Ukraine Today - An Independent Political Review

The Estonian Parliament has re-elected its head of state ,  President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, demonstrating there is no need for a direct election of its president.  Estonia is a full Parliamentary democracy and it's head of state is elected by a two-thirds constitutional majority of Estonia 101 member Parliament. This process allows Estonia to avoid the high cost of expenditure that is required for conduct direct elections and for candidates to run campaigns.  It is a system that Ukraine should also adopt.  In 2009 Ukraine came close to doing just that but Vikor Yushchenko opposed this model. The Estonian president's powers are largely ceremonial is modeled in the Finish Constitution which also has it's Parliament elect its head of state. Estonia, which joined the eurozone on Jan. 1, now has one of the best performing economies in the debt-ridden 17-nation currency bloc. Economic output increased 8.4 percent annually in the second quarter, and Estonia's public

Ukraine's Draft Law on the election of members of Parliament of Ukraine (Source: Venice Commission ) will make things worst. The MMP system does not work. It creates two levels of unequal mandates within the same chamber. It did not work before so what makes them think it will work now? 1. Under the draft proposal single member electorates will be decided by a first past the post voting system whoever wins the highest vote wins the seat. This means in a three cornered seat of say 34.0%, 33.5% and 32.5% the person with 34% of the vote wins, even though 66% are opposed to them. 2. The remaining seats are filled using a party list system but the threshold quota will be increased If they MUST have a divided mandate (Local versus national interests) then create a bicameral parliament with the Senate elected on a national interest mandate and the legislative assembly (lower house) elected on a local mandate. Any single member electorate MUST be decided

5,000 people protest on Ukraine's Independence day admist reports of minor clashes with police and protestors who played up for the cemeras.  This is a very small number even by Ukrainian standards.  It looks like Viktor Yushenko's detrayal has taken its toll and Ukraine is no longer willing to defend democratic values.  Such is the extent of Yuzhshenko's detrayal. No one will trust him or democracy again. Two decades and Ukraine is still not a democracy.  The main obstacle being the President.  Former President Viktor Yushchenko opposed Ukraine becoming a full parliamentary democracy which would have seen power removed from the office of the President.  Yushchenko's term of office was a complete disappointment with what few positives there were being overshadowed by negativity, division and betrayal. Viktor Yanukovych when Prime Minister advocated democratic reform but soon after wining the Office of the President sought to consolidate power and reverse the democratic

"In addition, Ukraine has successfully written its own constitution and established democratic mechanisms for the distribution of power and election of representative officials."   - Kyiv post opinion Ukraine's Constitution unlike other successful former USSR states took 5 years to agree to and unfortunately retained the autocratic presidential system of "rule by decree" governance, Ukraine has never been a democratic state.  It came close in 2004/5 not by design but as a compromise arising from the Orange Revolution,  Ukraine managed to adopt a Parliamentary system of government.  It was a step in the right direction but it did not go far enough.  It retained provisions that allowed Viktor Yushchenko to wreck havoc and deny Ukraine the rights of self governance. Yushchenko continually undermined Ukraine's democratic development by refusing to allow Ukraine to complete the transition for autocracy to democracy. His hatred of d

Ukraine is standing at the precipice with claims that the current administration is pursuing a policy of political retribution intimation and harassment.four members of the opposition are in detention and facing prosecution for decisions made whilst they were in government. The processes embarked on by the courts has violated the constitutional and human rights of those involved.  At the heart of the allegations is ex Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko who himself has escaped prosecution for his abuse of power when he was in office. Yushchenko appears to have secured immunity from prosecution for himself and his family whilst extracting revenge from those who he had betrayed. Foreignnotes has an excellent number of articles and commentary on the events surrounding this case including a link to a report by the Danish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights .  This report is a must read to try and understand some of the maneuvering that has been going on. As Ukraine is about to

I thought it is worth while publishing a reference to a review by the Venice Commission. on the changes to Ukraine's Constitutional Order .  As usual the comments of the Venice Commission lie deep within the use of text.  but the message is clear for those that have a good command of the English legal language. Some paragraphs of note: 26. As mentioned above, on 30 September 2010, the CCU (hereinafter, “the 30 September Judgment”) issued a Decision declaring Law No. 2222 unconstitutional “due to a violation of the constitutional procedure of its consideration and adoption”18. The main argument is that the Verkhovna Rada has overstepped its competences fixed in Article 159 of the Constitution, as it cannot amend the Constitution without a Constitutional Court opinion. In fact, according to Article 159 of the Constitution, a draft law on introducing amendments to the Constitution can only be considered by the Verkhovna Rada “upon the availability of an opinion of t