Kuchma asks Constitutional Court to clarify provisions on dismissing Verkhovna Rada (11/23/03)

Kuchma asks Constitutional Court to clarify provisions on dismissing Verkhovna Rada

by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau

KYIV - In an attempt to spur a paralyzed Parliament back to work, President Leonid Kuchma turned to Ukraine's Constitutional Court on November 13 and asked it to clarify the role of the president in dismissing the country's legislative body.

Many politicians and political analysts called the effort a feeble attempt to break loose a political logjam in the legislative branch and to force the opposition to allow a vote on a political reform bill that Mr. Kuchma supports and would like to see passed before the 2004 presidential elections.

The Verkhovna Rada has not passed a major piece of legislation in several months and has yet to accept a first reading of the 2004 budget with only a few more voting days left before the Christmas holiday recess.

"This is another pretty obvious attempt at coercion. However, in the Constitution everything is clearly stated," said National Deputy Stepan Khmara, a member of the Tymoshenko faction in the Parliament and an outspoken critic of the president.

President Kuchma asked the Constitutional Court to clarify how to interpret three points in the Constitution of Ukraine that address the right of the president to dismiss the Verkhovna Rada. Article 90 in the second section of Ukraine's fundamental law gives the country's president the "right to suspend the mandate of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine if during the course of 30 days regularly scheduled plenary sessions were not held."

The president asked the Constitutional Court to interpret the phrase "in the course of 30 days"; to determine specifically how many plenary sessions should not be held before the presidential power can be invoked; and to interpret the meaning of the phrase "were not held."

Lawmakers from the opposition faction, the Our Ukraine political bloc, have blocked a half-dozen parliamentary sessions in the last two weeks by surrounding the chairman's dais and not allowing the proceedings to go forward.

They have demanded that the Parliament hold hearings to determine who harassed and broke up political meetings they had scheduled in Donetsk, Sumy and Simferopol in the last several weeks. Members of the opposition bloc, including its leader, Viktor Yushchenko maintain that the local leaders of pro-presidential forces were given orders from above to harass and intimidate Our Ukraine members and supporters, and to establish a general impression that Mr. Yushchenko, the country's most popular politician in the run-up to presidential elections, is not liked in the eastern regions of Ukraine.

The Our Ukraine bloc, and the Tymoshenko faction are also opposed to political reform draft legislation that Mr. Kuchma is pushing. The bill, whose wording was deemed acceptable last week by the Constitutional Court, would change the country's political structure and allow the Verkhovna Rada to elect the nation's leader. Opposition forces believe it is a ploy organized by President Kuchma and his supporters to make sure that the reigns of power remain in their hands.

Political analyst Ihor Zhdanov of the influential Razumkov Center for Economic and Political Research stated that the Constitution of Ukraine very specifically delineates the grounds upon which the president can dismiss the Verkhovna Rada. He said that, from a legal viewpoint, it is very uncertain what the president would hope to gain by such a move. However, politically it is much more apparent.

"It is most likely one more reminder to the Parliament - and perhaps part of a combined series of actions - to show that the president can dismiss the lawmakers and call for new elections," he said.

However, even Communist Party member Heorhii Kriuchkov, who has been accused of having overly warm relations with the presidential administration, called the action a poor move if the intent was coercion.

"This is an absolutely unneeded and ineffective step," explained Mr. Kriuchkov. "It is nearly impossible to meet the basic requirements as stated in the Constitution. The Our Ukraine deputies blocked the sessions for four days, but then a session was held on Friday. They could block it again for 29 days, and then allow for a session to take place on the 30th day and circumvent the requirement. Sure, the president wanted to warn the Parliament, and I support the president's desire, but his response was not thought through to the end. This is not the way to do it."

Presidential supporters downplayed the president's move and noted that the state leader was merely using the arsenal of Constitutional rights at his disposal to attempt to get the legislative body working.

"I wouldn't dramatize it, it is simply a political move by the president," explained National Deputy Borys Andrusiak, a member of the Social Democratic Party (United) and a political supporter of the president.

Mr. Andrusiak added that, even if the Constitutional Court interpreted the relevant statute in a way that would allow Mr. Kuchma to dismiss the Ukrainian Parliament and call for a new election, the president was "not ready to take that step."

| Home Page |