In search of a way out: how to find a democratic country in this political crisis

The political crisis gripping Ukraine today happened because the country lacks institutes to defend political competition and democratic freedoms. What is critical is that this crisis be resolved in a legitimate, constitutional manner, whether that be calling legitimate early elections or through a negotiated compromise. Even more importantly, it must push all of Ukraine’s political forces to undertake reforms that will enshrine the country’s democracy

Political crisis caused by unprotected democracy

The political crisis in Ukraine became possible because the institutions that should guarantee democratic rights and freedoms are either ineffective or missing altogether.

The political changes that took place with the Presidential election in 2004 brought with them some key democratic freedoms: free Verkhovna Rada elections, freedom of speech and of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of political competition, a strong opposition, and the beginnings of a civil society. Still, in the two years since then, the foundations have not been built for democratic institutions that would enshrine and entrench the democratic freedoms gained. The state machine can still be used for administrative leverage in political struggles, the Constitutional Court has proved ineffective, the judiciary is not carrying out justice, the rights of the opposition are not enshrined in law, the organization of political parties remains far from democratic standards, and the levers of political influence available to civil society exist only formally.

None of the Governments has carried out the reforms necessary for this. None of the Governments has worked on the basis of public policy standards or instituted a democratic system of decisionmaking that might allow the opposition and civil society to have input into state policy.

The absence of such institutions allows any government to feel itself above punishment, while the opposition feels marginalized. This leads to gradually radicalized tactics of political competition. As a result, the means of political struggle move ever farther away from democratic principles and the rule of law.

Indeed, the coalition has been expanding its majority unconstitutionally, the coalition and opposition approved a Law on the Cabinet of Ministers containing a number of provisions that counter the Constitution, and the President refuses to reinstate one of the oblast governors despite a ruling from the Supreme Court that requires this. In short, free political competition has moved outside the bounds of the law and is slowly eroding both democracy and the rule of law.

Early elections: A chance but no guarantees

In situations where there is a serious political crisis, the practice of developed democracies shows that the use of preterm legislative elections can be beneficial. When the political elite are unable to resolve their differences independently and legitimately, early elections make it possible to get a fresh mandate from the people, who are the only source and bearer of power, and thus to renew the violated legitimacy of both the government and the opposition, and to pass judgment on the two sides in the conflict.

This happened in Great Britain in Winter 1979, when the Government of Margaret Thatcher replaced that of James Callaghan in preterm elections and went on to become one of the most successful reform Governments. This has happened in many other democratic countries as well. Moreover, the Head of State has the right to dissolve the parliament for purely political reasons.

In the Ukrainian context, early elections, should they take place, will have a similar function: to confirm the mandates of various political forces. But elections alone will not resolve the key problems with democracy in Ukraine. They will not guarantee the democratization of the political system or the resolution of political conflicts. There is a good chance that the next coalition and Government will have the same conflicts with the President and this will return the country to the same crisis it is in now.

Negotiations: A lost opportunity

Negotiations are always a legitimate and democratic way of resolving conflicts. Still, the content and outcomes of the roundtables held in 2006–2007 have discredited negotiations as a tool for resolving political conflict in Ukraine.

The negotiations tended not to have a strategic character and were not directed at removing the causes of the political conflict. Moreover, their subject matter failed to offer a confirmation of the democratic and legal foundations of the work of Government, the opposition and all the branches of power.

The various parties did not set as their goal reaching understanding as to priorities in the evolution of the country’s political system or state policy, but rather used these negotiations as a tactical means in their political struggles, an exchange of mutual concessions in the form of appointments, powers or rights—which often violated both democratic principles and the principle of rule of law. Two examples were the Law on the Cabinet of Ministers and the imperative mandate, which were supposed to cure an undemocratic disease using undemocratic methods.

Placing the Manifesto of National Unity on the agenda proved a premature effort to resolve state policy using a democratic approach when it was the actual approach that needed to be consolidated. So, until the agenda is altered, as well as the approach to negotiating, there is no chance that they will lead the country out of the current political crisis.

Talks need to focus on necessary changes in rules

This political crisis must be resolved in a legitimate, constitutional manner and serve to spur the establishment of institutions, procedures and rules that will not allow any political players whatsoever to allow themselves to violate legal norms and freedom of political competition. Everyone already knows the list of reforms necessary for this: the judiciary, public administration and so on.

However, so far, none of the Governments have been able to institute these reforms. This means that the primary objective is to establish the real reasons for the current failures and to declare their elimination a top priority.

Author: Ivan Presniakov