Comments on: Yushchenko Believes he is a Mazepa Descendant

By: UkrToday

UkrToday — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:50:56 +0000

A further poll which has more detail was published on Kyiv Post

Its shows clearly the dissatisfaction with Yushchenko’s term of office.

http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/55401

By: UkrToday

UkrToday — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:48:31 +0000

Research and Branding have published their December poll.

This survey was a sample rate of 3,083 respondents with an estimated margin for error of 1.8%

Candidate

Dec

Nov

Oct

Monthly Swing

V.
Yanukovich

33.40%

32.40%

31.40%

1.0%

Y.
Timoshenko

16.60%

16.30%

18.40%

0.3%

S.Tigipko

7.40%

4.40%

3.60%

3.0%

A.
Yatsenyuk

6.70%

6.10%

8.90%

0.6%

V.
Litvin

4.10%

4.50%

2.30%

-0.4%

V.
Yuschenko

3.80%

3.50%

0.3%

P.
Simonenko

3.40%

3.80%

3.50%

-0.4%

Others

Against
All

Undecided

Will not
vote

75.40%

71.00%

71.60%

Run-Off Ballot

Candidate

Dec

V.
Yanukovich

46.70%

Y.
Timoshenko

30.00%

Against
All

13.20%

Undecided

6.50%

Will not
vote

3.60%

100.00%

Voter Participation

Will certainly vote

65.80%

67.00%

55.90%

Will most likely vote

22.00%

19.70%

24.60%

Have not decided yet

7.80%

10.10%

Will most unlikely vote

1.60%

2.70%

3.70%

Will certainly not vote

2.80%

5.70%

This poll indicates a consolidation of votes (as expected) with the number of undecided decreasing. The participation rate of 87.8% if relatively high. With less then 30 days to go until the first ballot little change is expected in the outcome of the election.

By: UkrToday

UkrToday — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:01:26 +0000

Yes I have noticed this fact. It is a sham because a parliamentary system would be best for Ukraine. Without it I do not think Ukraine will be a candidate for EU membership. The cause of then last five years of instability is without any doubt Yushchenko. Had he held true democratic values the existing constitution could have worked. (Although a preferred option would be to have a full parliamentary model which would resolve much of the ongoing power struggles). If anything Yushchenko has demonstrated the futility of the Presidential system.

YES a more workable Parliamentary party system would a desirable. This can best be achieved by implementing effective and reform based on effective principles of democratic representation. Local electorates each with 9 members each elected by a system of single transferable vote – proportional representation using the Meek method of counting is the most democratic open – One vote one value, equal representation.

If a senatorial system is required then the senate must be elected on national basis not based on unrepresentative regional/Oblast

Ukraine’s Constitution like that of the US can not be readily amended. It will require 2/3rd support of the elected parliament. A referendum is only required to give consent to proposed amendments to Chapters I, III, XIII. Any suggestion of imposing amendment by other means would amount to a unconstitutional coup which would be disastrous for Ukraine.

I think we need on the reality that Yanukovych will be elected President and ask ourselves do we want to see absolute power invested in the President and what can be done to ensure that the Parliament is fair and reflective of the diversity of Ukraine. If the system is not balanced then you can be assure that it will never allow for stable governance. Experiment Ukraine will falter.

Moroz was a hero and the only person who really understood how governments should work. He would have made a much better president then Yushchenko. BUT I stress again Ukraine must cease placing all its eggs in one basket and stop looking to one leader. It must take collective responsibility for its own future and development. A Parliament is the best vessel for democratic development

By: Yuri_D

Yuri_D — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:00:00 +0000

Taras, your statement: “… Ukrainian politicians change constitutions based on what is good for themselves…” is not logically correct because it can be either true or false depending of both given political situation and politician as individual.
“true”: I agree that 2004 constitution has been “virus infected” (mainly by Moroz and because of weak-willed Yushchenko whose unfortunately the only desire was the presidential chair). Both yesterday Kuchma’s and today Yushchenko’s miserable affords in changing constitution prove this;
“false”: – firstly, if it’s clear that today constitution does not work for the good of majority – the word “good for themselves” cannot be applied to all of the politicians. The main question is if “the good for this or that politician” corresponds to the “good for society”.
And at last: why there is a lot of politologists (both in Ukraine and abroad) who are thinking that the “laws of society” is smth. like the “laws of nature”? The nonliving nature and society (life) are absolutely polar processes (even from the thermodynamical or informational point of view). If we have nothing to do but try to describe the nature processes in order to better accomodate to them and use for our good – the laws of society are nothing else than simply the set of rules accepted by members of society themselves. It’s pretty good when they are stable in time, but sorry, when it becomes absolutely clear for the most of the people that they are “infected” and are working in destructive way – what’s the good in stupid repeating of phrases like “Dura lex, sed lex”? I prefer another thought I’ve once found in MS Encarta:
“The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.”
John Marshall (1755 – 1835) U.S. Supreme Court chief justice.

By: Taras Kuzio

Taras Kuzio — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:40:20 +0000

There is a trend away from parliamentarism by its former supporters. Tihipko is campaigning with the slogan “Strong president, strong country”. Medvedchuk says the 2006 parliamentary constitution was a mistake:
http://korrespondent.net/opinions/1026296

The instability and crises of the last 5 years has led many to conclude that this is the fault of parliamentarism. The argument that Europe has parliamentary systems and that East Europe has adopted parliamentary systems an therefore Ukraine should follow suit does not go down well for many reasons. One is that the EU is not offering Ukraine membership. A second is that Ukrainian politicians change constitutions based on what is good for themselves – not what is good for the country.

A final note: parliamentarism requires real parties which Ukraine lacks.