Insuring failure – Ukrainian opposition

Now if you happen to be the opposition – ergo the minority – in any parliament, it goes without saying that getting the laws you support passed – or those you are against to fail – requires party discipline to insure the maximum turnout at any such vote, as well as erosive lobbying of those within the majority to gain support that goes against their party line.

Very difficult in any parliament and it is certainly not easy in a corrupt and self-serving cesspit  such as the Ukrainian RADA.

I have written previously of the critical and headline votes that the opposition could have won had they the discipline to insure their party members turned up to work as they are paid to do.  However snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is becoming something of an unofficial policy for the “United Opposition”.

After such public leadership and party disciplinary failures that caused the opposition to lose all 4 headline votes in the above link, you would think that thereafter the mandatory attendance of all opposition MPs would have been required by parties when bills they sponsor or support are up for vote.

After all what harm could the occasional victory over the government do for their image and the public perception of their effectiveness – let alone display weakness within the majority coalition occasionally?

And yet, Anatoliy Grychenko, a leader within the United Opposition on the Batkivshchyna Party list, now almost daily decries the fact that party discipline is non-existent, together with party leadership being noticeable by its absence.

Анатолій Гриценко
Опозиція має відрізнятися від влади!

Сьогодні Рада провалила два проекти опозиції. Опозиція допомогла їх провалити.

1) проект 2126 – про зарахування екологічного податку до бюджетів місцевих Рад. Логічний і правильний. Внесла Свобода, Сех. Опозиція активно агітує за підтримку. Голосування: Батьківщина – мінус 30 голосів, УДАР – мінус 15, Свобода – мінус 5 голосів. Разом – мінус 50 голосів!

2) проект 2503 – про охорону тварин і рослин від винищення браконьєрами. Логічний і правильний. Внесла Батьківщина, Томенко. Опозиція активно агітує за підтримку. Голосування: Батьківщина – мінус 42 голоси, УДАР – мінус 16, Свобода – мінус 4 голоси. Разом – мінус 62 голоси.

3) проект 2149 – зараз розглядається. Про адміністративні послуги, теж від опозиції, УДАР, Продан – результат буде аналогічним, а то ще й гіршим, бо в секторі опозиції все більше пустих крісел.

Не може бути виправдання такій недисциплінованості й безвідповідальності депутатів. Сектор влади теж напівпустий, але влада мене менше турбує. Турбує те, що опозиція – діє так само, а мала би задати інший стандарт поведінки. Говорю про це вождям і депутатам майже щодня. По барабану. Біда…

To save you translating, an environmental taxation bill (566) aimed at funneling environmental taxes to local government rather than central government, and vigorously supported by the opposition, failed because 30 Batkivshchyna MPs did not turn up to vote, neither did 15 from UDAR and another 5 from Svoboda.  A total of 50 opposition votes missing from a bill the opposition wanted to pass.

Bill 2503, drawn up by Mikola Tomenko relating to the protection of flora and fauna.  Tomenko is a man who sits amongst the elite of the elite in the Batkivshchyna Party and his bill faired even worse.  Despite his position in the party hierarchy, 40 of his fellow Batkivshchyna MPs, almost all of which his junior in both parliamentary longevity, party position and most importantly political ability, were absent.  Add to this another 16 missing from UDAR and 4 missing from Svoboda and that is a total of 62 opposition votes AWOL for one of their own pieces of legislature up for the vote!

Grychenko rightly summarises that there can be no excuse for such indiscipline and irresponsibility that the United Opposition is consistently displaying – quite rightly.  As he states, complaints about opposition leadership and deputies within are now an almost daily occurrence from within its own ranks.

Fair play to him for stating the obvious- not that the disunity within the opposition is a closely guarded secret.  It is obvious to anybody who cares to look amongst either the leadership, the rank and file, or both.

Leadership-less, discipline-less, rudderless and feckless – As far as the Ukrainian public and EU are concerned, this coalition will once again turn out to be hopeless – whether it regains power or remains in opposition.

So terribly sad that they cannot even muster being an effective opposition, as that would at least assist giving some credibility to any opposition presidential candidate – and whilst Ukraine is no doubt capable of suffering another Yanukovych term, one has to hope it won’t have to.

- And before I am asked who I would prefer to see as the next president of Ukraine – whilst it may read like anybody other than the present incumbent or Yulia Tymoshenko – it’s not – at least not quite.  In no particular order:

Klitschko (UDAR leader) – likely to run and likely to reach the second round if there is one according to current opinion polls

Tomenko (Batkivshchyna) – very unlikely to run which is a shame as he is a very competent politician

Poroshenko (Independent) – may run but will not get the votes his experience deserves

Grychenko (Batkivshchyna) – very unlikely to run as not enough support at the ballot box despite TV popularity in debates

In the unlikely event of an internal Party Regions competitor:

Serhey Tigipko

You see, if I had listed those who I would not want to see as the next president, the likes Yanukovych, Tymoshenko, Tyahnybok, Yatseniuk and the vast majority of each of the parties hierarchy, it would have been a very long list indeed!

The symbolic signing of nothing special

There is much to be said for symbolism.

It can be inspiring, it can be unifying, it can be a moment of hope or defiance that ignites the courage of others – in short, it can have impact.

It can also be completely empty of meaning, condescending, devoid of rationale and ultimately, pointless in the extreme.

And so, 18th May brought to an end the 2 month “Rise Ukraine” strategy of the United Opposition – Batkivshchyna, UDAR and Svoboda parties – in Kyiv.

After countless rallies in numerous (opposition friendly) cities drawing crowds of a few thousand people each time – worryingly low numbers if you are an opposition party leader to be blunt – the finale in Kyiv attracted a only few thousands people once again.

I would have expected for 10,000 – 15,000 after months of rallies leading up to a well publicised finale – and even that number would be disappointing.

All the issues I raised in the above link back in March have proven to come to fruition – not that it would take anybody with a modicum of common sense and even the most basic understanding of Ukrainian politics and society any effort to come to that same conclusion.

When adding all the reported attendance numbers from all the rallies over the past 2 months, it doesn’t even get close to the gate numbers of Manchester United playing an average team on a very wet and cold Tuesday night at Old Trafford.

To be quite honest I still have no idea why the opposition embarked on such a strategy that was so clearly doomed to failure.  I still cannot deduce why I was asked to “rise” over the past 2 months just to now sit back down again – possibly until October 2015 when the next presidential elections are due.

There has certainly been no impact or identifiable causal effect from the “Rise Ukraine” campaign, other than to identify just how few people the opposition parties have managed to turn out during this time.

Hmmm.

Anyway, back to today’s “Rise Ukraine” (anti)climax of the 2 month campaign, which saw the opposition party leaders sign a joint agreement in front of a pitiful crowd of about 4,ooo people relating to the presidential elections in 2015.

This agreement states that all opposition parties will support any opposition candidate that makes it to the second round of voting in the presidential elections.

That is a significant change in rhetoric from the past few months where is has been consistently claimed that a single nominee from the United Opposition would run.

Now it seems rather than a single opposition candidate to run against the current incumbent from the very beginning of any presidential election campaign (in the first round), the opposition leaders have failed (unsurprisingly) to agree on one of them running for the top job with the unified support of the others from the off.

Thus the plan after the least popular two have been eliminated in the first round of voting, leaving one to go head to head with Yanukovych, is to then unite behind their last man standing for the second round of voting.  A cozy little agreement granted – but will the opposition voters turn out in sufficient number in the second round to vote for a candidate that is not the man they voted for, not from a party they voted for, and does not share the same ideology as the man and party they voted for in the first round only a few weeks previously?

As Klitschko never seems to tire of saying, there are ideological differences between himself, Yatseniuk and Tyahnybok, and the parties they lead.  That is also true of their supporters differing ideologies.

Time will tell if opposition unification around a single presidential candidate after the first round of voting, rather than prior to any voting, will prove to be a sound strategy – I have serious doubts that it is a good strategy, although I also have serious doubts (at the time of writing), that Yatseniuk, Klitschko or Tyahnybok will beat Yanukovych anyway (even with full transparency and on a level playing field – which they may not get).

And so to the impact and underlying realities of the symbolic signing of the joint statement of opposition leaders,  pledging to support each – other only when they themselves have been eliminated from the presidential race.

The underlying  and sad reality is, there is little genuine unity amongst the opposition.  The impact of this agreement is almost zero, given that when all is said and done, ultimately, the public will be faced with the choice between Yanukovych or another in the second round of voting – opposition agreement or not.

* * * * *

On a completely different subject, there will probably be nothing from me tomorrow as I am doing something for the BBC – and their filming may take some time as I am not a great fan of being on camera, so single takes are very unlikely.   Thus I doubt I will have the time or interest to blog after being “Beeb’d” all day.

Another vote of “No Confidence”? What did Einstein state about insanity?

Following the United Opposition’s 0/4 disastrous failure in the RADA last week relating to their demanded resolutions, due to selecting battles they simply could not win – with one possible exception in which they conspired amongst themselves to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - we could possibly expect a change of tactics, if not rhetoric?

Alas it seems not.

Following the comprehensive failure in the vote of “No Confidence” – managing to get only 190 votes of the 226 needed to be successful – Arseney Yatseniuk, leader of the Batkivshchyna Party immediately stated “We plan to submit an issue of non-confidence to the government again.”

Where are those additional 36 votes required to win a “No Confidence” vote going to come from?

Is Albert Einstein not attributed to the quote “Insanity:  doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?“

There is perhaps a slim chance of a successful vote of “No Confidence” should the EU Association Agreement not get signed at the Vilnius Summit in November – but it would be just that – a slim chance.

In all probability, regardless of a successful or otherwise Vilnius Summit, and despite the United Opposition rhetoric, the next presidential elections will not happen before 2015.  If Yanukovych was then unseated, that is then the best opportunity currently foreseeable, where there could well be a realistic chance of winning a “No Confidence” vote in the government.

Spending the next 2 years wandering around the country inferring “Yes we were bad when we were in power, but these people are worse – so return us to power (early)”, is not the best use of the time available to you and does nothing to make the United Opposition a more credible governance alternative.

Note to the United Opposition leadership – If I have any bias in Ukrainian politics, however slight it may be, it is towards the opposition.  It remains slight because you are engaging in ineffective populist political showboating and hollow grandstanding that will lead to public failures time and time again, when what you need to do is formulate alternative political, economic and social policies communicated consistently prior to the presidential elections in 2015.

Policies that clearly inform me not how you will be a  different set of faces governing the country, but how you will be better than the current president and current majority at governing the country.  I want to know what policies I can expect you to attempt to fulfill, how and how much it will cost if you are successful.

That needs to start now!

Am I doomed to have my “face palm” set in stone like the poor chap above due to your seemingly purposeful strategy of wanting to appear completely feckless and credibility-less – or are you actually going to throw me a small raft of qualitative policy that can be effectively implemented, to I can cling to in order to salvage some hope?

Failing to plan or planning to fail? United Opposition

I seem to be consistently critical of the “United Opposition” recently – not because I don’t like them, but because I despair at their lack of policy, lack of planning and lack of strategy.  Not to mention the whitewash over ideological differences that whilst in opposition may make little difference, but when in power will become significant and provide yet another dysfunctional government focused on internal division rather than governance in all probability.

All of these things need to be tackled robustly, quickly and without default to the lowest common denominator between the 3 major “United Opposition” parties.  Failure to do so now, well in advance of a presidential election, will not lead to the confidence needed to bring about a change in president – no matter how bad the incumbent is.

Personally I do not care which political party arrives at sound policy with effective implementation – all that matters is good policy is forthcoming and effectively implemented.

A few days ago I wrote about the “United Opposition” allowing the normal running of the RADA this week as four opposition motions were to be debated:

“The setting of an election date for the position of Kyiv Mayor.

A vote of “No Confidence” in the current government.

The abolition the new pension reforms.

The removal of the Articles of law under which Ms Tymoshenko is currently jailed.”

So far, two days ago, as expected they failed with the setting of a date for the mayoral elections of Kyiv – and with the Constitutional Court still considering the legalities of any delay or not, maybe that is no bad thing.  The court’s answer due no later than July as per the legal time frame allowed .

Nevertheless an unnecessary failure for the “United Opposition” with a Constitutional Court decision pending.  Far better to have tackled the matter once a court decision was known.

Next, when it comes to the vote of “No Confidence” in the current government, UDAR wanted the vote on 17th April (yesterday) and Batkivshchyna on the 19th April (tomorrow) – A sorry state of affairs when two of the three “United Opposition” parties cannot even agree a preferred date on a vote as potentially important as a vote of “No Confidence” in the current government.

However, perhaps the most damning display of failed “United Opposition” planning and strategy was laid bare in the vote relating to pension reform on 17th April (yesterday).  If there is one issue they were most likely to get any kind of result from per their list, pension reform was likely to be it.  It is not that popular amongst the ruling coalition either – though it is necessary.

Thus, whilst I firmly believe the reforms are necessary as the current pension system is simply unsustainable, this was also a matter that the “United Opposition” could have realistically won and come away from the week with a significant result – and significant result they need!

So how did they do?

They managed to garner 223 votes in favour of scrapping the planned pensions reforms.  To have scrapped the planned reforms they needed 226 votes (a RADA majority of one).

Now we may sit back and say it was a valiant effort and they came very close – but that is until we consider the fact that absent from the RADA for this vote were 7 Batkivshchyna MPs, 7 UDAR MPs, 1 Svoboda MP and 4 independent MPs who favour the “United Opposition” in most votes.

Ergo a total of 19 votes likely to have been cast in favour of the “United Opposition” motion to scrap the pension reforms were not cast because the MPs were absent.  Had they been present and voted as anticipated, the “United Opposition” would have scrapped the pension reforms by a fairly comfortable margin.

Having made the RADA unworkable for months in an effort to get these four motions tabled for a RADA vote, you have to ask why were there 19 “United Opposition” absentees from a vote that would have displayed to the public the fact the “United Opposition” are more than ineffective, feckless, window dressing had they won?

How did they not manage to rally all their MPs to be in the RADA for a week when their demands are being voted on?  Especially so on the day a vote on pension reforms occurs that they realistically could have won?

Where is the party discipline?  Where is the “united” discipline?  What sort of leadership allows that many MPs to be absent in a key “United Opposition” parliamentary week?

How do they explain to their supporters (plus the larger public and media) that they failed to scrap the pension reforms because 19 of their own MPs failed to turn up to vote?

Suffice to say, it is nothing short of a political disaster.  A distinct underlining of ineffective leadership and party discipline is laid bare for all to see.

What could have been a golden result for the “United Opposition” has turned out to be an absolute debacle of a magnitude it is difficult to overstate.

The chances of this feckless group getting 0/4 results from their demands must now be considerable – a result now proven to be delivered by their own ineptitude!

Planning and preparation prevents piss-poor performance – the “Rule of P”.

This is certainly an epic illustration of piss-poor performance, thus one can only presume there was either no planning or preparation, or it was ignored – raising serious doubts about the credibility and ability of the three leaders involved, even amongst their own troops.

Very disappointing that a chance of gaining real credibility was so easily squandered!

Opposition demands to be debated next week in the RADA

The United Opposition have stated that the will unblock the RADA next week as agreement has been reached to allow their 4 key “issues” to be considered during that time.

Those 4 key issues are:

The setting of an election date for the position of Kyiv Mayor.

A vote of “No Confidence” in the current government.

The abolition the new pension reforms.

The removal of the Artilces of law under which Ms Tymoshenko is currently jailed.

And?

Well the issues relating to the Kyiv Mayor are currently being considered by the Constitutional Court which the law proscribes must give their decision upon within 3 months.  Would it not be wise to allow the court to come to its conclusions prior to this debate?  At least everybody would know what cards they have to play with then.

A vote of “No Confidence” is very likely to be unsuccessful and will do the image of the United Opposition no good whatsoever if they prove ineffective at removing the government.  The “Rise Ukraine” campaign is for what exactly if they cannot deliver?  To prove they still cannot deliver perhaps?

And what if they win a vote of “No Confidence”?  New elections at a time when all in the RADA should be concentrating on getting as much EU compatible legislation passed within the very limited time frame available before the Vilnius Summit in November  - as their joint pro-EU statement proclaimed.

Elections under the same electoral laws that are a key EU demand for reform and under which the opposition lost only 6 months ago?  Why is electoral reform not a key demand of the United Opposition – does it not help their cause to have a far more equitable playing field?

Should the EU/Ukraine AA and DCFTA not get signed in November as planned, is that not a far better time to call for a vote of “No Confidence”?  It would be a major failure of both Yanukovych and the government.  Or do the United Opposition believe that it will be signed and that to try and win a vote of “No Confidence” after a successful signing would be far harder?

I have to be honest and say that just as I doubted the timing (and effectiveness) of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign, I also have serious doubts about the timing of the attempts to topple the government – a central plank of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign.

I have no problem with the politics, but the timing seems very poor given the wider best interest of Ukraine being at least able to function until November and the Vilnius Summit if there is to be a glimmer of hope relating to signing EU agreements.

Abolishing the pension reforms?  To be replaced by what?  The old and economically unsustainable rules that previously existed?  What is the United Opposition policy to deal with a serious economic issue facing not just Ukraine, but almost all European nations relating to pensions, in lieu of the current reforms?  What is their policy, how will it be financed, and is it any better than the current reforms they are balking against?  Does anybody know?  As a follower of the opposition I am yet to hear their alternatives.

Lastly, the removal of the legal Articles under which Ms Tymoshenko was jailed.  I am not sure if this is the second or third attempt to do so – but previous attempts have failed.  The reality, unfair as the entire process may have been, is even in removing the offending Articles now, they were still the law when she was found guilty under them.  It will not do nothing to remove her conviction even if it would perhaps give greater scope for moral pressure relating to her release.  Laws are not retrospective in their application or removal – and neither are convictions under them unless officially pardoned.

Given the United Opposition’s very subdued reaction to Lutsenko’s release, are the United Opposition simply going through the motions for the public relating to Tymoshenko anyway?

What do they gain by her release in the long run vis a vis her continued incarceration?

What happens to their little power-sharing deals if she was released?  A major “cause” and easy headline maker in her de facto political prisoner/martyr status will also be removed, not to mention they would immediately be standing in her very considerable vocal and political shadow the moment she left the prison gate.

Would or could the United Opposition even manage to remain united if she was released and took the helm of Batkivshchnya again – giving a public perception of sending the three current captains back to being nothing more than deck-hands in the process?

Do Yatseniuk, Klitschko and Tyhanbok willing want to take that chance with their own political futures – or will they simply go through the motions for the public?

More broadly, what are the chances next week of the United Opposition winning any, let alone all, of the above 4 issues over which they have blocked the working of the RADA for months?

If they fail to make any progress after these issues are debated – are they going to block the RADA again?  To what end?  The dissolution of parliament and with it any hope of timeliness in legislative progress toward the EU normative within the EU nominated time frame?

The less than welcome return of the prodigal son – Lutsenko

I have deliberately left mentioning Yuri Lutsenko since his release to give him time to say something of note in relation to the leadership and direction of the “United Opposition” – be it good or bad.

He has now said something worthy of note: “To date, none of the three candidates is a self-sufficient leader with a set of all the sufficient qualities. Someone is wiser purely from life experience and basic education. Someone is more radical. Someone more decisive. But no one has yet a complete set of the tools needed to become the leader of the nation, with all due respect to them.“  – All quite true as I have stated here many times as regular readers will know.

So true in fact, that it was only a matter of time before Lutsenko had to say it.

I will not have been the only one expecting him to say it sooner or later either, hence my comment three days ago about the muted opposition response to his, and others, release: “One could think that there are those within the opposition who are not exactly overjoyed at their release – at least that is the perception their social media accounts infer simply by complete lack of, or little reference to, such a major event for the opposition and EU/Ukrainian relations.“

It is quite obvious that despite their rhetoric, if the three United Opposition parties can only raise a total of 7000 protesters in Kyiv on a Sunday afternoon, a city that is generally pro-opposition, then the rhetoric of the opposition relating to their “Rise Ukraine” campaign is certainly not matched by the numbers of the public prepared to demonstrate on the streets with/for them – even in “friendly territory” with a huge city population to draw from.  By the time the “paid protester” numbers are removed from the crowd count it must be somewhat worrisome – for Arseniy Yatseniuk in particular.

Hopefully those numbers will improve (and probably will as the weather improves) – but to what end – when the “Rise Ukraine” campaign ends in mid-May, then what?  Rallying the public in regions that are not predisposed to favour the current government seems so expected to be meaningless as far as the PoR are concerned.  Rallying large numbers in the PoR heartlands would have had far more of an impact on the current government.

Now a leading opposition figure in Lutsenko, has told opposition supporters on national television that none of their current opposition leaders are actually equipped to lead the nation yet – one wonders how that will effect the rest of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign.  Why “rise” if those asking you to do so are not even deemed capable by senior figures within their own fold?

That said, Yatseniuk himself did the cause no favours on Sunday by telling the media that despite the “Rise Ukraine” campaign, nobody expected it to force the President’s resignation within the next few months – which was precisely one of the major publicised objectives of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign when launched – the immediate resignation of Yanukovych.

Having doubted the timing and construct of the strategy from the start, it is no surprise that it will not achieve one of its major stated aims and turn out to be more empty rhetoric – unfortunately.

However, what will the “United Opposition” leadership do with Lutsenko who is now likely disturb their menage a trois – both internally of Batkivshchnya and externally amongst the general opposition supporters?

They are certainly not capable of silencing him or sidelining him.

For Tyahnybok and Klitschko, leading their own parties it is possibly slightly less of a problem than that which now confronts Yatseniuk, who leads Tymoshenko’s party but now has Tymoshenko’s greatest political ally freed and informing Ukraine that none of the aforementioned party leaders are capable of governing Ukraine.

Further down the line, the question arises as to where Lutsenko’s political future will be.  He will certainly not join Svoboda.  He is unlikely to join or be accepted by UDAR, and he will not quietly submit to the weak leadership of Yatseniuk for long should he join Batkivshchyna – meaning he will either oust Yatseniuk as leader (with Tymoshenko’s blessing), or set up a political party of his own eventually.

If he does the latter, then there will inevitably be defections to his new party from across the “United Opposition” ranks – ultimately making the current menage a trois into a menage a quatre.  Or is a menage a quatre simply an orgy or gangbang?

A few days ago I made this statement and posed this question:  “A return to such dysfunctional governance – or alternatively Yanukovych-lite – is not what Ukraine needs.

Maybe Lutsenko, now he’s been released will provide something like a policy rudder?”

This, it appears has been answered as Lutsenko states he is going to form a civil society movement.

Lutsenko rightly states that “Ukraine needs a nation-wide non-partisan movement that will push the opposition into the right decisions “, and “There are four people – Taras Stetskiv, Volodymyr Filenko, Yuriy Lutsenko and Roman Bezsmertny. It is necessary to unite around them.“

De facto, Lutsenko is stating not only are the opposition leaders currently not up to the job of leading the nation but also that the opposition are getting what little policy they have, wrong at the moment – which is absolutely true in both regards – and is clear, historically, to any reader of this blog.

Further Bezsmertny states “Action groups will be established in the center and the regions that will have to collect the proposals – and what kind of Ukraine we want to see? Then the team will be formed, and only then the movement’s leader will be defined. I would note that by the time the leaders of the opposition shall have been already decided on their candidate.“

Should this civic movement morph into a political party at some stage, or Lutsenko be drawn back into the Bratkivshchnya fold at the expense of Yatseniuk, that in turn will mean a renegotiation of the grubby little deals over who was to get what should the “United Opposition” gain power with Ms Tymoshenko in prison.

So the question for the “United Opposition” is what to do with a prodigal son who will be neither silenced nor ignored, but certainly does not fit within the current menage a trois either?

Life for Yatesniuk, Klitschko and Tyahnybok just became a lot more complicated.

Schizophrenia, Dissociative Identity Disorder or pragmatism? Ukrainian opposition

What to make of an opposition leadership that submits official resolutions of “No Confidence” in the current Cabinet of Ministers on 22nd March 2013 – and by 3rd April 2013, some 13 days later, post a joint  statement on the Batkivshchyna Party website stating:

“We supported and will support all EU integration laws that were properly prepared and considered, in accordance with the parliamentary procedure, including those submitted by the government, as it was, for example, during the ratification of amendments to the visa facilitation agreement.”

Well, what to think?

That must surely infer that they have some confidence in the Cabinet of Ministers they submitted an official resolution of “No Confidence” against – How can the leaders of opposition parties encourage their parties MPs to vote for government legislation otherwise?

Perhaps it is a less than simple matter of schizophrenia or dissocative identity disorder?

Does the “no confidence” exist only with legislation aimed at solely domestic issues – “confidence” obviously existing in legislation aimed at synchronising with the EU normative as far as the capabilities of the Cabinet of Ministers is concerned?

Of course they are being pragmatic.

They can hardly go against their own joint statement with the ruling PoR, in which they all stated their intention to drag Ukraine towards the EU.  As such they had already committed themselves to support EU normalising legislation from a Cabinet of Ministers they later had “No Confidence” in – but now reaffirm they have confidence in – as far as the EU legislation goes.

However, as I wrote on 24th March relating to the particularly ill-timed submission of the “No Confidence” resolution – “Possibly worse, should this vote of “no confidence” fail – which seems likely – how will the public psyche be affected when it comes to confidence in Yatseniuk and the opposition? To continually indulge in political grandstanding or showboating with few, if any results, eventually will erode further public confidence in the ability of the opposition.”

Since then a few Batkivshchanya MPs have left the party, two of which claimed they were not prepared to support Yatseniuk’s “one-man show”.  Whether that reasoning is true or not is irrelevant.  That is what they have said publicly and will further give the perception of failed political grandstanding and showboating to the point at which MPs are leaving the party – and it is the public perception that counts in politics.

It also seems Yatseniuk is expecting an internal leadership coup within the Batkivshchnya Party.

Further, it is somewhat strange to see a very muted reception on opposition MPs twitter an Facebook accounts relating to the releasing of Lutsenko (as I predicted in February) and Filipchuk.  One could think there there are those within the opposition who are not exactly overjoyed at their release – at least that is the perception their social media accounts infer simply by complete lack of, or little reference to, such a major event for the opposition and EU/Ukrainian relations.

Can voters have confidence in those who demand votes of no confidence, who then less than 2 weeks later, display confidence enough in those they have no confidence in, to state they will vote with them over EU legislation – thus displaying a degree of confidence they apparently do not have in those drafting the legislation?

Especially so after not voting for what would be EU normative legislation only a few days ago?

Is anybody advising the leaders of the opposition – or are they simply jumping from one grandstanding position to another – with few results, and even less consistency?

Perhaps, given the differences between Svoboda, UDAR and Batkivshchyna parties, we should expect nothing less than such a populist, ill-thought out and schizophrenic output.  As Klitschko said only yesterday “UDAR, Batkivshchnya and Svoboda have different ideologies.  However we have one thing in common:  We want to live in a democratic country” – Is one thing in common enough, when inevitably there will be a need to convince the voting public that they are capable of ruling and creating policies they all agree on despite different ideologies that will prevent good policy making?

If there is one lesson to be learned from the Yushenko/Tymoshenko period, it is that democracy requires hard work and hard choices after it puts you in power to cement both veritical and horizontal democratic principle into all walks of government, governmental agencies and society – something that they collectively simply did not do in any shape, form or manner.

I do so wish the opposition would start to form and articulate solid policy that will benefit society and that voters can understand and rally around, instead of consistently showboating which is a policy that is destined to fail more often than not.

However just how possible it would be to align Svoboda social policy with that of UDAR, or Batkivshchnya economic policy with Svoboda or UDAR etc., remains to be seen.  I suspect these issues are deliberately being passed over as they will no doubt become divisive – leaving us with more failing grandstanding to come for the foreseeable future -  in lieu of real policy.

Sooner or later however, they are going to need to convince people they can govern collectively and effectively – and that means agreed policies which they can take to the public.   A return to such dysfunctional governance – or alternatively Yanukovych-lite – is not what Ukraine needs.

Maybe Lutsenko, now he’s been released will provide something like a policy rudder?  We’ll see.

Anti-hate bill fails to pass through the RADA due to lack of opposition support

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

The latest attempt to get an anti-hate bill passed through the RADA has failed – and not because of the actions of the ruling majority – but those of the opposition parties.

It can do nothing but cast doubt on the opposition wanting to meet the EU normative where human rights and human dignity are supposed to be a core and uncompromisable overarching principle.

Whilst 169 Party of Regions present voted for the bill – I suppose rather unsurprisingly the Svoboda Party en masse voted against it.  After all, what self-respecting far-right nationalist party would vote for an anti-hate bill that would restrict its ability to promote hate at the expense of human dignity?  (Rhetorical question!)

Most surprisingly – or perhaps not given the potential voter gains made by UDAR in the East of Ukraine – almost every single UDAR MP abstained from the vote.  Pontius Pilate would be proud even if I hang my head.

Possibly worse still, 58 Batkivshchyna Party members voted against the draft legislation in chorus with Svoboda.

Strictly pragmatically, for the sake of opposition unity and keeping Svoboda “on board”, it is possibly understandable that the other opposition parties effectively prevented a draft law that may have stopped Svoboda Party members such as Ihor Miroshnichenko openly calling well known Ukrainian actresses like Mila Kunis a “Jewess” on his Facebook page – a statement that generated this reaction from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre “insidious slur invoked by the Nazis and their collaborators as they rounded up the Jews to murder them at Babi Yar and in the death camps“, and this from the Ukrainian Jewish Committee “The last time this term was used in an official way was during the Nazi occupation“.

It was certainly a draft law that would have made it far more difficult for those without political immunity from engaging in anti-hate propaganda – even if Ihor Miroshnichenko could continue to act with impunity due to being an MP.

One can only assume that this will be seen by the EU in particular (and numerous other international observers) – as going robustly against a core EU principle and nothing short of “disappointing” in diplo-speak – In short, none of the opposition parties will come out of this particular vote very well, and it will further paint a picture of an opposition whose only interest is to regain power at any cost, rather than create a nation based on EU ideology with legislation and policy to match their declared aspirations of EU parity and integration.

There are issues when principles and ideology need to trump political alliances – Svoboda seem to be the only opposition party to have stuck to their ideology – a major ideological and ethical FAIL for Batkivshchnya and UDAR is the only way I can view what has happened here, and it also raises doubts over the leadership qualities of the leaders concerned.

I have to say I am bitterly disappointed that one of the few truly human dignity based ideological policies to be raised in the RADA of late – anti-hate legislation – where you would hope for broad cross-party support, has been sacrificed at the alter of opposition “political unity”.