Ukraine’s Justice Ministry on May 27 published a draft version of legislation for the parliamentary election scheduled for Oct. 31, 2012.
It’s apparent the goal of the pro-presidential and ruling Regions Party will be to introduce as many rules to the elections – while conforming to as many international standards as is pragmatic – that produce the results favorable in forming the next coalition government.
Three main changes are in store from the 2007 vote – a 50/50 mixed electoral system will replace exclusive closed lists, blocs of parties will be prohibited and the qualifying threshold with be raised to 4-5 percent from 3 percent.
As the most significant change, a mixed electoral system is likely to emerge in which 50 percent of parliamentary deputies are chosen by closed party lists, and the other half are determined through single-winner, single-mandate districts.
This will replace the current electoral system of exclusive closed-party lists, in which voters are restricted to selecting parties or blocs of parties rather than individuals.
President Viktor Yanukovych and his Regions Party will likely adopt the mixed electoral system with the goal of enabling them to extend their control of government.
They have lost much popularity since Yanukovych’s election on Feb. 7, 2010, owing to economic problems, particularly inflation in utilities and basic food items. Recently approved legislation that raised the female pension age to 60 years old from 55 didn’t help either.
The latest reliable poll figures offered by Kyiv’s Razumkov Center in late May reveal that under the current system of exclusive closed party lists, the Regions Party would earn 32 percent of seats and control 47 percent with its traditional coalition partners.
Opposition forces would control 53 percent of seats, which is why the current government is compelled to alter the electoral system.
The increased presence of entrepreneurs in parliament will offer a stabilizing force in the otherwise tumultuous Ukrainian political scene.
Reintroducing single-mandate districts to the parliamentary vote would enable Yanukovych to form the next coalition government with individual candidates.
Many will be entrepreneurs, independent of any political party, who are interested in business and stability.
These entrepreneurs were a formidable force in Ukraine’s parliament until 2006, when the closed list system was introduced. The mixed 50/50 system opens the door to the return of their influence and their main goal will be to reach agreements with the president to keep their businesses intact.
The increased presence of entrepreneurs in parliament will offer a stabilizing force in the otherwise tumultuous Ukrainian political scene.
A business-oriented parliament will be more focused on economic issues critical to Ukraine’s development rather than toying with ethnic and cultural conflicts that play a destabilizing role in society.
The success of the Yanukovych administration in forming the parliamentary coalition depends upon its ability to reach agreements with the newly-elected entrepreneurs.
These businesspeople will be fiercely pragmatic, which was demonstrated in previous convocations of parliament in which dozens of factions were constantly being formed, dissolved and recreated. It’s not a given that they will reach compromise.
The Yanukovych administration sent shudders among Ukraine’s independent entrepreneurs when state prosecutors filed criminal charges in March against former President Leonid Kuchma, who is the father-in-law of one of Ukraine’s biggest entrepreneurs, Victor Pinchuk.
While strong democracies need constructive voices in the opposition, the positive side to the 50/50 system is that it also marginalizes the radical socialist elements to the benefit of Ukraine’s investment climate.
He hasn’t been affiliated with any political party since 2006.
More shudders were sent when the enterprises owned by another billionaire, Kostyantyn Zhevago, were investigated by Ukrainian Security Service agents in mid-July.
Zhevago is a parliamentary deputy aligned with ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, the opposition leader.
The 50/50 electoral system paves the way for entrepreneurs like Pinchuk and Zhevago to compete and possibly reach consensus with the President.
Entrepreneurs who feel threatened could band together into rival factions to defend their mutual interests and even challenge the incumbents.
By introducing single mandates, the Yanukovych administration could be securing itself a loyal coalition government for three years, or quite the opposite, opening a potential Pandora’s Box of rivalry.
The opposition won’t be influential under the mixed electoral system. Even if its forces secure 53 percent of seats in the closed list vote, that influence would be diluted to 122 seats out of 450, or 27 percent of the total, under the 50/50 system.
The largest opposition force, the Fatherland Party founded by Tymoshenko, would only hold 13 percent of seats, based on Razumkov poll figures.
As the most likely scenario, at least two-thirds of the single-mandate deputies will likely align themselves with the president and his Party of Regions.
A precedent for that outcome was offered in 2002 when the pro-Western Our Ukraine bloc won the most votes yet it was the single-mandate candidates who played the deciding role in forming the coalition government.
While strong democracies need constructive voices in the opposition, the positive side to the 50/50 system is that it also marginalizes the radical socialist elements to the benefit of Ukraine’s investment climate.
The Communist Party of Ukraine, which currently wields significant influence as a coalition partner, would lose most of its influence while the rising nationalist Svoboda party would be kept on the margins.
Ukraine’s capital is abuzz with speculation on what extent the government will pursue its criminal prosecution of Tymoshenko, which numbers four cases so far.
After losing popularity among the Ukrainian electorate during her two terms as prime minister, incarceration would merely serve to revive Tymoshenko’s otherwise fizzling political career.
The likely outcome is convictions with suspended sentences, which would allow her to avoid imprisonment, yet fulfill the goal of eliminating her as a competitor in the 2012 parliamentary vote.
The criminal conviction against Tymoshenko will destabilize the Fatherland Party, further erode its support base and render Ukraine’s formal opposition largely impotent.
Her conviction would pave the road for the Party of Regions to dominate politics for at least three years after the 2012 election since no existing opposition party would be able to fill the void created with Fatherland’s decline.
Many political observers acknowledge that it’s not inconceivable that the Ukrainian government will take as bold as a step as to imprison the opposition leader. This would not only prevent her from qualifying for parliament, but silence her from delivering electric speeches that inspire crowds.
Yet such a course of action is highly counterproductive, which could threaten Ukraine’s ability to gain an association agreement with the European Union.
After losing popularity among the Ukrainian electorate during her two terms as prime minister, incarceration would merely serve to revive Tymoshenko’s otherwise fizzling political career. A charismatic personality, Tymoshenko has a firm base of support that will remain steady no matter what happens.
The Ukrainian government is submitting its election legislation for review by international institutions, including the European Commission for Democracy through Law, also known as the Venice Commission, Justice Minister Oleksandr Lavrynovych said in early June.
Western institutions will make important recommendations. In turn, the government will consider these recommendations and offer concessions on secondary matters, but keep the key architecture of its election legislation intact (the 50/50 mixed system, the higher qualifying threshold and the ban on blocs).
The Yanukovych administration has shown that while it values Western opinion, it hasn’t sacrificed its political priorities to adjust to Western suggestions or criticisms.
In this case, the priority is to structure the elections in such a way as to maintain the status quo in Ukraine, which is an economy that favors large industrial players and a political establishment that’s committed to economic integration with Europe while maintaining cooperation with the Russian government.
Zenon Zawada is a political analyst at Phoenix Capital investment bank in Kyiv.
