The current fight in the Rada is not just for
personal voting, but for legitimacy as such. In the years of Viktor Yanukovych’s
rule as president, the state, like an asphalt compactor, rolled into the ground
first its own restricting institutions, and then the rest of those who stood on
the way.
At the same time, at every stage of greater
concentration of power, legitimacy got minimum attention: the majority in
parliament was formed not by the parties, but by renegades or “tushki.” The old
version of the Constitution was resurrected with breach of procedures, while
the Constitutional Court was rolling out doubtful rulings, and the required
laws were rubber-stamped by the parliament with not even half of the
pro-government deputies present.
The peak of this lawlessness came with
criminal cases against leaders of the opposition Yulia Tymoshenko and Yuriy
Lutsenko, which had so many procedural violations and open, cynical lawlessness
on behalf of investigators, judges and prosecutors right in front of TV cameras.
It became crystal clear that lawlessness has moved up from being just a tool to
punish the undesirables to becoming a new state ideology of President Yanukovych
and the authorities in general.
The society has been systematically and
methodically imposed with a view that in Ukraine, no contradiction can be
solved within the frame of law. The cases of lawlessness are not covered
up: on the contrary, they’re smacked by the central TV channels controlled
by the government.
A minister buys a drilling tower for twice
its real value, from a company owned by two Latvian bums, and everyone gets to
find out about it. Great! The minister turns around and buys another tower
using the very same scheme, but the bums have changed.
They say the president illegally got control
over Mezhyhirya. So, his PR folks turn up the degree of farce and invite
journalists to a corner which the president allegedly rents from some rich guy whom
he doesn’t even know.
They even show off an eight-meter swimming
pool, where the president claims to swim five kilometers every morning.
Another minister has no proper diploma on
higher education, which they are supposed to have, according to law. Ok, who
cares? Let’s cook up a backup one – surely, we can’t just fire a minister
because of some stupid law!
The purpose behind this type of information
policy is to subdue any protest moods and any civic activity. Broadcasting
lawlessness and cases of deliberate trampling over laws is required for the
bureaucrats and oligarchs to convince the society that you cannot protect
yourself from these types of citizens, and especially from the state itself,
including its law enforcement.
It is due to this persuasion, which has
permeated the society quite deeply, that this very society meekly allows the state apparatus and local
feudal little bosses to rape itself: what’s the point in resisting if it’s no
use anyway, and no good even if laws are on your side?
The opposition’s
attempt to bring the voting in Verkhovna Rada back in line with the Constitution,
which directly says deputies have to vote in person, is possibly the last
barricade of Ukraine’s parliamentary and multi-party system.
A victory in this
battle, which should end with introducing a mechanism that protects personal
voting, could become a mental turning point in society. We might be able to
believe that people in the streets can change something, that those who come to
central squares are no freaks but the avante-garde of the civil society, which
expresses our opinion and stands up for our interests.
I have a lot of questions to ask the opposition. But if they win in
this, it will become the first case of rule of law in resonance cases. In
essence, if there are tests of viability of the opposition, this is one of
them.
If they push through their agenda, they will give hope to the society
that even in the current political system you can preserve your civic rights
and your human dignity. If they fail, we will have to look for a new opposition
— or a new system of governance.
We can make our
little investment into the victory. Last week, my tire was deliberately
punctured. The police don’t like these types of crimes because they most likely
won’t find the criminal, and their statistics will suffer.
When I came to the district police unit to register the crime, the local
major resisted for a long time, saying my statement was not written properly,
and trying to dissuade me. But I don’t want my tires to be slashed again in the
place where I park regularly, and persisted.
The major retaliated by refusing to give me his pen to sign a paper that
warned me that I would be held criminally responsible in case of misinforming
him about the crime. I won my little personal war for law with pleasure.
Join up! It can even be fun. I got mine when I forced the major to quote
me the article of the criminal code which carried the warning of criminal
responsibility – and looked at his stunned face.
I hope that little victories can lead us to greater ones. The main thing
is to savor their sweet taste.
Sergey Marchenko is the managing partner of
Executive Search of SM Consulting agency.
