Global Insight Perspective

Significance

In a televised address to the nation on 2 April, President Victor Yushchenko announced the dismissal of the current parliament and has called new elections for 27 May.

Implications

The parliament refused to obey, threatened to impeach the president and challenged his decision in the Constitutional Court. It also replaced the Central Electoral Commission with the members of the pre-2004 team, headed by a member of the governing coalition. Supporters of both sides are descending on Kiev in their thousands.

Outlook

The situation is unstable at present, with all political forces appearing resolved to stay behind their chosen line. Parliamentary elections are still more likely to take place than not, although they might be accompanied by a referendum on confidence in the president.

Risk Ratings

For all the uncertainty and worrying insecurity accompanying the current Ukrainian political crisis, it may prove to be a healthy one. In light of this, Global Insight is not changing the risk rating at this time. Ukrainians need to find a way for opposing views to coexist in a workable and effective manner. The current crisis participants are appealing to the constitution and democratic processes, rather than the "interests of the people", as is typical of the more militant and populist forces. It only remains for Ukrainian elites to agree on the principles of their coexistence and start practicing them.

President Viktor Yushchenko's eventual decision to dismiss the parliament at 21.00 local time on 2 April opened the door to the outpouring of the crisis that has been brewing for many months. Its essence is the power contest between two political forces that defy clear definition in western political terms. One camp comprises the liberally oriented parties and bodies, of which the party Our Ukraine and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYT) are notable. They brought Yushchenko to power in the Orange Revolution of December 2004 through public rallies challenging the electoral victory of the previous president's preferred successor, Victor Yanukovych. In March 2006, however, Yanukovych's Party of the Regions marshalled its forces to win the majority of parliamentary seats, giving Yanukovych himself the premiership. The stand-off between Yushchenko and Yanukovych was initially defined in pro-Western vs. pro-Russian terms, although it soon transpired that both pursued fairly pragmatic foreign policies. Rather, it would be more correct to describe the Prime Minister's camp as uniting more traditional Soviet-type functionaries and administrators, whereas the presidential supporters mostly come from independent businesses and the intelligentsia.

The first experience of having a president and prime minister from opposing forces proved, as expected, unsuccessful. It was fraught with power struggles and conflicts over the limits of each man's authority, which were not helped, and even were partially caused, by the country's 2004 constitution. The constitution was amended in 2004 by the outgoing president Leonid Kuchma, and offset the failure of his preferred successor by substantially weakening the president against the parliament, but left many loopholes over which Yushchenko and the opposition, on one side, and Yanukovych and his parliamentary majority on the other, clashed, eventually resulting in the current situation.

It's the Constitution

Ironically but importantly, both sides on the current stand-off are appealing to the country's notorious constitution. The president dissolved parliament on the grounds that it had started operating on the basis of individual membership, rather than factions, as the constitution stipulates that it must. This is of importance to the opposition, because their attempt to paralyse the parliament by a walkout on 14 March was being frustrated by the other sides' efforts to tempt opposition members to defect to their ranks on an individual basis; should this tactic have succeeded, Yanukovych's camp could potentially have obtained a qualifying parliamentary majority, pushing the president and the opposition to the very margins of decision-making. The president also obeyed the letter of the constitution by holding last-chance talks with the parliamentary speaker and the prime minister, which did not, however, bring any progress on the matter. The president insists he is acting in full compliance with the law.

The Prime Minister, in his turn, stayed in the same field and challenged the President's decision in the Constitutional Court, while parliament ruled that the dissolution decree was unlawful, and that the president should be impeached for this action.

The fact that both opposing sides are appealing to the constitution and seeking a resolution of the crisis in the letter of the law is the most important feature of the current crisis, and it bodes well for the democratic development of Ukraine. It means that both of the country's political forces by now understand that they cannot resolve their disputes by referring to force or enigmatic "people's interests", open to any interpretation, but rather that the only acceptable path is to appeal to the existing rules of the game as set out by the constitution and the law. At present, Ukrainian political forces appear committed to playing their game by the rules. The main—and it is no mean feat—task at the moment is to define and set out such rules in a way to allow a voice and access to political decision-making to all parties concerned.

Outlook and Implications

The current crisis derives from a breach in Ukraine's inherent duality, which has proved essential for the stable, if not always effective, functioning of the state. Despite the different views on the necessity of new elections, both sides of the current conflict show confidence in their ability to perform well in the possible ballot. They will end up in the parliament again, although possibly in a different configuration, and one single party is unlikely to dominate. With new elections, they will be forced into continuing the uncomfortable, tiresome and often frustrating process of finding a way to collaborate, which constitutes the gist of any democracy.

It is wishful thinking on part of both opposing camps to hope that they can prevail decisively enough to run the country single-handedly.

It is essential that the Ukrainian political pendulum regains its equilibrium, preferably through a negotiated solution between the competing political forces. The timing and methods of resolution of the current crisis, however, are yet to transpire.

www.globalinsight.com

www.wmrc.com