Why rock the boat?

The opposition has announced that the Cabinet and the Prime Minister Mykola Azarov himself may resign in the coming days. “We will vote on a no confidence motion and a motion to dismiss the Cabinet on April 19. The Communists may support it, and then we will have another prime minister as soon as in May,” the Fatherland party’s faction leader Arsenii Yatseniuk told the media. It should be noted that the bill to that effect has already been entered on the parliament’s agenda, as confirmed by the Speaker Volodymyr Rybak.

It is common knowledge that the opposition has bandied about demands for the Cabinet’s resignation from the very beginning of the Verkhovna Rada’s second session, and this demand is one of the slogans of the “Ukraine, Arise!” protest campaign. The Day decided to talk to the Penta Applied Political Studies Center’s chairman Volodymyr Fesenko about the chances of these demands fulfillment in the absence of majority support in parliament, and their practicality, provided that the president controls the Cabinet formation process.

What is your take on the opposition’s statement about the imminent Communist-supported no-confidence vote to dismiss the prime minister and the entire Cabinet? Can they muster enough votes?

“The Communists hinted at their willingness to do so in March, but they have said nothing on the matter since. Moreover, they have been cooperating with the Party of Regions lately, most prominently when they held an out-of-chamber session together. Theoretically, they can provide some votes against Azarov under a free vote arrangement, but these would hardly be enough. To remove the current prime minister, the opposition has to get support from a majority of the Communist faction and all the independents. To date, the opposition has not done it.

“More generally, should the Communists and most independents vote with the opposition, it would mean the complete loss of control in the parliament by the ruling circle. Should intrigues within the ruling group prompt them to fire the prime minister via the vote in parliament, it would mean a personal challenge to the president. The parliamentary dismissal of the prime minister would mean a radical weakening of Yanukovych’s power. None of the ruling group’s factions is ready to put such a challenge now. Should any of them misunderstand the situation and dare take this step, it will have serious negative consequences, sparking fundamental conflicts within the ruling group. Therefore, Azarov’s dismissal by the parliament is highly unlikely.”

Tiahnybok suggested that the Communists and some other MPs can vote for dismissal because they had been instructed by the higher-ups to free Azarov’s office for Arbuzov.

“Everybody is free to suggest anything, but the prime minister’s dismissal by the parliament would be a sign that the opposition is able to independently influence the Cabinet’s fate. However, it is the president who is constructing the system of checks and balances. If he would like to promote Arbuzov and the Family faction, it seems reasonable to replace prime minister by the presidential decree, so as to show who runs the country and controls the Cabinet. Should we see a new prime minister by the end of the year, it will be due to the president’s decision.”

What practical effects would the resignation of the current Cabinet have, provided that the opposition will be unable to form one of their own?

“The Cabinet is the chief executive body. It is responsible for directing economic development. In terms of actual impact on the state governance, of course, president has most influence, the Cabinet comes second, and the Verkhovna Rada third. The Cabinet’s resignation would mean the opposition establishing control in the parliament, with Azarov’s resignation fulfilling their plans. Therefore, it is absolutely unacceptable for the ruling group.”

Should we take unblocking of the parliament on April 9 as a compromise?

“It was rather MPs’ self-preservation instinct in action. Of course, the opposition says it was its achievement, but it is obvious that entering of certain items on the agenda does not mean anything. There is no guarantee that Kyiv municipal elections or dismissal of the government will come to pass. In fact, the opposition’s current actions amount to legitimization of what has happened, including the out-of-chamber meeting. Regarding their interests, the need to vote on the European integration bills provides the only significant justification for the unblocking. The opposition has lost on all other points.”

Despite the importance of European integration, they are talking about another lockdown, as the Fatherland faction’s MP Yurii Odarchenko is threatened with expulsion from the house.

“Let us recall the Serhii Vlasenko case, when the opposition let the expulsion order stand. He must be still enraged with his faction’s leadership at least, because they did nothing to stop the expulsion proceedings. The opposition is poorly equipped to contest such matters. In general, this legislature will always remain a troubled body, suffering from occasional lockdowns. However, they are unlikely to last more than a week to 10 days. The vast majority of the MPs, including the opposition ones, are not interested in the snap general election, they fear it. They will not risk a prolonged lockdown. It was an effective instrument of achieving their goals, but it has been neutralized lately, and the effectiveness of these methods will only decline. The chances of the Verkhovna Rada going back to work are very high, at least for the April 15-21 week.

“The lockdown is not an end in itself for the opposition. It is a way to get some concessions and to demonstrate their militant stance vis-a-vis the government, but it will gradually become harder and harder to use effectively, since the parliamentary majority has discovered an effective ‘antidote’ to the lockdown. At the same time, the opposition realizes that it is really important to have the European integration bills prepared and passed.”