On different approaches of presidents

The constitutional debates, which are going on in Ukraine for the past two months, have not come to any solution. The discussion launched by the opposition leaders has been joined by experts, public figures and politicians from the opponent forces. Some consider the question of making amendments to the Main Law as the way of riding out the political crisis. The propelling of the topic of the con­sti­tutional reforms has given way to talks on holding a referen­dum. The dis­cussion is still going on – is there a need to bring back the amend­ments to the Constitution of 2004 which were cancelled in 2010?

Former guarantors of the Constitution have as well commented on the to­pic of the change of the Constitution. Their thoughts, as well as the standpoints expres­sed in the society, have become polarized. Ukraine’s first pre­sident Leonid Kravchuk considers that returning to the Constitution of 2004 is unreasonable, because it won’t solve the existing problems: creation of such a system of power, which would ensure the solution of the urgent problems and address the new challenges. “We need a complex approach based on the ori­ginal strategic interests of the people, rather than the interests of parties and chiefs. The new text of the Constitution must be comprehensible to people, it must protect them, and open the opportunity to live a decent life without a brutal pressure on the honor and dignity of a person,” Kravchuk argued.

His successor on the post of the pre­sident, Leonid Kuchma, sticks to a diffe­rent opinion: “We need to go back to the Constitution of 2004. The reason is not that it is perfect. No. We don’t have much time left. Ukraine as a state is falling apart at the seams. After that you can sit and improve it.” The former head of state remind­ed that the Main Law which was approved in 2004 is based on the mechanism of protection from channeling of centra­lization and concentration of power into autocracy, and further – to dictatorship.

It should be underlined that it was in time of Kuchma’s presidency that the Constitution of 1996 was approved and the amendments were made in 2004. So, the responsibility for the system which was created is on the second president.

COMMENTARY

Viktoria PODHORNA, political scientist:

“Kravchuk and Kuchma had diffe­rent approaches to the Constitution. First, Kravchuk is the head of the Constitutional Assembly, established in the time of the incumbent president, and he is interested in application of their developments. Those include many useful projects. Apart from that, Kravchuk is right concerning the violation of the constitutional field. The pact of elites as an agreement between pro-governmental politicians and the opposition, asserted by the Constitution of 2004 with the participation of international observers, and approved in purely a political channel with violation of many procedures. Later it enabled Yanukovych to bring back the Main Law of 1996 in the same illegal manner. This has totally ruined the constitutional field in the state and led to the outrageous situation we are having today and triggered the current political crisis. Bringing back the algorithm of changing the Constitution via different acts won’t in fact restore the constitutional field, it can only bring it back to the zero version.

“At the same time, Kravchuk has a very interesting standpoint: he speaks about right things, but later mentions that a ‘gentlemen agreement’ is needed. What is it other than the same pact of elites? There is no way to speak about gentlemen’s agreement when the thing is about acting within legal field. It does not make sense.

“Taking into account the fact that there was at least an agreement when the changes were made in 2004, the incumbent power has unilaterally violated the legal field, and I have serious doubts that they are ready to work seriously on the new draft of Constitution.

“As for Kuchma, who’s an adhe­rent of the Constitution of 2004, we remember how actively he was promoting it in the end of his second cadency and taking part in roundtables. That was what he needed at that time. Now it turns out he remains consistent in his position, although undoubtedly there is some political reason. At that time Kuchma appealed to the fact that approving of the new text of the Constitution is a step against authorita­rianism. However, he remained an authoritarian president for a long while himself.

“But the Constitution of 2004 is in fact imperfect. Both experts and politicians have been warning against it, because it was mainly drafted by the Med­ved­chuk Administration, so it is based on the mechanisms of misba­lancing of Ukraine’s political system and certain external interests.”