Awaiting the message
VR majority and even minority are prepared to hear the President’s address
Presidential address to parliament is a very good democratic tradition. It is enshrined in law and has a timeframe in a number of countries. For example, the State of the Union at the start of the year outlines the White House’s priorities for the next 12 months. In Ukraine this tradition has a hard time being practiced. If one analyzed Viktor Yanukovych’s annual messages to the Verkhovna Rada, the result would be as follows: In 2010, he refused to appear in parliament and forwarded his message in writing. In 2011, he addressed the MPs in person (April 7), but the following year saw another written message in July. What will happen this year?
Despite the repeated assurances of government officials that the head of state is about to start working on his address, the timeframe kept changing until Speaker Volodymyr Rybak recently informed that the VR had received the message and that “copies are being forwarded to the MPs so they can analyze them.” Rybak did not specify whether Yanukovych would deliver the message himself. Considering the president’s previous appearances in parliament once every two years, this year the MPs should hear him share his views on Ukraine’s domestic and foreign political situation.
There are two key aspects to the issue: (a) Why should the head of state address parliament and (b) the importance of his appearance.
Speaker Rybak said copies were being supplied to the MPs, yet MP Volodymyr Oliinyk (Party of Regions) told The Day: “We haven’t received any copies, but we expect them within the next couple of days… Presidential addresses to parliament are always very important because they are the key messages on what is happening in this country. This time we’d like to hear an explanation of the [Ukrainian government’s] stand in the matter of the Customs Union. Personally I regard this as the highest priority. One ought to bear in mind that the president does not go into detail but speaks about strategic things, domestic and foreign policies, economic reform, and so on.”
Opposition’s MP Viktor Chumak (UDAR) has not received a copy, either: “None of the MPs has seen the president’s message – that’s a hush-hush document! I don’t think the president will appear in parliament, considering that he did not attend the opening of the first session of this parliament when he had to be there…”
Does the head of state have to appear at the Verkhovna Rada where no one will listen to him? When he visited the Verkhovna Rada last time, to hear the Constitutional Court justices take their oath, he was met by the opposition sporting white sweaters reading “Free Yulia!” Similar slogans were then shouted, changing to “Down With The Gang!” as the guarantor of the Constitution started marching out of the audience. The president was treated about the same way, with the shouts “For Shame!”, when speaking by the podium in February 2012, during the opening of the 10th VR Session.
“I would like the head of state to address parliament in person, but not in a condition in which it is these days. The president’s message is not a whim but a constitutional requirement, and this ritual must be observed. Those present must hear him out, whether prepared to applaud or grinding their teeth, and then voice their impressions. Who would want to be president and appear in parliament as a symbol of [executive] power, only to be spat in the face? The MPs can’t hear what is being said from the podium because of the noise in the audience. The opposition demands that the president appear in parliament and then doesn’t want to listen to him. Then why demand his presence in the first place?”
As a matter of fact, the opposition refused to recognize Yanukovych as President and ignored the inauguration ceremony. A while later, opposition members started forwarding inquires and making statements addressing the head of state, including demands and petitions, as in the case of Yulia Tymoshenko when they asked for presidential pardon. What kind of logic is this one? How pragmatic is the stand the opposition takes when the president appears in parliament?
“The opposition has the right to chant slogans, to make the president aware of certain things it requires. It is also true, however, that if the head of state paid more attention to contacts with fellow Ukrainians and opposition members, the situation would never be like this one. We do not know whether the president knows about the problems that deeply concern his fellow Ukrainians. No representatives of opposition parties or public activists are allowed to see him – and some of these activists stand trial for displaying innocent posters. In this situation someone must keep the president informed about the public stand. From what I know, all complaints the opposition forwards to the president are returned to those we complain about, so the opposition has no alternative,” says Chumak. He adds that the president should be allowed to deliver his message: “Of course, the opposition keeps demanding that the president speak from the podium. The demarche took place when the president did not have to make a speech, when the justices of the Constitutional Court were introduced. By protocol, the president had to say nothing, but we used the opportunity and asked him to speak. When he appears [in parliament] with his message, no one will interfere with his address. He must have his say. Establishing contact is the main thing. Despite the experience of the previous parliament, we ought to come to terms with our colleagues in opposition and give the president an opportunity to make his address and then discuss things with him.”
And so the president’s annual message to the Verkhovna Rada is one of the democratic traditions and it is required by law. This requirement must be fulfilled. It is Viktor Yanukovych’s duty. On the other hand, the opposition is required to act in a democratic manner, whatever its attitude to the head of state.
