Category Archives: Ukraine

Ukraine

Ukraine – Parliament changes constitution and sets election dates

With Ukraine’s rather bizarre return to its 1996 constitution, one of the issues left in the air was the schedule for parliamentary elections. The last elections were held in September 2007. Under the 2004 amended constitution, parliament’s term was five years, whereas under the 1996 constitution the term was four years. So, when should elections be held?

Kyiv Post is reporting that parliament has now passed a constitutional amendment setting election dates. This what the report states: “The draft law envisages that the president of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada, the Supreme Council of Crimea, deputies of local councils of all levels, and village, town, city heads are elected for five years. The bill also proposes holding regular presidential elections on the last Sunday of March of the fifth year of the president’s term, the parliamentary elections on the last Sunday of October of the fifth year of the parliament’s term, and the local elections on the last Sunday of October of the fifth year of the terms of deputies of local councils of all levels and village, town, city heads.”

What this means is that the next parliamentary elections will be held in October 2012. Constitutionally, this reform has to be approved in two consecutive sessions of parliament. So, the bill will not become law until it is passed again in the next session which begins in February. However, it does look as if one of the ambiguities of the return to the 1996 version of the constitution has been resolved.

Ukraine – Local elections

Local elections were held in Ukraine on Sunday 31 October 2010. Elections were held for local councils and also for mayors.

The results are slow to come out and an overall picture is difficult to grasp. There has been a report about irregularities, but most of the rhetoric in that regard seems to be partisan. One strange aspect is that the each local electoral commission is responsible for announcing the results of its own contest. The Central Electoral Commission does not have this role. There are 15,000 local contests. So, the opportunity for fraud at the local level could perhaps be great.

As far as I can tell, the most interesting development seems to be the decline of Yulia Tymoshenko’s party in some parts of the west of Ukraine and the rise of the All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda party, which is a nationalist party. Ukrainian Journal reports that Svoboda won 34.2% in elections to the Lviv city council, 32% to the Ternopil city council and 31.3% to the Ivano-Frankivsk city council. In the east, the Regions party dominated, as expected. Kyiv Post reports that the Regions party has issued a statement about its own performance, claiming that it has won the mayorship in 118 of 177 towns of ‘regional importance’.

Ukraine – Article on constitutional debate

The Ukraine Today blog has posted a link to an interesting article on the situation there. The article is called ‘Ukraine’s Current Constitutional Debate: Semi-Presidentialism, Political Reform, and the Future of Ukrainian Democracy’. It is written by Andreas Umland and it is available online here.

Ukraine – Return to 1996 constitution

As expected, in Ukraine the Constitutional Court has ruled that in 2004 parliament violated various procedures when it passed amendments to the 1996 constitution and, therefore, that the reforms are invalid. As a result, the pre-reform version of the constitution (i.e. the 1996 text) is now in force once again. (The 1996 text is available here).

Kyiv Post provides a brief summary of the effect of changing back to the 1996 text of the constitution: “Under the 1996 Constitution, which has again entered into force as of Oct. 1, 2010, the president is elected for five years, nominates candidates for prime minister (for parliamentary ratification) and appoints cabinet ministers, has the right to dismiss government without parliamentary approval and can cancel any government resolution. The parliament, on the other hand, is elected for four years, is not required to form a majority coalition, can dismiss the government by vote of no-confidence and can override presidential decrees by two-thirds parliamentary majority, or 300 votes.” One way of looking at the decision is that it has changed Ukraine back to a president-parliamentary form of semi-presidentialism.

The Court’s decision raises a number of legal issues. For example, are parliamentary elections due in 2011 or 2012? The last elections were held in 2007 under a constitution where the term of office was five years. However, under the 1996 version, the term is four years. So, when are elections due? Similarly, are all laws passed since 2004 null and void?

Given the strong propensity for semi-presidential countries with a president-parliamentary form of semi-presidentialism to slip into authoritarianism, the Court’s decision may have fundamental consequences for democracy in Ukraine.

Ukraine – Constitutional Court begins discussion of 2004 reforms

In Ukraine the Constitutional Court has begun discussion of the 2004 constitutional reforms. The Court will decide whether or not the reforms were passed constitutionally. If they decide that they were not, then they will be struck down. My understanding is that such a decision would not lead to an automatic return to the pre-2004 situation. However, I am not yet sure what the precise consequences of the decision would be. Generally, though, the decision would be consistent with President Yanukovych’s seeming desire to increase the president’s hold over the system.

The Court is discussing the reforms only a few days after four of the Court’s judges were dismissed and new judges, reportedly supporters of the president, were appointed in their place. There is a very informative article at Ukraine Today that discusses both the appointments specifically, the current political composition of the Court, and the Court’s role in the political process more generally. Overall, there seems little doubt that the 2004 reforms will be struck down.

Ukraine – 2004 constitutional reforms may be struck down

Kyiv Post is reporting that on July 14 the Ukrainian Constitutional Court received a motion signed by 252 deputies asking the Court to rule on the constitutionality of Law No. 2222. This was the 2004 law that changed the constitution of Ukraine, for example switching the country from a president-parliamentary form of semi-presidentialism to a premier-presidential form and increasing the powers of the parliament. Apparently, the Court opened the case, but has adjourned it for the holiday period.

Prior to the submission to the Constitutional Council, parliament had debated a proposal supported by President Yanukovych to hold a referendum proposing the repeal of the 2004 law. However, seemingly this proposal did not receive enough support. Kyiv Post reports that the Communists and the Lytvyn bloc, both of which support President Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions, did not support the proposed referendum. However, the proposal may be debated again in September when parliament reconvenes.

Overall, it does seem as if the constitution is again becoming a battleground and that a presidentialisation of the system is on the agenda.

SP in disputed areas and other territories (14) – Republic of Crimea

This post is a little speculative because I do not have full information. While I am fairy confident of the basic facts, any clarifications, including telling me that my interpretation is completely wrong, would be welcome.

Anyway, this is another in a series of posts on semi-presidentialism in areas other than internationally recognised states. The focus is on areas with, or that have had, full constitutions, but ones that are not recognised as independent states. They may be territories that have declared independence but whose status has not been internationally recognised, or they may simply be self-governing units within or under the protection of another state.

As I understand it, the Republic of Crimea adopted a constitution in May 1992 and established itself as a republic within Ukraine. In September 1992 the constitution was amended. In September and October 1993 laws were passed that allowed for the direct election of the president. There was a presidential election in January 1994 and Yuriy Meshkov was elected at the second ballot. A short report is available here.

Now, I believe that the 1992 constitution was restored in May 1994 and in October 1994 the role of prime minister and government was reorganised. At that point, it appears as if the PM and government were responsible to the legislature and there was a directly elected president. So, by my reckoning, Crimea was constitutionally semi-presidential from Octeber 1994. (The constitution as is available in Russian here. Using Google Translate the clauses are very clear.)

In March 1995 the Ukrainian legislature abolished both the 1992 constitution and the presidency of the Republic of Crimea. Yuriy Meshkov, it might be noted, was pro-Russian. So, Crimea was no longer semi-presidential from that time.

Therefore, unless I am mistaken, the Republic of Crimea had a semi-presidential constitution from October 1994 to March 1995.

Any clarification would be appreciated.

Ukraine – New PM

Hopefully, this will be the final Ukraine post for a long time!

Anyway, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine yesterday approved Mykola Azarov as Prime Minister by 242 votes of the 343 deputies that voted in the 450-seat parliament. It then went on to approve the Cabinet of Ministers. Unian provides the full list of government ministers here.

It is unclear to me whether the approval was ratified under the usual constitutional mechanism (i.e by faction) or under the amended rules of procedure (i.e by faction and individual). (See previous post). However, my belief is that it was achieved in accordance with the constitutional mechanism. This is because Unian also reports that prior to the vote on Azarov as Prime Minister the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Volodymyr Lytvyn, announced the creation of a coalition comprising the Party of Regions faction, the Communist Party and the Lytvyn’s Bloc totalling 235 deputies. I have no information yet about the party affiliation of the government ministers.

Ukraine – Rules for building a parliamentary majority changed

Some of you may already be familiar with the ‘iron law of the semi-presidential one’ – if your country appears on average more than once a week in the posts, then it is in trouble! Well, Ukraine is currently suffering under the weight of this law.

Kyiv Post reports that the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law that amends the Verkhovna Rada’s rules of procedure and that changes the rules determining the formation of coalition governments.

As reported in a previous post last week, Art. 83 of the Constitution states: “A coalition of deputy factions in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall be formed … within one month after the date of termination of the activity of a coalition of deputy factions in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”.

However, the amended rules of procedure allow individual deputies to register their support for a coalition rather than allowing only factions as a whole to do so. The aim is to make it easier for coalitions to be formed, specifically for newly-elected President Yanukovych to form a majority government.

I am no constitutional lawyer, as some will know better than others, but this law is surely unconstitutional.

Unsurprisingly, Yanukovych’s defeated presidential opponent, Yulia Tymoshenko, has denounced the change as unconstitutional. The Ukrainian politics blog, Ukraine Today also considers it to be unconstitutional.

Presumably, this law will be challenged, which will mean that the Constitutional Court will be forced to side with either the president or the opposition, thus politicising it. If a government is found to have been formed unconstitutionally, then, arguably, all of the actions of that government are null and void, which would raises major problems of governance. Ukrainian politics is notoriously volatile, but President Yanukovych’s term of office does seem to have begun rather inauspiciously.

Ukraine – Government defeated in no-confidence vote

In Ukraine, the government has been defeated in a vote of no-confidence.

As reported in a previous post, last week a similar motion was withdrawn to give more time to the Party of the Regions to ensure that the vote was successful. It worked. The motion was supported by 243 votes in the 450-seat chamber.

According to Kyiv Post, the vote was supported by all 172 deputies from the Party of the Regions, 15 from former President Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine-People’s Self-Defense Bloc, 19 from the Bloc of Lytvyn deputies, 27 Communist Party deputies, three deputies representing no faction, and seven from the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko i.e., her own faction supporters.

As reported in Ukraine Today, Art. 83 of the Constitution states: “A coalition of deputy factions in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall be formed … within one month after the date of termination of the activity of a coalition of deputy factions in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”. In other words, the Party of the Regions must now win the support of at least 226 deputies, organised by faction (i.e. not just individuals), in the legislature. They have 172 deputies of their own, so some horse-trading will have to go on.

Failure to form a government will eventually lead to a new parliamentary election. Art. 90 states: “The President of Ukraine shall have the right to an early termination of powers of the Verkhovna Rada in the following cases: 1) the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine fails to form a coalition of deputy factions in compliance with Article 83 of this Constitution within one month; 2) no new Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has been formed within sixty days after the resignation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”.