Ukraine Today - An Independent Political Review

Independent Exit polls conducted by Research and Branding and published in Kyiv Post show Party of Regions ahead in local elections What's interesting to note is that with the exception of Donetsk all other regions the highest polling party did not poll over 50%. The election of Mayor being won by candidates that do not have majority support. This is a major shortfall of the first-past-the-post voting system. A better option would be to introduce preferential "Alternative voting where candidates/parties are ranked in order of preference. If no candidate has 50% or more votes then the candidates with the least votes are excluded and their votes distributed according to the voters order to preface, This process continues until a candidate has 50% or more support.  More information www.fairvote.org The other interesting outcome is that Svoboda have out polled all other parties including Tymoshenko and Our Ukraine in Western Ukraine.  If this was repeated in a

There has been a lot of speculation and allegations about Ukraine's local elections which are being held this weekend.  Normally local elections would not rate much attention but in Ukraine the word election and corruption go hand in hand. Former Prime-Minster come self declared opposition leader in exile (She is not a member of parliament) Yulia Tymoshenko, has come out and declared the election fraudulent with another round of allegations of vote rigging and illegal printing of ballot papers. Tymoshenko last week took the media with her to expose a illegal printing of ballot papers in Lviv.  Problem was when they got there there was no signs or evidence of any ballot papers.  Similar allegation were made in Kharkiv region but it turned out the factory was authorised to publish ballot papers. The real problem facing Tymoshenko is credibility. During the 2010 Presidential elections Tymoshenko also made allegations of vote fraud and declared that the elections in which she l

Semi-Presidentialism, Political Reform, and the Future of Ukrainian Democracy by Andreas Umland Source: Foreign Policy Journal.   The current public controversy about what division of power Ukraine should have in the future is overdue.  The various political crises of the past fifteen years have amply shown that the Ukrainian Constitution, whether in its 1996 or 2004 versions, needs revision. However, the arguments made in Ukrainian mass media today concerning constitutional reform mostly ignore what political science has to say about the appropriateness of various forms of presidential rule for post-communist transition states. For this reason, many of the current public exchanges about the division of power that Ukraine supposedly requires miss the point. These discussions are mainly about the amount of prerogatives that Ukraine’s future more or less powerful President should have. The arguments thus remain within the realm of a comparison betwe

Much of the debate in Ukraine is about the perceived notion of "Nationalism" and  ethnicity, the  us versus them argument. Russia is not a threat to Ukraine, it is Ukrainians and their political leaders that undermine Ukraine's stability and prosperity.  Their political leaders. sadly, have failed to represent their Citizens. Instead they seek to promote division  based on ethnicity.  The concept of Nationalism more often then not divides a nation as opposed to uniting its people.  One mans notion of National values is another mans vilification. Exactly who is  Ukrainian and who is not?  And should it matter?  No more is this divide greatest then in the Language debate.  Nationalism is more often than not used to rally the troops when those that promote it as a political tool have nothing else to unite the nation or offer as an alternative policy to secure support.  It is for this reason Ukraine remains divided. Ethnically Ukraine encompasses many nationalities a

Ukraine democratic coalition needs a common policy for reform. Where to?  Whats next? Ukraine needs to form a "Democratic coalition" with a single goal of getting the foundation for a true independent democratic state right Ukraine needs to rebuild the foundation stones of democracy. It has to make a stand for set the agenda for reform.   Get the foundations right and the rest should follow.  Get it wrong and the state will fall. If the democratic coalition fails to come up with a united position then democracy in Ukraine will be a lost cause. The coalition does not have to agree to support each other in government but it must be united in its position for democratic constitutional reform.  IT MUST ADVOCATE FROM A POSITION OF UNITY 

In attempt to attract media attention supporters of Yulia Tymoshenko went on a hunger strike. The hunger strike, of course, was just a publicity stunt and no one expected it would last let along have any impact or influence world opinion. Yanukovych's team have won one over Tymoshenko.   In what can only be seen as a brilliant tactic on their behalf the Ukrainian authorities organised a food and agriculture display to be held on the site that Tymoshenko supporters had chosen to stage their hunger strike. The strike lasted no more then seven days before Yulia called it off.

There is growing concern being expressed in the corridors of power in Europe with representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)  discovering that Yanukovych has misunderstood the recommendations and directions that Europe wants to see Ukraine take. The changes that saw Ukraine revert back to the provisions of the 1996 version of its Constitution following the determination of Ukraine's Constitutional court has set off alarm bells that Ukraine is taking a backward step. PACE whilst critical of certain provisions of the 2004 Constitutional Amendments were not opposed to them in fact they were supportive.  Their main criticism of the 2004 amendments were the Imperative Mandate provisions and the apparent unworkable divisions of power between the Office of the President and the Parliament, divisions that often brought the two into conflict and at odds to each other, divisions that made government in Ukraine unworkable.  PACE was not opposed to the tr

I would not hold out much hope coming out of PACE.  They have in the past seriously compromised their position and in doing so have contributed to much of the instability and situation facing Ukraine today. (Most notably was their silence on the abuse and violation of Ukraine's Constitutional order in 2007 when Yushchenko illegally interfered with the independence of the Courts to prevent them from overturning his attack on Ukrainian democracy and the dismissal of Ukraine previous parliament) Much of what PACE has stated is worthy of serious consideration BUT will PACE follow through with these issues or will they like last time turn a blind eye top the misuse and abuse of authority. Other issues they need to serious consider but not mentioned is the need for the EU to free up visa restrictions imposed on Ukraine (A closer and integrated association with the EU is long overdue, Freeing up the Visa requirements is fundamental to building a closer relationship between the

Report1 Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) Co-rapporteurs: Mrs Renate WOHLWEND, Liechtenstein, Group of the European People's Party, and MrsMailis REPS, Estonia, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Summary The Monitoring Committee welcomes the increase in legislative activity in Ukraine in the wake of the 2010 Presidential election, and especially the priority given by the new authorities to honouring Ukraine’s remaining accession commitments. However, the committee is concerned that the current relative stability is fragile, as the underlying systemic causes of the instability that has plagued the country in recent years have not been addressed. Moreover, it is concerned that the hasty manner in which the authorities are implementing the reforms could negatively affect respect for proper democratic principles and, ultimately, the quality of the reforms themselves. In support

Yulia Tymoshenko has joined what has become a chorus of voices calling for spill of all positions and the holding of fresh Parliamentary and Presidential elections in the wake of the Constitutional Court's October 1 ruling.  She joins the Rukh Party and the Socialist party of Ukraine in calling for a renewal  both  tiers of government. The Constitutional Courts ruling has left many questions unanswered, the most important being how do you reconcile the mandate given to the Parliament an the President  given that both bodies of power were elected under a different system of government and a different Constitutional authority.  Ukrainian's voted them into office on the understanding that the divisions of power were different than what they are today. This leaves Ukraine with only two valid options . 1. Reinstate the 2004 amendments nn pursue reform though proper process o consultation an reviie or 2. Declare a spill in the Office of the president and members of Parliame

The People's Movement of Ukraine party has called for holding new parliamentary and presidential elections simultaneously in March 2007.   Interfax-Ukraine  Source: Kyiv Post The People's Movement of Ukraine (Rukh) in the wake of the Constitutional Court ruling on political reform, has called for snap parliamentary and presidential elections, as well as the mobilization of the Ukrainian people. "The only way out of this situation is to 'reboot' the authorities, and this means holding snap parliamentary and presidential elections. The voters who went to elections in 2007 and 2010 gave a mandate for an entirely different set of powers to the representatives of the authorities," reads a statement by Rukh that was posted on the Web site of the party. In addition, the party said that all members of the Constitutional Court who voted for this "contract ruling" should be dismissed. The

CC ruling provokes snap parliamentary and presidential elections CC ruling repealing 2004 constitutional amendments should be followed by snap parliamentary and presidential elections, honorary leader of the Socialist party Olexandr Moroz says, his press service reported Oct. 3. Source: ZIK The big question now is which way Ukraine will take, Moroz said. “This depends on how democratic our new president is and on VR lawmakers who will have to find the way out of the resulting legal stalemate, Moroz continued. If the CC ruling is considered legal, there is need to hold snap parliamentary and presidential elections. However, the constitution does not envisage such procedure, and therefore, there will be manipulation of constitutional provisions, Moroz went on. Viktor Yanukovych was elected to office under the 2004 Constitution which detailed his authority. Verkhovna Rada was also elected in 2007 for 5 years and is supposed to have the authority

Ukraine, following the recent ruling of Ukraine's Constitutional Court which struck down the 2004 amendments to Ukraine's Constitution, is now facing a major Constitutional Crisis with the country in a state of limbo and uncertainty.  Ukraine's Constitution and laws are not worth the paper they are printed on. Rule of Law no longer exists. Public confidence in the democratic process completely destroyed.  Yet Ukraine will survive.  It is a country that has learnt to exist without government or democratic rule of law, It is business as usual. Its political leaders having failed to restore civility and rational governance. I'ts loss of confidence stated soon after the election of Victor Yushchenko and the failure of Yushchenko to support the formation of a governing coalition follwoing the 2006 Parliamentary election.  having lost sup;port and power yushchenko systematically undermined Ukraine's Parliamentary government destabilising the system of governance and wit

The West to a large extent also shares responsibility for the railing if the Ukrainian government. They stood by and watch democracy in Ukraine being rapped and said nothing..    In April 2007 Yushchenko unconstitutionally and illegally interfered with the independence of Ukraine;s Constitutional Court in order to prevent the court from ruling against his decision to dismiss Ukraine's democratically elected Parliament. Yanukovych at the time was prime minister, his term of office was cut short by a President who showed no respect for rule of law or democracy.    The "West", and the Venice Commission in particular, stood by and remained silent was democracy and rule of law was being violated. They have no credibility or moral right to speak out against the violations have been complicit it its abuse and misuse previously. Yes they should speak out but they should have also spoken out back in 2007.  If they stood up now  and said they got it wrong back in

"Ukraine's 1996 constitution was hailed around the world at the time as 'the most democratic' in the former Soviet Union" A presidential system by its design autocratic not democratic. Latvia and Estonia have much more democratic constitutions then Ukraine's. Ukraine's biggest mistake was not adopting a European Parliamentary model from day one. The struggle to democratise Ukraine has been debated for decades. Proposals to change the system back in 2003 failed by five votes thanks to Yushchenko who has consistently opposed democracy in Ukraine. The only reason the 2004 amendments failed was due to Yushchenko and his ongoing misuse and abuse of office. His actions in 2007 dismissing Ukraine's Parliament had undermined political stability and confidence in the political process. Yanukovych's consolidation of power has only brought his office into disrepute as previously Yanukovych, when he as prime-minister advocated the parliamentary syste

Ukraine has just taken a backward step.  A step away from democratic rule of law  and a return of presidential autocracy.  A step that Viktor Yushchenko advocated and by his actions preordained Today the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled invalid the amendments to Ukraine's Constitution  that were agreed to as part of a peace deal in settlement of the "Orange Revolution" stand off in December 2004. The amendments agreed to in haste followed years of negotiation and efforts for Ukraine to make the transition away from a Soviet Presidential system and towards a European style democratic Parliamentary system . Ukraine previous President Viktor Yushchenko has consistently undermined the stability and success of Ukraine's Parliamentary system.  A system that saw Yanukovych elected Prime-minister in 2006 following Yushchenko failure to support the formation of a orange governing coalition. Yanukovych was at the time a supporter of the Constitutional provision tha

Constitution of Ukraine Pre 2005 - Current  (re-activated by ruling of the Constitutional Court published on 1 October 2010) Source: http://President.gov.ua Chapter I General Principles Article 1. Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social, law-based state. Article 2. The sovereignty of Ukraine extends throughout its entire territory. Ukraine is a unitary state. The territory of Ukraine within its present border is indivisible and inviolable.

President Viktor Yanukovych (second from left) shakes hands in this Aug. 17 photograph with close ally Volodymyr Kolesnichenko, head of Ukraine’s High Council of Justice, which appoints judges. Anatoly Golovin, also a close presidential ally who heads Ukraine’s Constitutional Court, is at left. Oleksandr Pasaniuk, head of the High Administrative Court, is at right. All three are recent appointees. (Mykhailo Markiv) Stacked Justice Source: Kyiv Post - Graham Stack, Peter Byrne and Yuriy Onyshkiv Ukrainians will almost certainly get major changes to the Constitution, whether they like it or not. To change the Constitution in a way that gives him and future presidents more power, President Viktor Yanukovych will benefit greatly from a friendly Constitutional Court that ratifies any new document. But have his supporters stacked the 18-member judicial body with Party of Regions supporters to ensure that the court sanctions

Ukraine's Constitutional Court will commence consideration of what will be one its most significant decisions in Ukraine's history. It will decide if Ukraine winds back the clock and restore a presidential autocratic state. One of the main outcomes of the 2004 "Orange Revolution" was Constitutional reform negotiated as part of a settlement of the civil unrest and crisis facing Ukraine. The constitutional changes saw Ukraine remove power from the central presidential authority and shift more towards a European style Parliamentary democracy. The Presidential system of authority has been the main problem facing Ukraine's development since its declaration of independence. Unlike other former soviet states such as Estonia and Latvia Ukraine did not adopt a parliamentary model of governance. It instead kept the soviet/US style presidential system. A system that has consistently failed Ukraine. In order to understand Ukraine;'s current situation you need

Ukraine has to a degree restored  political stability following the defeat and ousting of Victor Yushchenko. With this change has also come a change in political direction. In 2008/9 Ukraine was in debate and discussion as to how Ukraine would be best served by implementing Constitutional reform. There was at the time concern about the then pending Presidential election. One proposal was to remove power from the President and let Ukraine's head of state by a constitutional Two-thirds majority parliamentary vote as is the case in Estonia, Latvia and Moldavia. The discussions and proposals were derailed primarily by the President Viktor Yushchenko who's on standing in Ukraine had collapsed from a high of 52% in 2004 to less then 5% (below below 2%). Ukraine as a result retained the presidential system and spent over 200 million dollars in conducting a Presidential election which was held in January/February this year. Soon after taking Office Ukraine's newly electe

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on the eve of the anniversary of US independence, preaches to the Students at the Kyiv Polytechnic University. YouTube video of Clinton's townhall meeting in Kyiv. Transcript of remarks following meeting with Yanukovych

Our Ukraine - Peoples Self Defence (NUNS) to be dissolved following the demise of Yushchenko's leadership. Ukrainian News has been reporting large number of defections from their Parliamentary representatives to the governing coalition camp prompting a call for the parliamentary faction to be dissolved. If NUNS does dissolve, as expected, it will raise further concerns about Ukraine's Constitutional 'Imperative mandate' provisions (Article 81) which require members of parliament to remain a member of the parliamentary faction that appointed them. If the faction ceases to exist the provisions of Article 81 also fall. What impact this could have on the Constitutional validity of the current parliament is uncertain. The Constitutional Court having had a bet each way in its recent past rulings. Update. National Radio Ukraine is reporting the formal dissolution of the NUNS faction. This recent announcement could give rise for Yanukovych to call fro fresh parlia

A public opinion poll published by Research and Branding shows Yulia Tymoshenko sliding down to third place with Yanukovych remaining preferred President.  100 Days into the term of the new president Yanukovych remains in the lead with 45.5% support followed by Sergie Tipikpko on 13.0% and Tymoshenko with just over 10%. Ex-President Viktor Yushchenko does not even get a mention with all other possible contenders rating less the 5%. Whilst a majority of Ukrainians are not happy with their life style or the state of the economy most Ukrainians generally support the new government on 45% approval and 40% disapprove, compared to the oppositions ratings of 12.6% approval to just over 70% disapproval. The prime-minister Mykola Azarov has a 48.4% approval rating against Tymoshenko's 18.8%. If Parliamentary elections were held this weekend Party of Regions would be elected to office with an absolute majority. Party/Bloc Percentage Seats Party of Regions

Britain faces a hung parliament as Ukraine looks on. Results of the 2010 British Parliament The Conservative Part received the 36.1% Labour 29.2% and the Liberal Democratic Party close behind in third place with 22% Under Britain's discredited first-past-the post single member electorates system the part with then highest vote wins the seat. But the distribution of representative seats is not proportional. Electoral reform will be high on the British agenda with a push for the adoption of a preferential proportional representation system along the line of other European states. The changes in Britain are a lesson and a warning to Ukraine to not adopt a first-past-the-post system. National Results after 649 of 650 UK - National seats at a glance Prediction 326 to win Political Party Seats Change Conservative

Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych has accepted Syuzanna Stanik's resignation from the Constitutional Court one day following her reappointment .  The reasons and details of Stanik's decision to resign have not been made public. Her resignation avoid the messy need to cancel or reorganise the Courts membership which was over quota as a result of Stanik's reappointment.   The questions surrounding Yushchenko's allegation still remain unanswered  If Stanik has a case to answer then she should face prosecution, if on the other hand she is innocent then Yushchenko should be held account for his actions back in 2007 when he summarily dismissed three Constitutional Court Judges in order to prevent the court from ruling against his decree dismissing Ukraine's previous Parliament.  the truth of this matter may never be known.

Ukraine's President, Viktor Yanukovych , has passed a decree reinstating the appointment of Ms Susan Stanik to Ukraine's Constitutional Court. Yanukovych's decree re-instating Ms Stanik to the bench has righted a wrong and injustice undertaken by Ukraine's former president. Update: Stanik resigns . Ms  Stanik along with two other judges were summarily dismissed by Ukraine's former President, Viktor Yushchenko, in May 2007.  The actions of  Yushchenko were designed to prevent the Constitutional Court from ruling against his decree of April 2, 2007 dismissing Ukraine's previous Parliament. Yushchenko's dismissal of the three Judges was in direct breach of Ukraine's Constitution in that by dismissing the three judges Yushchenko had interfered with the independence of Ukraine's Judiciary. Viktor Yushchenko as President had no authority to dismiss members of the Constitutional Court. Yushchenko speciously alleged at the time that the judge

The latest Public Opinion poll conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) lists Ukraine's former President, Viktor Yushchenko, with less then 1.6% support.  If fresh parliamentary elections were held Yushchenko's Our Ukraine would lose representation in Ukraine's parliament. If the results of the poll were translated into parliamentary seats only five parties representing 64.7% of the electorate would cross the 3% representation threshold.  - Party of Regions would win an absolute majority with 253 seats and a constitutional majority (>300) with the support of  Sergei Tigipko's Strong Ukraine . Yulia Tymoshenko would win only 95 seats, Arsenyi Yatsenyuk 30 and the Communist Party of Ukraine 21 seats. Parliamentary speaker Volodymir Lytvyn would lose representation along with Yushchenko's Our Ukraine . Over 13% of the electorate are undecided. Party Leader Percentage Seats Party of Regions Viktor Yanukovych

Yanukovych’s revenge:   KyivPost | Andreas Umland Largely unnoticed in the West, Ukraine’s new president, Viktor Yanukovych, brought to power an illegitimate government in March. Though being installed via a seemingly orderly parliamentary procedure, the current Ukrainian cabinet headed by Prime Minister Mykola Azarov has no proper popular mandate. How did that come about? Ukraine has a proportional electoral system with closed lists. This means that voters do not elect individual candidates, but can only approve of pre-determined lists presented to them by various political parties or blocs. The members of the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, become deputies only in so far as they are included in their bloc’s or party’s lists the composition of which is beyond the reach of voters. The electoral success and resulting faction size of parties or blocs in parliament is thus mainly determined by the attractiveness of their ideologies, and charisma of