Article by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives for Ukrainska Pravda
Public trust in Parliament in Ukraine is consistently low. This is not a new trend or an ‘achievement’ of the ninth convocation — the low level of trust in the Verkhovna Rada has persisted for years and, according to research by the Razumkov Centre, is now the lowest among state institutions.
There are many reasons for this, not least the conflation of the individual MPs’ reputations with that of the institution. This is hardly surprising, as even this year there has been no shortage of scandals involving MPs. One need only recall recent weeks, when the Verkhovna Rada once again demonstrated its lack of agency, while certain MPs outraged society with their unrestrained delight after voting for draft law No. 12414.
On 31 July, Parliament attempted to roll back its decision and voted for the President’s Draft Law No. 13533. For the first time since the start of the full-scale invasion, it even broadcast a sitting online. Yet in the very first minutes of the broadcast, we saw MPs fighting. Then came Serhii Vlasenko’s middle finger, in response to a speech by a fellow MP. Mariana Bezuhla and MPs from the Holos faction walked around with cardboard signs — an action that may be regarded as the use of posters and slogans, prohibited under the current Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada (Article 53). The first live broadcast of a sitting in three years revealed utter chaos in the conduct of business and MPs’ lack of respect for procedure and for each other. But what can be done about this?
Are there mechanisms to hold to account individual MPs whose behaviour discredits Ukraine’s sole legislative body?
What Can the Verkhovna Rada Do?
At present, the Verkhovna Rada is unable to distance itself from the unethical — and at times harmful — behaviour of MPs. The absence of parliamentary culture as such, even as evidenced by the most recent broadcast of a sitting, creates numerous situations in which MPs appear in the public space, including on social media, as violators of ethical norms. This negatively affects not only their personal image but also that of their party or faction, and of Parliament as a whole.
One instrument actively used in the parliaments of 85 countries worldwide is a code of conduct for parliamentarians, or a code of parliamentary ethics. This is a normative act that establishes rules of behaviour for MPs in the chamber, and — crucially — beyond it. The list of possible violations in codes across different countries may vary, but the most common include: inappropriate behaviour, personal insults or defamation, prolonged absence from work, and other actions incompatible with the notion of parliamentary dignity. In addition, it is important to have a dedicated internal parliamentary body responsible for ensuring compliance with ethical standards.
The application of ethical norms to members of parliament outside the chamber is not a unique practice. For example, the Code of Ethics of the Saeima of Latvia requires MPs to abide by the principles, rules and recommendations set out in the code in their approach to work, in relations with other MPs, with other institutions, and with society. The Code of Conduct for Members of the Althingi — the Parliament of Iceland — stipulates that its provisions apply to their duties in public service as elected representatives of the people.
In Ukraine, no such code exists; the full spectrum of possible violations is not clearly set out, and the current Rules of Procedure provide only three types of sanctions for breaches of ethics:
- interruption of a speech;
- deprivation of the right to speak until the end of the plenary sitting;
- deprivation of the right to participate in plenary sittings.
These apply only to violations of rules of behaviour in the session hall, solely during a plenary sitting, and only in cases of insulting another MP or a parliamentary faction or group. Yet even when the existing mechanisms are used, the outcome may be no result at all. For example, the relevant committee recommended that the Verkhovna Rada adopt a decision depriving Petro Poroshenko of the right to participate in one plenary sitting because of his use of obscene language towards another MP (leaving aside the atmosphere of political pressure in the context of sanctions imposed against him). However, because of a lack of political will, this matter has not even been put to a vote since January.
The recommendation to adopt a code of ethics was set out in the European Parliament’s Needs Assessment Mission in the 2016 Parliamentary Reform Roadmap — a document soon to mark its tenth anniversary. In the years since, the Verkhovna Rada has failed not only to adopt a code of ethics but even to consider any initiatives in this area at first reading. Notably, at the end of 2022, draft law No. 8327 was registered, aimed at updating the existing norms of parliamentary ethics and establishing an effective system for their implementation. This legislative initiative is important for strengthening public trust in Parliament and consolidating democratic governance. Yet it remains under consideration in the Committee on Rules of Procedure.
Draft law No. 8327 proposes a mechanism of self-regulation. It provides for the establishment in the Verkhovna Rada of a separate committee, to be formed on a parity basis (that is, with an equal number of MPs from the coalition and the opposition), which would oversee compliance with discipline and parliamentary ethics. The committee would examine complaints against MPs who violated parliamentary ethics in the course of exercising their powers (including in the public sphere outside the Parliament building) and decide on their responsibility.
The Main Scientific and Expert Department made several pertinent comments on this draft law, which can be addressed before second reading, and the draft law can be further revised in line with the recommendations of the Rules of Procedure Committee, while also taking into account international practice and standards.
Draft Law No. 8327 is an opportunity to address the problem of unethical behaviour by individual MPs, which could improve the reputation of the institution and increase trust in the Verkhovna Rada. Yet Parliament continues to delay consideration of this draft law.
It is important to recall that a new committee is unlikely to be established during this convocation: given the specifics of forming its membership, this responsibility would fall to the next, tenth, convocation. If the law is not adopted now, the next convocation will also be left without a specialised committee, since the size and remit of committees are determined at the beginning of each new convocation.
It is logical that individuals who make, and will in the future make, the most important decisions in the state should be subject to ethical requirements. Yet Draft Law No. 8327 has been ‘lying’ in the Rules of Procedure Committee for a third year already, and without its conclusion, it cannot be considered at first reading. Ignoring this draft law is a deliberate position of the committee since any other decision would place the issue of ethical conduct back onto the agenda — something clearly not a priority for MPs.
Scuffles in the Verkhovna Rada, threats against activists, abuses of status, and, at the very least, some highly insensitive posts by MPs on social media only intensify public dissatisfaction with the authorities. What outrages people is not so much MPs’ breaches of ethical norms, but the absence of any response from their colleagues. The fact that parliamentarians do not even attempt to condemn unethical behaviour, and that some MPs are capable only of hypocritical statements, is yet further evidence of the loss of agency of Parliament as an institution.
In the present circumstances, the Verkhovna Rada urgently needs to find instruments capable of restoring people’s trust. During wartime, the problems with Parliament’s agency are becoming ever more visible and threatening — threatening to the democratic state order of Ukraine. As an institution, the Verkhovna Rada is obliged to ensure citizens’ trust to avoid these threats. While a code of ethics for MPs is no panacea for all the problems in Parliament, without it, in the view of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, restoring trust will be impossible.
Author of the material:
