Coalition Thoughts
June 4, 2009 – 3:44 pmMy own views on the formation of a grand or national unity coalition were outlined in great detail in my Moscow Times op ed last month. There I stated quite clearly that a coalition of all non-communist forces in parliament with the main purpose of combating the global crisis would be a positive step. Such a coalition would be supported internally and externally by the West.
On the other hand, a coalition created with the aim of undertaking fundamental constitutional reforms would be not welcomed by Ukrainians, the West or by myself. Changing the constitution whereby Ukrainians lose the right to vote for the president in election year and prolonging parliament’s term would be undemocratic and a set back for Ukraine.
Does then President Yushchenko have a point in his strong criticism? Well, he does and does not.
Yes, because of what I have said above. As in 2004, politicians should not change the rules as elections approach. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission said that in 2004 and warned against it today.
No, because ultimately Yushchenko shares much of the responsibility for where Ukraine has arrived at today. The last nearly five years of Yushchenko’s rule have been dominated by his inability to work with either Tymoshenko or Yanukovych, his attempts (through Viktor Baloga) to undermine governments, his unconstitutional dismissal of parliament in 2007, and perennial crises. The nearly 3 years of Baloga’s position as chief of staff were dominated by largely artificially induced crises. I do not take away blame from Tymoshenko or Yanukovych but the president did not set any good example of a conciliator or unifier.
Yushchenko is also deceitful when condemning Tymoshenko getting into bed with Yanukovych as he has tried to do the same n three occasions. First, after the 2006 elections, when Yekhanurov negotiated a grand coalition, second with the August 2006 round-table Universal and third, after the 2007 dismissal of parliament when Regions were promised a grand coalition in return for agreeing to pre-term elections.
So, why is it ok for Yushchenko to negotiate a grand coalition but not Tymoshenko? Because he is “pro-Western” and she is “pro-Russian”? These terms are meaningless in Ukrainian politics where ideology has no place in politics, personal interests dominate over national interests and the elites are imbued with a deep sense of cynicism
Yushchenko and the Yekhanurov government brought in Rosukrenergo into Ukraine (in the January 2006 gas contract) while Tymoshenko removed it (this year is the first since 1992 when Ukraine does not use a gas intermediary). As Andrew Wilson (Senior Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations) wrote ‘Corruption in the gas industry is the factor most responsible for driving the revolution off track’ (Wall Street Journal,
28 January 2009).
All Ukrainian politicians will accept that the 2004 constitutional reforms (negotiated by Yushchenko behind the backs of Orange protestors) were imperfect and needed improving. Why then has it taken all of them so long to come round to dealing with its imperfections? Why did Yushchenko not either cancel the reforms by holding a referendum (as a October 2005 constitutional court ruling insisted which he ignored) or by Yushchenko calling all-party negotiations to improve the 2006 constitution by removing conflicts and problem areas?
If a coalition is created, Tymoshenko (and therefore BYuT as the two are inseparable) will not emerge from it in a positive light. Tymoshenko not need the coalition: she could either win the presidency if sheentered the second round or if she lost to Yatseniuk in round one she would still remain as prime minister in the event of whoever was elected. If Yanukovych were to win the presidency in a national election and Tymoshenko was prime minister Ukraine could have a de facto grand coalition. There is no constitutional provision for pre-term parliamentary elections after a presidential election or for the government to be replaced. A Yanukovych presidency might in fact encourage Our Ukraine dissidents (Kyrylenko’s For Ukraine!) to join the coalition if it was in opposition to President Yanukovych.
A grand coalition will also be not welcomed by the West and will harm Ukraine’s integration into the West. But, integration has stalled anyway and there has been Yushchenko fatigue in the West since last year.
The big question is if Yushchenko will revitalise his election chances by rallying opposition to a coalition, especially in Western Ukraine? And if her did, would this not undermine Yatsenuk’s election chances as they are competing for he same voters.
Two good articles:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/6/4/95987.htm
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/6/2/95837.htm
.
11 Responses to “Coalition Thoughts”
They are not interested in dealing with “crisis.”
The maggots are only interested in protecting themselves.
Yushchenko failed miserably.
But now it’s a matter of Tymo getting into bed with the “proFFesor” and changing the Constitution – again.
Come on, Dr. Kuzio.
A rigged democracy is NOT a democracy.
It’s just a goddamn sewer.
By elmer on Jun 4, 2009
The second article goes through the “pros and cons” of a mega-coalition, a “shyrka.”
That anyone would dare to say that what is being worked on by Tymonatrix and the ProFFesor for over a year now has any positive points is – hideous.
It demonstrates an abysmal lack of understanding of democracy in Ukraine.
The language keeps revolving around the notion of “political elite” – which is antithetical to democracy.
But Ukraine, tragically, does have a “political elite” – they are all trained sovoks, they are sharks, they learned how to fence on the edge of a razor blade, and they conduct a war of “all against all.”
The article asks – how does one get rid of the war?
By elections – free and fair DIRECT elections.
Not elections of “party lists” – where there is no direct representation.
This has been openly discussed in Ukraine, as has abolishing parliamentary immunity.
And, obviously, not even Tymoshenko likes the notion of direct elections – hence a “shyrka.”
Yushchenko should have done what Ronald Reagan did – if Yushchenko found it difficult to do all the things he publicly talked about – get rid of corruption, “one law for all,” etc., he should have gone directly to the people, where he had well over 60% support, and the hopes and dreams of the people.
Instead, as the first article points out, in typical sovok fashion, he thought one thing, said a second, and did a third.
Including nepotism (“dear friends”) in government, and other additions to corruption.
But there is no reason to compound his errors by a hideous “shyrka”.
By elmer on Jun 5, 2009
Yush is not being deceitful condemning Tymo for getting into bed with Yanuk. You should at least listen to what he said which is that he has not objections to a coalition – his object is to rigging the demomcratic system to arrange things the way POR and BYUT want them and not the way the people might vote for them. He appointed Yanuk PM in line with the constitution and normal European democratic practise, while Tymo is making Yanuk President by go against all democratic norms.
It’s not also become so obvious or at least it should be, why Yushchenko supposedly couldn’t work with anyone. There was simply no one to work with. Tymo has never shared his democratic ideals and the only ideal she has is for herself to remain in power as long as possible.
By anon on Jun 5, 2009
If Yushcheno had no one to work with then Ukraine is in bigger trouble than it would seem. Yushchenko has 2% popularity and is less popular than Lytvyn or Symonenko and only marginally more popular than Tyahnobok. His political party (Peoples Union Our Ukraine) and a Yushchenko bloc would not enter the next parliament, according to polls.
We need to move ahead from 2004 where we saw Ukraine divided into “angels” and “devils”. There are people with democratic views in all four non-communist forces in parliament. It is simply not true that Yushchenko is the good guy here and Tymoshenko-Yanukovych are the bad guys. They are all guilty of having brought Ukraine to the edge of the cliff.
Where was Yushchenko’s democratic instincts during the nearly 3 years that Baloga was chief of staff?
What is tragic is the degree to which the Soviet mentality has sunk far deeper roots in Ukrainians than we imagined in 2004 when we believed that the Yushchenko-Tymoshenko 40s generation was less Soviet than the Kuchma-Kravchuyk 60s generation. Now we hope (!!!!) that Yatseniuk’s 30s generation is better and maybe Ukraine’s last hope. Other “new generation” politicians are in their 40s – Grytsenko (who is older than Tymoshenko) and Tyhipko (head of Yanukovych’s 2004 campaign).
By Taras Kuzio on Jun 5, 2009
You are right Taras, Tymoshenko/Yanukovich are the nice guys here. Who needs the people anyway, what good is their voice in electing government representatives? It doesnt matter what the people want. The people have now seen what Tymoshenko is capable of, she better pray the “Shyrka” agreement is signed sealed and delivered, for without it, she as a politician is finished in Ukraine.
By Wolodymir on Jun 5, 2009
No, you are wrong. I do not think like that in any shape or form. See my article from Ukraine Analyst in the next post.
By Taras Kuzio on Jun 5, 2009
“It is simply not true that Yushchenko is the good guy here and Tymoshenko-Yanukovych are the bad guys.”
Your quote, not mine.
By Wolodymir on Jun 5, 2009
“It is simply not true that Yushchenko is the good guy here and Tymoshenko-Yanukovych are the bad guys.”
Your quote, not mine.
You can delete this post Taras, but you have written nothing but articles condeming anyone and everyone who has criticized Tymoshenko, from Yushchenko to Yatseniuk, yet you fail to admit it when Tymoshenko has commited the ultimate sin. Like her, you go on to blame everyone else but. With her most recent snafu, you will soon be writing for the Inquirer.
By Wolodymir on Jun 5, 2009
anon – it seems that you are either too far from Ukraine or too near to Yushchenko.
If it’s the first case – it’s a great difference between what Yushchenko said and what he did. Maybe you don’t know but when Grytsenko was a Minister of Defence (he also was Yushchenko’s protege) – he could not meet with president for months and was resigned without any interview. Compare please with Yekhanurov whom Yushchenko’s servants are positioning as “the only Ukrainian patriot” – one could see him on the right hand of Yushchenko near every day.
Tymoshenko (as Prime Minister) both in 2005 and 2008 could not speak with him even by phone (blocked by his “secretaries”) whereas Yushchenko’s meetings with Yanukovich were held on a regular basis (starting from so-called “memorandum”), and what’s interesting – mainly in evening time.
You are saying “There was simply no one to work with” – and this is more than strange – maybe “the people and country is bad?” On my opinion, Yushchenko’s patriarchal understanding of democracy is somewhere at the level of “good old times” when “otamans” were considered as “fathers of nation”. In 2004 as opposed to one of “Regional’s” arguments in anti-Yushchenko’s propaganda (“his wife is American!”) – I considered this as a great plus, maybe she will teach him the ABC of democracy. Unfortunately – no results.
If it’s the second case (too near) – well, politics should not be considered as Gods or the subjects of worship.
As for Taras’es analysis – it’s much more corresponds to reality than our own Ukrainian’s so called “polytologists”.
By Yuri_D on Jun 5, 2009
Yuri-D. The “no one to work with’ are Tym and Yanuk and referred to Kuzio’s remark that Yush couldn’t work with either of his Prime Ministers,,as if, because there were two of them that showed that Yush was the problem.
As for who Yush spoke to I can’t see any point in his speaking to Tym – her word can’t be relied upon – even a politician’s word has to be mean something and she has not even the minimal integrity required.
I honestly don’t know much about the performance of the ex-ex defence minister but given his enthusiastic support of the ousting of his successor who I think Tym just pinned on a corrupt label to get rid of him without the least justification I don’t blame Yush for giving up on him either.
Finally Yush doesn’t need any lessons from his American wife on democracy – he’s acted his part in absolute compliance with democratic norms, freedom of the press and they’ve been really critical of him, fair elections (even though he’s always lost them) and including calling elections in 2007. All he said that if the people wanted a Yanuk premership with a 300plus veto busting majority with all its extensive implications they should explicitly vote for it because the previous vote for the RADA did not indicate this. It turned out that they really did not want any such thing.
By anon on Jun 6, 2009