Friday, June 15, 2007

One Battle Lost, It is Time to Win the War

Moroz whilst technically correct should rethink his position in the absence of consolidated support

There is no doubt that legally speaking Ukrainian speaker Alexander Moroz is correct and his ongoing concerns and criticism about the illegal and unconstitutional actions of Ukraine's president are valid.

Viktor Yushchenko has acted unconstitutionally and not in the interest of democracy, as he and his party falsely claim, but in the interest of his own political party and political future. His attack on Ukraine's judiciary and the illegal dismissal of Ukraine's democratic parliament warrant harsh criticisms and legal review.

There is no justification for fresh parliamentary elections. It is doubtful that the outcome of election will change or resolve the current political crisis which is of the president's making following divisions in the opposition. The public polls indicate that the main governing party "Party of Regions" may even secure a majority of the parliament in their own right.

Ukraine's economy is growing and reports today indicate that inflation has stabilized at less then 7%. The current Ukrainian Government has acted responsibly and this is reflectdd in the economic growth that has rebounded following a negative down turn under the previous government.

The main loser of fresh elections appears to be the Socialist party headed by Olexandr Moroz. The Socialist's have lost support following Moroz difficult but correct call to support the formation of a governing coalition with the Party of Regions.

Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of the Opposition, rightly feels cheated having lost the opportunity to form a government under the "Orange Banner'.

The main reason for the collapse of the orange coalition was the president's 'Our Ukraine', who at the time refused to sign up and support an Orange government. Our Ukraine flirted with the idea of forming a coalition with Party of Regions. When it was clear that they would not have it all their way in terms of policy development and implementation Our Ukraine soon turned it attentions back to Yulia Tymoshenko and tried to first to undermine Yulia's claim for leadership and when that failed Our Ukraine looked at alienating the Socialist Party. Faced with no other an alternative the Socialists resolved to form a government on their own with Party of Regions, leaving open an invitation to Our Ukraine and Yulia Tymoschenko to also participate in the 'grand' governing coalition.

In the end Our Ukraine was left out in the cold. They refused, at first, to join in opposition with Yulia Tymoshenko who, since losing her bid for government, has sort to hold fresh parliamentary election in the hope that she will see a change of fortune.

It was not until Yulia Timoshenko decided to support the government and override the president's right of veto that Our Ukraine was made painfully aware that their only hold on political power, the office of the president was seriously being eroded.

Opposition members of Ukraine's parliament became divided over policy and direction and a number of opposition members decided to support the government. It was this division in the opposition that triggered the response by the president who unconstitutionally tried to terminate the authority of the elected parliament on April 2.

Three decrees later with the president dismissing three constitutional court judges in order to prevent the Constitutional Court from ruling on the legality of his decrees.

In an attempt to reach agreement and some form of resolve the governing coalition had agreed to the holding of fresh parliamentary elections on September 30, 2007.

As part ofg the resoilve the authority of the president to call fresh elections was based on Article 90 section 3 and the resignation of over 151 members of Ukraine's parliament.

Whilst the September 30 date is outside the framework of Ukraine's constitution the agreement should be honored now that the number of elected parliamentarians has fallen below the constitutional requirement of two-thirds composition.

The Parliament has technially lost its authority and ability to function. The current debate has now shifted from the parliament to the Central Elections Committee who in theory can decide to fill any casual vacancy in the parliament by undertaking a count-back and going though the registered party lists submitted at the time of the 2006 election.

Although there is ongoing disputation surrounding the right of political parties to cancel the registered political list, submitted at the time of the last elections in March 2006, it would be morally wrong to fill the vacancies under the current circumstances.

Olenandr Moroz, whilst legally correct in his stance, must now face political reality and in the absence of a unified position he should act on the overriding intent of the agreement reached where commitment was given to the holding of elections. He could argue correctly that the date be shifted one week which would bring the proposed poll in line with Ukraine's Constitution but there is nothing to gain at this stage by prolonging the uncertainly that now hangs on a technicality not worth fighting for. He will not win political support or public for his current battle involving the CEC.

A parliament without Moroz would be leave Ukraine worst off. Moroz must accept the outcome of recernt events and begin to campiagn for relection and hopefully secure a position in the new parliament.

1 Comment:

tsenis said...

Great Analysis