are the only way to go.
If u wish to nobble your competition u can force them to reveal legislatively who their owners are, while u continue to function in the shadows.
If u wish to takeover companies in the West and never have to reveal who u really are (owners) be a closed JSC.
The opportunities which arise from being a closed JSC are really fantastic - now that this bill has been passed. All at the same time while stalwartly affirming how 'reforms' are being made to bring governance up to EU standards.
"Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus stated yesterday that his country is developing an oil transportation system with Belarus and Ukraine as an alternative to Russian pipelines."
http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2007/02/15/kurator
"Belarus Increases Cost of Russian Oil Transit"
http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2007/02/15/oil
"Several-Kilometre-Long Queues at Russian-Belarusian Border"
http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2007/02/14/granica
THANKS! MUCHO, MUCHO THANKS!
I guess my translation was a little bit too literal (буквально), so I really appreciate the translation - and the explanation.
And the other links!
but I have to admit that I sat through it, the whole time muttering to myself "Ouch" as,
Strooth - I have been 'hoisted by mine own petard'! (I refer my not too kind comments in prior posts, made re: some translator gaffes.)
Well I got my come-uppance!
dlw
Of course, as I noted in my previous comment, as long as the president has a veto (and is directly elected), any such claims are specious.
"the Pres had the right to designate the Foreign Minister and the Defense Minister. Now, as a practical matter, this has been taken away....
"Under the law which came into force last week, Yushchenko sees his right to appoint the foreign and defense ministers limited..."
Limited, or taken away? The Kyiv Post is pretty careless.
The Cabinet Law, which was approved over Yushchenko's veto (the first such bill, and while surely not the last, also not likely to be typical) really just puts in place the agreements made in the wake of the Orange Revolution, to greatly enhance the role of parliament in directing the government. That's typical of Europe; what is not typical is the retention of either a presidential veto or any special presidential role (however "limited") in appointing certain ministers like defense and foreign affairs.
And, given the polling numbers Michael Averko posted on 7 Feb., the "Orange" forces should prefer a stronger parliament rather than a stronger presidency!
Dan, on 15 Feb., noted that the US "has a particularly powerful president"by international standards. It depends on what you mean by "international." Compared to many Latin American presidencies (or Russia's), the US presidency is a weakling, though it may be moving in a more <a href="http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=456"> Latin American</a> direction. But if we compare to European countries west of the XSSR that have elected presidencies, the US presidency is vastly more powerful. Europe's popularly elected presidents have to accede to the parliamentary majority's preferences for prime minister and cabinet (all positions) and do not have vetoes (with the partial exception of Poland).
By the way, I am not at all defending the moves of ByT or any other Ukrainian party (especially Moroz's Socialists!). I agree with whoever it was, upthread, who said that the parties have to mature. Yes, Ukraine has very weak parties. But they are more likely to strengthen under a regime that makes parliament the main center of authority than one that makes the presidency the main player. That's pretty clear from comparative constitutional development (my field).
Thanks, Dan and everyone else who weighed in on the Cabinet Law. Sorry it took me so long to come back to this thread!
People can have a legitimate discussion about parliamentary forms, or presidential-parliamentary forms of government, of course. And about the extent of presidential power.
Part of the reason that Yushchenko is perceived as weak stems from the fact that Ukraine was part of a dictatorship, and people have not quite gotten used to the idea of one man at the top not controlling everything.
But then they forget about Kuchma, who did control everything, to the detriment of the people.
So people sort of want a "benevolent strong man," which, of course, is not possible.
And when you compare that to Russia, where the idea of a strong man has been ingrained into people's psyche's for centuries, regardless of form of government - well, one can make one's own conclusions, even today, with regards to Putin.
As I see it, there is a huge, major flaw, among many, in Ukraine's system, because one votes for party lists, not individual candidates. So, the parties tend to put high-profile candidates on the first 5 spots, and then, after elections, one does not know who will actually wind up occupying the particular seat.
So, Yanukovych's son, whose only qualification is that he plays billiards, winds up in the VR. So do a number of other relatives and friends.
It also encourages "party-jumping," whether on particular votes, or by actual jumping from party to party, based on the best deal. It discourages accountability to voters.
Lutsenko has noted this, and is advocating reforms in this regard. He's not the only one.
Also, recently Yanukovych has floated the idea of the Ukrainian president being elected by the parliament.
http://5tv.com.ua/newsline/237//37555/
That, of course, bodes ill in the arena of "checks and balances."
Specifically, Yanukovych, in what has to be one of the most ironic comments ever, notes that he is not excluding the possibility of cooperation with the opposition, if the President becomes a "destabilizing force" in the country, and continues to block the "work" of the government.
This comes from the Party of Rossiya, which has no program whatsoever, except "NYET."
Oh, and raising tariffs for housing and service charges so their friends can become even wealthier.
Do these people realize how funny they sound?
What a hoot!!!!
Лідер "Партії регіонів" не виключає можливості співпраці з опозицією, у разі якщо Президент стане "дестабілізуючим чинником в країні", та блокуватиме роботу парламента та уряду.