UKRAINE: Compromise in Sight

By Zoltán Dujisin Reprint | | Print |

Zoltán Dujisin

BUDAPEST, Apr 25 2007 (IPS) - Ukraine’s political crisis could be solved soon as government and the pro-presidential opposition have entered into a dialogue following weeks of bitter confrontation.

On Apr. 2 Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko issued a decree dissolving parliament and calling for early elections, which was disobeyed by the pro-governmental majority. The President claimed the government was usurping power whereas the parliamentary majority accused Yushchenko of violating the constitution.

The President reacted to a number of defections from opposition MPs to the governing coalition, although a majority of experts say his interpretation of the law, which stipulates parliamentary mandates as being binding, was dubious.

However legal experts also point out the parliament should have complied with the Presidential decree and only then file an appeal with the country’s Constitutional Court, to whom the final word belongs.

European countries have also expressed concern regarding the ongoing crisis. Last week’s resolution by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called for a legal and constitutional solution to the deadlock. The resolution also said binding mandates, favoured by Yushchenko, are inadmissible in a democratic country.

Yushchenko has recently announced his readiness to temporarily suspend the decree dissolving parliament in exchange for political concessions by the ruling parties and the government.

The main demand by the President remains an early election. Yushchenko would allow the parliament to continue functioning so as to amend laws and prepare fresh elections, and he also proposed the setting up of a commission that would improve the constitution and then subject the changes to referendum.

Both sides could reach an agreement before the top court expresses its view. Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, leader of the ruling Party of the Regions, has warned of a looming economic crisis but said he could agree to an early election if held simultaneously with a Presidential vote.

Opinion polls consistently show a fresh election, whose date remains uncertain, would probably not bring considerable changes in the balance of forces in parliament, and it would give Yanukovich the chance to renew his legitimacy in the eyes of voters.

But radical opposition leader Yuliya Timoshenko is confident she will at least increase her share of power in the legislative branch, at the expense of the more moderate Our Ukraine Party of President Yushchenko. For the latter, a presidential vote could also prove catastrophic in view of his very low approval rate.

The President and the main parties represented in parliament have vowed to respect the Court’s ruling, with the exception of Timoshenko who claims the court is “corrupt”, “biased” and “illegitimate”. Timoshenko announced that regardless of the court’s ruling her MPs would renounce their seats thus making the parliament “illegitimate”.

Yet some of Timoshenko’s MPs, such as former deputy prime minister Mykola Tomenko, have criticised her methods and oppose the early election, warning that the opposition’s electorate is too indifferent and disillusioned.

There are also suspicions that the opposition, not confident the Constitutional Court will agree with the constitutionality of the presidential decree, is deliberately delaying proceedings with a view on holding early elections before the court delivers its ruling.

Government officials have complained of several opposition demonstrators blocking the entrance to the court’s headquarters in an attempt to disrupt procedures, and later an MP loyal to Timoshenko filed an accusation of bribery against a judge in the Constitutional Court.

Ukraine’s Prosecutor-General Office has dismissed the accusations as lacking any objective evidence, simultaneously launching a criminal investigation into a possible attempt to interfere with the judge’s work.

Threats of prosecution and accusations of pressure and bribery have been levelled by all sides, and some Constitutional Court judges have even asked for protection.

The political rivals have however dismissed the possibility of resorting to violence, though polls indicate one third of Ukrainians fears this could be the outcome of the political confrontation.

Western countries and Russia have kept more distance than in late 2004, when Yushchenko was swept to power following a popular protest against vote rigging.

Observers say Yanukovich, the loser of the 2004 “orange revolution”, as it came to be known, has been clearly taking a more pro-Western stance since then, calling for membership of the European Union (EU).

However the opposition, and especially Timoshenko, insist Yanukovich is a figure of the previous regime, a pro-Russian who endangers the country’s independence.

The neutrality of Western European countries in regard to the ongoing Ukrainian crisis would however attest to the Prime Minister’s increased acceptance among Western circles.

“The EU and the U.S. don’t want to speak openly in favour of any of the sides involved,” Aleksey Tolpygo, an analyst at the Kiev Centre of Political Studies and Conflictology told IPS.

“The experience of 2004 and the following disillusionment have not been forgotten, and the EU has understood Yanukovich is not so demanding towards them.”

Tolpygo thinks also Russia learnt from the “orange revolution”, when its intervention precipitated support for pro-Western forces among Ukrainians. Russia has so far refused to interfere in the present crisis, though its experts and deputies have made statements condemning the behaviour of Ukraine’s oppositionists.

“Russia, just like the EU, prefers not to get too involved in this situation,” the analyst told IPS.

Yanukovich has been consistently in favour of international mediation by Western countries, but the President has so far disagreed, calling for an exhaustion of all possible domestic solutions.