Ukraine Today - An Independent Political Review

Source: Kyivpost The Venice Commission has proposed that Ukraine introduce a proportional electoral system with open regional lists, rather than switch to a mixed electoral system. "If we're talking about the introduction of a mixed system, Ukraine has [already] had a negative experience in applying such a system. A mixed system may lead to abuses [at elections]. Thus, the Venice Commission will propose changing the current system to a proportional one, with open regional lists, rather than switching to a mixed system," Venice Commission Secretary Thomas Markert said at committee hearings on the discussion of bills on parliamentary elections in Kyiv on Monday. He said that the text of the bill tabled in parliament by deputies of the coalition (authored by Oleksandr Yefremov, Ihor Sharov, and other MPs) was different from the text that was drafted by the working group set up by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and that was submitted to...

The Venice Commission on October 13 published its initial review of Ukraine's proposed changes to the electoral law and representational model in the lead-up to the 2012 parliamentary elections . for those interested in democratic representation, it is a paper worth reading. The Commission's review has highlighted many of the perceived problems with the proposed model. A number of points of criticism worthy of being noted include: Limitation on the right to stand for anyone convicted of a deliberate crime, regardless of the severity of the crime committed, which is contrary to OSCE commitments, numerous recommendations of OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission in the electoral field, good practice and other international standards. The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR are aware that such limitation is based on the Article 76 of the Constitution of Ukraine and hope that this problem will be considered when the Constitution is revised; Lack of clear criteria and deadlines f...

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 ...

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...

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 i...

Review on Law of Presidential Elections The Venice Commission has published its " Joint Opinion on the Law on Amending some legislative acts on the election of the President of Ukraine adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 24 July 2009 " A. Nomination and Candidate Registration 14. Articles 9.4 and 56.5 include a restriction on candidacy based upon criminal conviction for any “intentional crime.” The Venice Commission has rightly criticised the Legislation in its application.  A common criteria in assessing a persons rights to nominate for public office and the seriousness of any offence is to restrict anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence resulting in a five-year term of imprisonment.  Someone who has committed a serious felony.  As the law stands it could be used to unfairly prevent a candidate who has a minor conviction  from standing or worst still the conviction could be politically motivated.  A minimum five year prison term is...

The Venice Commission's comments and review of President Yushchenko's proposed Draft Constitution is not an endorsement or statement of approval. It has correctly stated and criticised the fact that the proposed draft does not address the fundamental issue of conflicts between the various powers The Venice Commission appears to have brushed over a number of issues, most importantly is the question of competence of Yushchenko's proposed Senate and the fact that the composition and representative model of the Senate does not conform to modern democratic values. One vote one value denied The imbalance in Yushchenko's Senate mandate is significant as Western Ukraine under Yushchenko's proposal would have a significant advantage, disproportionally, over Eastern Ukraine. Whilst the commission has touched slightly on this issue it failed to highlight fully the problems and disparity in the proposed model. The Commission did question the merit and justification of the c...

Strasbourg , 15 June 2009 Opinion no. 534/2009 CDL-AD(2009)024 Or. Eng. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OPINION ON THE DRAFT LAW OF UKRAINE AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION PRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 79 th Plenary Session (Venice, 12-13 June 2009) based on comments by Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) Ms Hanna SUCHOCKA (Member, Poland) Mr Kaarlo TUORI (Member, Finland) Mr P é ter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) Mr Gérard MARCOU (Expert, Directorate General of Democracy and Political Affairs, Council of Europe) I. INTRODUCTION 1. By letter dated 6 April 2009 the Permanent Representation of Ukraine to the Council of Europe asked the Venice Commission to give an opinion on the draft revised Constitution submitted by the President of Ukraine to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on...