One way to lower the current tensions in Ukraine is to
finally accomplish an already long-ago recommended major constitutional
amendment – the switch from a semi-presidential to a purely parliamentary
republic. Such a change at this point in time could ensure to everybody that
the future will be different from the difficult present.
Arguably, President Yanukovych himself is not as big a
defect in Ukraine’s political system as the institution of presidency. Most
Ukrainians hope for a “strong” president to solve their country’s problems.
Yet, the use of executive power and presumed authority of a more or less
narrowly elected president, as well as his complicated relationship with the
legislature has been the source of much political pathology of the last 20
years.
Many Ukrainians argue that, over Ukraine’s post-Soviet
history, each president was worse than his predecessor: Leonid Kuchma was worse
than Leonid Kravchuk (who, in turn, was worse than Mykhailo Hrushevsky), Viktor
Yushchenko was worse than Leonid Kuchma, and Viktor Yanukovych is even worse
than the grossly unpopular Viktor Yushchenko. Kuchma’s two-term rule ended with
the Orange Revolution, Yushchenko’s support sank to 5 percent after only one
term in office, and Yanukovych might not even get to serve his first term in
full, bringing the country on the verge of collapse.
The deeper reason for this frustrating story has not
only to do with the doubtful personal qualities of these men, but also with the
very system they have been or are operating in. In fact, there is nothing
surprising about Ukraine’s sad experience with her failing presidents.
International political science has over the last two decades confirmed, in a
number of comparative qualitative and quantitative studies, that both presidential
and semi-presidential systems are unsuitable, if not lethal, for young
democracies – not only in today Eastern Europe, but in other periods of history
and regions of the world, too.
The title of one of the seminal papers, in the Journal of Democracy, on the political systems of the
post-communist area, by the University of California’s political science
professor Steven M. Fish, summarizes the crux of the issue succinctly:
“Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies.” The less power the president has
the more stable and effective is a young democracy. The only more or less
sustainable young democracies with elected presidents have very weak heads of
states within a semi-presidential system in which the prime-minister has most
powers. In that case, however, the question arises: Why conduct costly
presidential elections at all, if the head of state has only little impact on
the conduct of governmental affairs and fulfills largely representative
functions?
Abolition of presidency through an amendment to the
constitution should not be unrealistic. All political forces of Ukraine may
find it, for different reasons, acceptable and in their interests. The ruling
Party of Regions will, at some point, understand that Yanukovych is too
discredited, his authority too tarnished and his rule too shaky to keep him as
president, until 2015. An abolition of the office would insure the current
ruling party from a revengeful successor in the presidency. The two large
opposition parties, Vitali Klitschko’s UDAR and Arseniy Yatseniuk’s and Yulia
Tymoshenko’s Batkivshchyna may be interested in getting Yanukovych out, sooner
rather than later, through abolition of his office.
They will be also most prone to listen to the Council
of Europe’s Venice Commission and Western political scientist recommending a
parliamentary republic. The two smallest radical parties, the nationalist
Svoboda and Communist Party, may be interested in such a constitutional
amendment because they cannot hope to ever get their candidate elected as president.
The switch to a parliamentary system would have to be
obviously accompanied by new parliamentary elections according to a
significantly improved electoral law that would prevent a repeat of the heavy
manipulations in the single-member districts during the 2012 Rada elections.
The new parliament would then form a collation that would elect a
prime-minister. This would be the new ruler of Ukraine.
In that new system a figurehead President elected, for
instance by a joint assembly of 450 Verkhovna Rada and 450 Oblast Rada deputies
could also play some symbolic role. He would represent Ukraine abroad, give
speeches at various occasions, sign laws, and be the formal head of state.
Ideally, this President would represent Central or Western Ukraine, if the
Prime-Minister is from Southern or Eastern Ukraine. Or, vice versa, the President
would come from Ukraine’s Russophone part, if the Prime-minister represents the
Ukrainian-speaking part of the country. Ukraine would become a normal country
with a more effective governmental system and less conflicting politics.
Andreas Umland, Dr. phil., Ph. D. (Cambridge), is DAAD
Associate Professor of Political Science at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, editor of
theibidem Press book
series “Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society,” as well as member of the
Valdai International Discussion Club, German-Ukrainian Forum, Kyiv Dialogue and
Scientific Experts Council of the Ukrainian Parliament’s Committee on European
Integration. His comments have appeared in, among other outlets, The Wall
Street Journal, Washington Post, Harvard International Review, World Affairs
Journal, National Interest, Moscow Times, Kyiv Post, Le Monde diplomatique, Die
Zeit, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung andDie Welt.
