Parliamentary Review

 

The eighth session of Ukrainian Parliament has drawn public attention and heated debate. Three key issues tackled by the Verkhovna Rada this session will shape Ukrainian politics in the upcoming year and for some time to come: the land code, the election law, and the new budget.

 

 

Who should be given the right to own land, and what are the limits of this righti These were the fundamental issues that the Land Code was to resolve. In this country with a deeply rooted feudal history and a recent Communist past, that struggle had to take place in a historical-political context.

 

The October 25 debate on the land code was nothing short of spectacular. While most members of the Verchovna Rada thought they would consider the legislation in its second reading that day, the communist deputies blocked the Speaker's podium by 8 am - two hours before the session was to begin. The sequence of events that followed included irregular recesses, a meeting of the Regulations Commission, damage to the deputies' electronic voting pads, vote by show of hands, destruction of the vote tally by the Communists, a second vote by show of hands, and exchanges of views with the help of fists. More than 12 hours later, the Head of the Counting Commission, Volodymyr Zayets, announced that 235 deputies had voted for the Land Code in the second reading. The Land Code had become law.

 

But the issue of land ownership is not exhausted by this new Act. Another battle is about to begin - admittedly under somewhat more advantageous conditions for its supporters. Changes will be sought not only by opponents but also by Code's supporters.

 

Controversy over the land issue is understandable in the behavior of the Communist faction and other parties of national-democratic orientation. Having "lost the land," Communists expect their influence over Ukraine's rural population to be eroded, and therefore intend to fight any provisions for the sale of land. They claim that there were a series of procedural violations and are challenging the results of the vote in the Constitutional Court.

 

Since there was no article-by-article debate in the second reading, the Code retains 15 to 20 sections that are not acceptable even to its supporters. For instance, having provided for the right to sell land, the Code does not resolve the issue of selling property certificates. In this regard, many consider that land can be bought or sold only after distributing demarcated parcels to individual owners, and not by buying or selling property certificates. Unresolved issues include the relationship between the rights of landowners and local government institutions, and requisition of land for social purposes.

 

National democratic forces find themselves in a quandary. On the one hand, these parties support private land ownership - a fundamental point in the programs of the Rukh parties. On the other hand, members of Rukh factions cannot but realize that any inadequacy in the Code's text, or inability of authorities to implement the letter of the law, risks depriving rural Ukrainians of land and the formation of large landowner clans. Declarations have been issued that a series of special measures and approval of 20 or 30 related laws will remove the risk of leaving the rural population landless; but these are far from convincing for many people. In fact, the populace is afraid of the somewhat analogous process in the industrial sector, when disengagement from government saw the collapse of entire industries.

 

A historical imperative for resolving land ownership is to give the land to those who work it as a motivating measure. So far, this imperative has been subordinated to political aims, namely dismantling the remnants of Soviet rural relationships. Optimists hope that time will change the nature of these relationships. Of course, this will only happen if the oligarchs don't buy out the land and supporters of the historical imperative.

 

 

The law on elections had been bandied about by Parliament for many years, and during this session, deputies meant to finalize it. A law acceptable to the majority was passed in the third quarter after five revisions.

 

Some of the specific language deals with electoral districts and polling stations, electoral commissions, a mechanism for challenging decisions, formation of an electoral fund and its use, nomination and registration of candidates, election campaigning, voting and determining vote results, conducting repeat elections, early elections, by-elections, and more. But essentially, the deputies agreed to the President's proposal for a mixed election system. This means that half the deputies (225) will be personally elected in their districts with a simple majority of votes cast; and the other half will be appointed from party lists, with these remaining 225 seats apportioned among parties according to the popular vote they obtained nationally. An earlier proposal favoured a ratio leaning more heavily toward appointments from party lists based on the national popular vote, which was more satisfying to "ideological parties," such as the Communist and Rukh factions.

 

Despite a majority consensus, some deputies still believe the law will need to be revisited, but only after the parliamentary elections on March 31, 2002. Fundamental disagreements concern two items - the term of the electoral campaign and how electoral commissions that conduct the election process are to be formed. After consulting with the heads of parliamentary factions, President Kuchma decided not to press other points if his proposals for these two issues were incorporated into the law. The new law stipulates that electoral commissions are not to be formed by local government administrations, but by a vertically organized electoral system whose members are nominated by political parties and blocs and are subject to the electoral process.

 

Although national elections are by a mixed system, the President indicated that he would not support the same system for local elections. Nevertheless, the deputies did not agree that local elections should take place on the basis of the majority system. Parliament approved a Concept for regional elections, which provides that elections of city councils under oblast jurisdiction, oblast centers (i.e., oblast capitals), and Kyiv and Sevastopol are to be held according to the mixed election system. Other localities will adhere to the majority system.

 

 

For the second time in Ukraine the budget process began in accordance with constitutional requirements. This does not mean that there will be fewer problems with budget approval next year, nor does it guarantee successful completion of the budget process. The major issues concerning budget 2002 are the budget structure and determination of income.

 

At first glance, the issue of budget structure seems to be a matter of formality, but indeed it is more complex. Financial resources from various funds, particularly monies gained from privatization, are deployed by the Cabinet according to its own decisions and are not subject to control by parliament. Thus, government may be tempted to target the funds inappropriately. So, when the Cabinet did not include the funds received from privatization into the income part of the budget, the Budget Committee interpreted this as the government's intention to avoid parliamentary accountability. However, during second reading of the bill, the government proposed to include these monies in the budget section on "financing." The argument on possible "inappropriate targeting" of funds lost its weight since funds entered into any section of the budget are subject to the same accountability for their use as required of those in the "expenditure" section. The question arises "why did the budget committee disagree with government's original decision not to enter privatization funds into the income part of the budgeti"

 

An increase in the income part of the budget offers the possibility of also increasing expenditures. But, funds entered in the "financing" section may be used, for instance, to cover the budget deficit or payment of the external debt. Naturally, deputies are inclined to increase the expenditure segments in view of the upcoming parliamentary elections.

 

In fact, everything taking place in parliament during the eighth session is calculated in the context of the upcoming elections. And Ukraine's budget process is unique in that it occurs immediately prior to an election campaign. The budget is always a declaration of government abilities, whether real or imagined, as well as an indicator of dominant political tendencies in parliament. This year, the process was particularly affected by jostling for power by players who wish to wield greater influence in the next Parliament, namely the blocs Our Ukraine and For Ukraine United. Government interests, vying for public support, and factional opposition to the Executive branch also affected the budget process.

 

Clearly, Parliamentary deputies tackled rather fundamental issues during their eighth session - and these same issues could prove to be formative in the upcoming elections. Certainly, the budget offers deputies the possibility of declaring intentions, and for government the chance to realize them. Many deputies tie their re-election prospects to changes in the social landscape in the rural areas - the Land Code is anticipated to make a great impact in this respect. But, election procedures and vote counting continue to be the most important issues in every election since independence. This explains the diligent attention deputies gave to Election Law provisions for forming electoral commissions. The objective of every elected official is to get re-elected - the next election will tell whose ideas were most in tune with voters.