INTERVIEW: Rukh leader Chornovil on issues before the Verkhovna Rada
by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau
KYIV - Vyacheslav Chornovil is the leader of the Rukh Party and head of its faction in the Verkhovna Rada. He has been a national deputy since 1990 and twice an unsuccessful presidential candidate. He also is a co-founder of Rukh, the Popular Movement of Ukraine, which was the driving force in the social processes that led to the independence of Ukraine and the precursor to the party that Mr. Chornovil currently heads. During the Soviet era he was a leading Ukrainian human rights activist and served time in Soviet prison camps. Today he is a primary voice of democracy and one of the chief antagonists of the left. The following edited interview, to be published in two parts, is translated from Ukrainian.
PART I
Q: The Verkhovna Rada recently approved a motion authored by the Communist faction that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine should review a proposed bill to constitutionally liquidate the institution of president. Is it realistic to think that such a bill could receive the necessary votes to be approved in the Parliament?
A: It's absolutely unrealistic. There will be no such change to the Constitution. It is merely a propagandistic action before the presidential elections. The left wants to use this as a propaganda tool.
I am amazed at those people who later will not vote for the bill, but voted to approve the motion for review by the Constitutional Court.
I believe that the bill will fail in the first stages of debate. Making changes to the Constitution is a complicated matter. First, it must be approved by a simple majority, and then during the following session it must receive 300 votes (a two-thirds majority).
I doubt that it will go further than this session. This is merely an attempt to delay the other work [of the Verkhovna Rada] and distract it with simple propagandistic diversions.
Q: Oleksander Tkachenko, the current chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, allowed the bill to come to a vote after it was initially defeated, which seems to be against parliamentary procedure. Did he break the rules in this instance and, generally speaking, what type of parliamentary leader is he in your opinion?
A: He goes against procedure very often - no less often than his predecessor. This is a tradition that [former chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Oleksander] Moroz began: to vote on something a hundred times if he wants it passed.
According to procedure, if a proposal is voted upon and does not receive sufficient votes for passage, it is removed from further examination.
But, as you can see, we have an unusual style. This chairman holds loosely to procedural rules. We put forth a proposal for his removal for two days so that he could learn the rules of procedure - ironically there is just such a provision in the statutes - but he did not allow it to come to the floor for a vote.
Earlier, when he acted in the same manner with regard to the bill on membership in the Inter-Parliametary Assembly of the CIS, we put forth a proposal for a call for new elections. However, this takes 150 votes, and they are not easy to find.
The national deputies are beholden to the speaker in many areas: one wants to travel somewhere; this one owes him something; this one needs that, another needs something else.
If they are not 100 percent sure that the motion will pass, they will not vote for such a proposal.
Q: Speaking of the draft law to join the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS, it has failed to gather sufficient votes for passage twice now. Do you think that it could be presented yet again and the votes found to join the CIS Parliament?
A: What do you mean twice? It was proposed in the last Rada as well, in several sessions, at least two or three times.
It is difficult to foresee what horse trading may still occur. There is maneuvering going on right now. We are afraid that we could be betrayed, as we were during the election of the chairman, by the Social Democrats. They are the closest to Tkachenko [from the center and right political factions]. One of his two deputies is theirs. Maybe some might defect from the Greens or the National Democratic Party (NDP).
Our faction will never vote for [such a proposal]. You saw what extraordinary actions we took not to allow the draft law to pass. For us this is a stand on principle, because it could mean the renewal of empire.
In itself the Almaty Agreement is not dangerous. It is merely a formality. Today it is not a functioning agreement. But if we accede to it, we will then be bound by the Miensk Convention. And the Miensk Convention is a further step. It is an umbrella organ that in part intrudes on the sovereignty of the countries that have signed it.
Q: Does the Verkhovna Rada have the political will to remove its immunity from prosecution? And, is it needed at all?
A: No, it does not. There is talk, but only a small group of people who will vote for removal. And to change the law 300 votes are required because it is a change to the Constitution.
I want you to know that during the "night of the Constitution" the only faction that voted against full immunity for national deputies was Rukh. Only [Oleksander] Lavrynovych and one other member [from Rukh] voted for full immunity. The rest were against it.
The provision [of full immunity] did not pass, initially. At first the statute on immunity dealt only with partial immunity, which said that criminal action could begin without the permission of the Parliament, but the deputy could not be arrested until a decision of the court was handed down.
It protected him from constant accusation and investigation. And [the Constitutional statute] passed. But then the Communists began to pressure Moroz. I guess they were afraid they might have had to take responsibility for their political crimes; a call for the destruction of the state is also a crime. So it was reintroduced and passed.
Q: Is it accurate then to say that the law on full immunity from prosecution for national deputies came about as a result of a Communist initiative?
A: Yes, it is. It was probably in the interest of two groups. On the one hand it was in the Communists' interest and on the other in the interest of those who are not clean, who entered Parliament to protect their financial and other interests. And it remains that way today.
Q: Then you do not believe that full immunity is needed?
A: This sort of full immunity is not needed. Partial immunity is needed to ensure that national deputies are not set up in some manner. The type [of immunity] that we had proposed, that is needed, but full immunity is not.
You see what happened in the majoritarian section of our Parliament, the seats were bought by people who now often do not attend. They were needed for such things as immunity and to have doors opened to high places.
Q: Will the Verkhovna Rada review the matter of Pavlo Lazarenko and another national deputy, Mykola Ahafonov, for whom Ukraine's prosecutor general has requested that criminal immunity be lifted so that it can bring charges?
A: They are going to begin with Ahafonov. The committee has prepared the documents, and this will be the initial attempt. Ahafonov is not a well-known person, and I have heard that he and his family have left the country. I can't say whether that is true.
Nonetheless, Ahafonov is a partner of Lazarenko, and there is information that a portion of the money made by Lazarenko was made through Ahafonov's firm.
Lazarenko's case will be difficult; more likely than not his immunity will not be lifted. Where Ahafonov's chances are about 50-50, Lazarenko almost surely will not be affected because of the political interests involved.
Hromada has attached itself fully to the left. Initially we had hoped that they would be with us, these are people clearly with no leftward leanings. But they vote only with the left, and only because of Lazarenko, because of his need to protect himself.
Q: If we could jump to another topic, the International Monetary Fund at the moment is analyzing the state of economic reforms in Ukraine. In your opinion, does Ukraine deserve a good grade in the IMF report, and will Ukraine get the next tranche of the Extended Fund Facility?
A: You must be kidding. What kind of good grade? It is important that we receive the IMF tranches until at least our economy gets moving somewhat or else we will burn up our financial system. If our currency disintegrates, it will be a major tragedy.
We are gritting our teeth and hoping that we receive the credits. The IMF and the international community must understand us, not forgive us everything, but simply understand the geopolitical meaning of Ukraine, its strategic position and so on. [Without Ukraine] the barrier falls between an uncertain Russia that today is difficult to understand and Europe.
Q: Do you believe that the Kuchma administration is truly serious about reforms, or is it all simply on paper?
A: Unfortunately, most of it is on paper. Some privatization has taken place, but many of the privatized businesses are not working, others are simply barter objects of larger enterprises. Yet others have simply been stripped and sold off.
Land reform, which has been discussed so often, has not moved. Foreign investments are not forthcoming. The bureaucracy is growing, corruption is growing. It is difficult to find something positive, unfortunately. But if you listen to the words, everything is absolutely on track and as it should be.
The economic program that President Kuchma initiated almost immediately after he assumed power is almost fully what Rukh has proposed. It is very good, but it has not been realized.
Q: Can you say that the Kuchma administration has done anything good for Ukraine?
A: Well, there is the Constitution. Without pressure from the president the Verkhovna Rada would not have passed this Constitution. It would have been a terrible Constitution.
Everything is still inching along; imperialistic inroads have not been made. The country, albeit with much difficulty, is still moving forward. Even time is working in our favor, for the irreconciliability of an independent country.
As for foreign affairs, [the administration] must be commended: the European direction, relations with NATO and attempts to join Europe, and the rejection of CIS integration. They attempted to convince us to join, but as you know we have signed almost nothing.
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, February 14, 1999, No. 7, Vol. LXVII
| Home Page |