The report is devoted to the evaluation of progress in the implementation of the key reforms in higher education in Ukraine, which were defined by the new version of the law «On higher education» adopted in the summer of 2014. Research is being carried out on the development of a new system for ensuring the quality of higher education, developing the academic and financial autonomy of higher education institutions, and ensuring fair conditions for admission to higher education institutions, Integration of higher education in Ukraine into the European Educational and Scientific Area.

The publication examines progress in the implementation of relevant public policies in the two years between September 2014 (date of entry into force of the new law on higher education) and September 2016 and contains separate proposals for further necessary steps in this area.

The preparation and presentation of analytical reports in the Shadow Report format is part of the project embodied by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, supported by the USAID Rada Program: Responsible Accountable Democratic Assembly, implemented by the East Europe Foundation.

A number of Ukrainian experts completely agree with the criticism expressed in the report of the European Commission on the implementation of the European Neighborhood Policy in Ukraine for 2011. Coordinator of the Youkraine.eu platform Oleh Rybachuk said at a press conference hosted by Interfax-Ukraine on Thursday, May 17:

According to him, such reports are important evidence about how the European Union estimates the process of reform in Ukraine – they reflect the level and stage of the Ukraine’s integration and also take the temperature of Ukrainian-EU relations, to some extent.

At the same time, the coordinator noted that the assessment of the reforms dealing with democracy is a main criterion for the EU on how sincerely the country, which aspires to gain EU membership, actually desires it. According to him, authorities said that Association Agreement, Free Trade Area were more necessary for the EU, because the Ukrainian market is very attractive to the EU.

“Everything reflected in the report shows contradictory values,” he said adding that such issues as fair and free elections, respect of human rights, freedom of peaceful meetings, mass media freedom, justice independence, fighting corruption are important for the EU.

In turn, Chairman of Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union Arkadiy Buschenko declared:

According to him, in recent years the situation with the human rights has worsened in Ukraine.

He stressed that the country still has a problem with judicial system and also added:

Talking about corruption, an expert from the Ukrainian Institute for Public Policy, Ivan Presniakov said the only successes were on paper.

In the report of the European Commission on the implementation of the European Neighborhood Policy in Ukraine, which was presented on May 15, EU highlighted the slow pace of the implementation of economic reforms, the worsening situation with democracy in Ukraine in 2011, and the absence of significant results in fighting corruption.

Source: https://www.kyivpost.com/news/politics/detail/127765/

The presentation was opened by Ihor Kohut, Chairman of the Board of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, who briefly described the main priorities pursued by the Agency, and reported on the public discussions arranged in various regions of Ukraine for the purpose of the study.

Marcin Walecki, Chief of OSCE/ODIHR Democratic Governance Unit, noted that the presented report was the most complete and fundamental profile study, which would remain valid for the years to come. Mr Walecki commended the report for the interesting and simple presentation of information.

The introductory words were followed by the presentation of the main opinions and ideas of the report by Denys Kovryzhenko, Legal Programmes Director of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives.

The presentation was completed with the discussion of the presented analytical overview.

* * *

The National Report “Regulation of Political Parties: Current State and Direction of Reforms” has resulted from the discussions of the key issues in the regulation of the functioning of political parties, including those related to the participation of political parties in elections, campaign funding, internal party democracy, gender balance, complicated procedures set for the establishment and termination of political parties in Ukraine. The report also offers recommendations on the solutions and prospects for the improvement of the Ukrainian legislation which regulates the functioning of political parties on the basis of the best European practices.

The reform of political parties legislation and regulation can act as a platform from which to consider a wide array of crucial issues in the development of a stable and lasting democratic party system. These include, inter alia, political party financing, internal party democracy, the participation of women, registration and monitoring of political parties.

In partnership with the OSCE`s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and with the financial support of the European Union, Denys Kovryzhenko and his colleagues at the Agency for Legislative Initiatives (ALI), led an in-depth consultative process with key stakeholders in Ukraine on the issue of political party legislation reform, raising problems and proposing possible solutions.

The result is Regulation of Political Parties in Ukraine: the Current State and Direction of Reforms, a comprehensive report which thoroughly analyses the particular problems and issues in Ukraine’s legislative and regulatory framework for political parties. Looking forward, and based on the results of the consultations, the report proposes an agenda for reform based on international European standard and best practice.

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union, within the framework of a joint project of the European Union and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).

According to the fact that constitutional reform 2004 didn’t have a desirable result – formation of a well-balanced system of power – the idea of a new constitutional review became more and more popular among politicians and experts. This review is supposed to form more efficient authorities’ structure, clarify political responsibility of decisions makers and help to solve problems, which were not taken to account in 2004, particularly – reformation of the system of local power, administrative and territorial division and competence of the Constitutional Court.

Despite common understanding of defects of the Constitution in its current redaction, politicians and experts have different views upon the constitutional reform. Accordingly, there is no unity of views about the most optimal constitutional amendments mechanisms: some politicians and experts propose to review the Constitution in the order that is prescribed by it, while others support the idea of national referendum conducting.

So, the aim of the conference was to define with the help of different politicians, representatives of leading think tanks, scientists and international specialists which constitutional amendments mechanisms and limits correspond to the main current political problems, collective interests and provide consolidation of society.

The conference consisted of two plenary sessions:

• Constitutional reform: content and limits of constitutional transformations in the context of the interests of society, authority and opposition
• Constitutional amendments mechanisms: problems and solutions

Materials of the conference prepared by experts of the Agency for legislative initiatives

On 16-18 February 2007, Odessa hosted the Public Forum “Constitutional Reform: the View of the Civil Society”. The discussion was initiated and organised by the Agency for Legislative Initiates (Kyiv), the Council of Europe, and a number of expert institutions of Donetsk, Lutsk, Sumy, Zaporizhzhya, Luhansk, and Kherson. The Forum was also supported by Joint Programme of the Council of Europe and the European Commission “Support to Democratic Processes in Southern Caucuses and Ukraine”.

The Forum aimed to ensure a possibility to discuss the results and further priorities and prospects for the development of the constitutional reform in Ukraine, as well as to prepare recommendations of the next steps to be taken to secure effective functioning of public authorities and local self-governance bodies in Ukraine.

In particular, the following issues were discussed:

• Constitutional Reform in Ukraine: Assessment of Results;
• Prospects of Further Reform of the Public Authorities in Ukraine;
• New Format of Relations in the Parliament-President-Government Triangle:
• Constitutional Reform and Local Self-Governance.

The forum collected about 130 participants from 20 regions of Ukraine (90 participants and 35 media representatives):

1) NGO and think tank experts;
2) Members of local councils and political parties representatives;
3) Media;
4) Members of the Verkhovna Rada and other high level state authorities;
5) Representatives of the CoE Directorate General for Political Affairs and other international institutions.

Speakers

• Ihor KOHUT, Chairman of the Board, Agency for Legislative Initiatives;
• Oleksandr PROKOPENKO, Secretary of Odessa City Council;
• Mykola TYNDYUK, Deputy Head of the Odessa Regional Council;
• Plamen NIKOLOV, Adviser of the Directorate General of Political Affairs, Council of Europe;
• Vladyslav LUKYANOV, MP, Deputy Head of the Committee on State Building, Regional Policy and Local Governments;
• Thomas MARKERT, Deputy Secretary of the Venice Commission, Council of Europe;
• Anatoliy MATVIENKO, MP, First Deputy Head of the Committee on State Building, Regional Policy and Local Governments;
• Mykola KOZYUBRA, Member of the National Commission for Strengthening Democracy and Rule of Law, resigned judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor;
• Sergyi HRYNOVETSKYI, Member of the Odessa Regional Council;
• Sergio BARTOLE, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Trieste, substitute member of the Venice Commission;
• Volodymyr FESENKO, Director of the Center of Applied Political Studies «Penta»;
• Denys KOVRYZHENKO, Expert, Agency for Legislative Initiatives;
• Michel GUEGAN, Vice-Chair of the Institutional Committee, Chamber of Local Authorities, Congress of Local and Regional Authorities;
• Volodymyr SHAPOVAL, Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, resigned judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor;
• Anatoliy SELIVANOV, Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor;
• Yuriy KLUCHKOVSKYI, MP;
• Victor TYMOSCHUK, Head of the Centre for Political and Legal Reforms;
• Taras CHORNOVIL, MP;
• Oleksiy HARAN, Professor of the National University Kyiv Mohyla Academy, School for Political Analyses;
• Oleksandr STARYNETS, Head of the Secretariat of the Socialist party faction in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Openning

At the Opening Ceremony, the Forum participants were welcomed by the organisers, representatives of Odesa authorities, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Council of Europe, and the Venice Commission. In his welcoming speech, Mr Ihor Kohut, Chairman of the Board of the Agency for Legislative Initiativesstressed how important it is to assess the results of the constitutional reform in Ukraine from the positions of the civil society, as well as emphasised the necessity of rational comprehension of the process whereby cooperation between different branches of power is formed and the new system of local self-governance is built in Ukraine. Mr Oleksandr Prokopenko, Secretary of Odesa City Council mentioned that the improvement of the local self-governance is the basis of democratic transformations, while its improper system generates social and political complications. Mr Mykola Tyndyuk, Deputy Chairman of Odesa City Council reminded that the people is the bearer of power in Ukraine, therefore the constitutional reform and definition of the legal framework of political responsibility shall be discussed not only by the politicians, but also the public in general; in this context, there is a need to pass the laws on the President of Ukraine, on the parliamentary opposition, as well as to amend the Cabinet of Ministers Act. Mr Plamen Nikolov, representative of the Directorate General for Political Affairs of the Council of Europe stressed the necessity of cooperation between public authorities and the civil society sector. Mr Vladyslav Lukiyanov,Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Public Authorities Development, Regional Policy, and Local Self-Governance pointed out that the main problem in the triangle of public authorities in Ukraine is not the issue of division of powers, but rather the correlation of rights and powers, which brings about the necessity to pass the laws on the status of a citizen and on central executive authorities, as well as make the necessary amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Act. Mr Thomas Markert, Deputy Secretary of the Venice Commission recalled the history of cooperation between the Venice Commission and Ukraine and said that the democratic progress in the country were obvious; however, at the current moment there was a need to solve the problems of relations between public authorities and efficient division of powers.

Panel 1: “Constitutional Reform in Ukraine: Assessment of Results”

The main aim of the Plenary Session “Constitutional Reform in Ukraine: Assessment of Results” was to discuss the prospect of the constitutional reform in Ukraine, and to define the priorities of further transformations and steps to be made to ensure efficient functioning of public authorities and local self-governance in Ukraine.  The participants of the panel have agreed that the main aim of cooperation within the power triangle “the President – the Parliament – the Government” is unclear and unbalanced division of powers between the branches of powers. One of the preconditions for the solution of this problem is the local self-governance reform with due account of the subsidiarity principle.

MP Anatoliy Matvienko stressed that the main task of the constitutional reform is to ensure existence of responsible government system and stable society. Having analysed the history of the constitutional reform he noted that the calls for a new constitution threaten the lost of the achievements of the current one, therefore any further reforms shall aim to ensure the balance of powers and their division in order to eliminate the threat of war between the branches of power. In this context, one of the important mechanisms is the local self-governance reform which shall become the first step towards efficient and structured division of powers. Mr Matvienko also supported Bill No. 3207 (new No. 0900) and blamed those who frighten the President by the loss of powers due to its adoption.

Mr Mykola Kozyubra, Head of the State and Legal Sciences Department of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, said that different political forces had had different motives when they had been backing the constitutional reform. The main problem, however, was that the political elite was not striving to observe the constitutional provisions, “to live in accordance with the Constitution”. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the 1996 Constitution has exhausted itself, and therefore its further refer shall be aiming not at the redistribution of powers between the power centre, but rather decrease of the number of discretional powers, i.e. those that can be exercised by a certain authority on its own.

According to Mr Sergio Bartol, Professor of Constitutional Law of the University of Trieste and Deputy Chairman of the Venice Commission, the studies of the Ukrainian system of power performed by the Venice Commission have become a constant element of constitutional debates. The main conclusion proposed for discussion concerned the danger of direct implementation of the powers of public authorities envisaged by the constitutional reform. In the speaker’s opinion, the balance of power and prevention of its concentration in the hands of the executive powers can be achieved through distribution of power at two levels: vertical which envisages its division into legislative, executive, and judicial, and horizontal which includes the separation of powers between the state and the local self-governance.

Mr Serhiy Hrynevetskyi, Member of Odesa Oblast Council stressed the necessity to separate parliamentary and local elections in time, to abolish the system of proportional representations at elections to oblast and district councils, to introduce a bicameral parliament and election of the heads of oblasts and districts in order to improve the efficiency of the operation of local self-governance bodies.

Mr Volodymr Fesenko, Director of the Penta Centre for Applied Political Studies underlined that even though the discussion of the constitutional reform is focused on the issues of the constitutional law, the process of transformations is politico-legal. Having assessed positive and negative consequences of the constitutional amendments, as well as have outlined the present day problems, the speaker analysed the possible scenarios of further transformations which shall envisage a comprehensive character of amendments to the legislation, improvement of the operation procedure of the Constitutional Court, and termination of war between the main actors of the constitutional process.

Mr Denys Kovryzhenko, expert of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives analysed the consequences of the constitutional reform and outlined the further steps in the process of reform of the system of powers in Ukraine, which shall concern regulatory and institutional transformations.

Panel 2: “Prospects of Further Reform of the Public Authorities in Ukraine”

Participants of the Plenary Session “Prospects of Further Reform of Public Authorities in Ukraine” discussed the prospects and priorities of the constitutional reform in Ukraine. The participants defined the general vectors and specific steps to be made for the further reform of the constitutional system; in particular they include amendment of only those constitutional provisions that need to be objectively changed (the local self-governance reform, balancing of powers etc) on the basis of the sole reconciled concept; broader involvement of the public into the process of political decision-making; improvement of transparency of the operation of public authorities at all levels; adoption of laws that will bring the system of public authorities, their functions and powers closer to the democratic standards; further strengthening of the parliamentary oversight powers; implementation of the administrative reform; development of a reconciled concept of the administrative and territorial reform and local self-governance reform; and reform of law-enforcement authorities.

Mr Michel GUEGAN, Vice Chairman of the Institutional Committee of the Local Authorities Chamber of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe mentioned that the way of democratic development of the local self-governance shall envisage that the smallest local self-governance subject should realise their role. The main problem in Ukraine is lack of political will necessary for the development of local self-governance due to the fear of responsibility and personal interests of politicians.

Outlining further steps in the process of constitutional reform, Mr Volodymyr Shapoval, Representative of the President of Ukraine to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and a retired judge of the Constitutional Court stressed the necessity to separate the powers of local state administrations and local self-governance bodies, to define the powers of regional self-governance, to provide the local self-governance with its financial basis, to implement the administrative and territorial reform, as well as to set up efficient mechanisms for the conduct of local referenda. According to the speaker, there is a need for deep and systemic constitutional amendments, otherwise there will only be sporadic attempts to solve individual issues in which only certain people are interested in. However, adoption of the law on the President is not to the point, as the status of the head of state is defined by the Constitution, and therefore the regulation subject of the law on the President is unclear.

Mr Anatoliy Selivanov, Permanent Representative of the Verkhovna Rada in the Constitutional Court described the constitutional reform as the result of negotiations and a political compromise, since it was done not only for the government powers, but also for the transfer to a new election system, i.e. the changes had a common constitutional and legal nature. Further transformations shall concern the functioning of the local self-governance system, the judiciary, and the public prosecution system.

Defining the context of the constitutional reform, MP Yuriy Klyuchkovskyi stressed the necessity to interpret many new constitutional provisions that adversely affect the efficiency of the government system. By their nature, the powers of the President shall find themselves in the area of executive authorities. In Ukraine, however, this area is rather fragmented, since due to the functioning of the institution lf parliamentary majority, the positions of the parliament and the government actually coincide. In addition, he mentioned that adoption of Bill No. 0900 (3207-1) on the local self-governance reform is dangerous, as it does not meet the need of the Ukrainian society at all.

Mr Victor Tymoshchuk, Head of the Centre for Political and Legal Reforms said that the lack of balance in the system of public authorities is the main problem generated by the constitutional reform, having stressed that adoption of Bill No. 0900 (3207-1) will not be able to solve this problem, since it will make high quality and equal provision of public services to the people impossible. Regional self-governance can be established only if there is a strong basic level of local self-governance; therefore the local self-governance reform shall begin with this step.
According to Mr Oleksiy Hraniy, there is a need for target amendments to the Constitution, and not the radical review of its provisions.  Having analysed the recent sociological study of public opinion, the speaker defined the main problems of the constitutional amendments, like their unclearness, the haste with which they have been passed to meet the political circumstances of the day. This evidences lack of convergence pf visions of the model of the system of public authorities between the governing elite and the people.

Mr Oleksandr Starynets, Chief of Staff of the Socialist Party stressed that there is no point in discussing the revision of the Constitution, since the constitutional reform resulted from the agreement between practically all political forces; therefore, analysing the prospects of further transformations, one should talk about the bill currently considered by the Verkhovna Rada, and  not look into some hypothetical scenarios.

Round Table: “New Format of Relations in the Parliament-President-Government Triangle”

The following key issues have been discussed:

• New Model of Relations within this Triangle: its Strong and Weak Aspects;
• Ways to Further Reform of the Public Authorities;
• Reform of the Executive Branch: from Constitutional Amendments to the Administrative Reform.

Round Table: “Constitutional Reform and Local Self-Governance”

The participants of the round table discussed the following issues:

• Bill No. 0900 (3207-1): Assessment of its Relevance to the Current Challenges;
• Ways to Improve the Administrative and Territorial System;
• Role of Local Executive Authorities under the Conditions of the Local Self-governance Reform.

Address

On the results of the Public Forum “Constitutional Reform: View of the Civil Society”, its participants issued the Address to the President, the Verkhovna Rada, the Cabinet of Ministers, Political Parties, and NGOs.

In their address, the participants have presented their generalised vision of the consequences of the constitutional reform in Ukraine and further steps towards the reformation of the system of public authorities and local self-governance. The Forum participants emphasised that implementation of the Ukrainian Constitution is complicated not only by the struggle between the President, the Parliament, and the Government, but also by the fact that the potential of the current Constitution in relation to the reform of public authorities still remains unused. The Forum participants consider that further steps towards to the reform of public authorities shall envisage not only constitutional amendments, but also adoption of a number of legislative act for the development of the constitutional provisions.

You can find also:

AGENDA of the Public Forum “CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: VIEW OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY”
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS of the PUBLIC FORUM “CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: VIEW OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY”
ANALYTICS, made by the experts of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives for the Public Forum “CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: VIEW OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY”
ADDRESS of the Public Forum participants to the President of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Political Parties and Non-Governmental Organisations

Regional partners:

Centre for Legislative Initiatives (Donetsk)
Centre for Political Analysis and Election Consulting (Lutsk)
Centre for Regional Policy Studies (Sumy)
Association for Support and Development of Local Self-Governance (Luhansk)
Southern-Ukrainian Agency for Social Technologies (Zaporizhzhya)

Dear friends,

This is a concluding publication of pilot results produced by the Voter Guide project. With this project our experts continued their efforts of monitoring legislative processes in the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian Parliament), analyzing legislation, and fulfilling the idea of raising voter awareness of how those whom they elected back in 2002 meet their campaign commitments.

The first such efforts were made in the same 2002, the year of parliamentary elections when we prepared the initial analysis, assessment, and interpretation of how public policies were implemented at the legislative level. The Voter Guide 2002 became a primary attempt to inform the broad public, professionals, and politicians on operation of political factions in the Rada in terms of solving the existing problems of public policies in various areas.

The project, the first stage of which is accomplished with this publication, aims at continuous and efficient update of voters and all other interested parties on the progress made by Ukrainian elected representatives in terms of fulfilling their campaign obligations for the purpose of implementing their party and personal programs. With this project we stand for the right to information or the right of any voter to be aware of activities and affairs of political forces delegated by such voter to the national legislature.

Through this project we also express our sincere belief in the necessity of the political reform that would provide political parties with the right and legislative possibilities to influence public policies through formation of the government and fulfillment of their campaign programs.

Sincerely yours,

Ihor Kohut
Chairman of the Board
Laboratory for Legislative Initiatives

* * *

The main idea of the Voter Guide project is to provide as many voters as possible with a regularly updated information and analysis resource for them to estimate objectively election obligations generated by members of parliament. Since the key parliamentary business is legislation, our attention shall focus on monitoring legislative initiatives or bills filed for deliberation in Rada. In view of considerable volumes of comprehensive information on legislation, we rely on the Internet as the main tool for dissemination of this information.

The Laboratory for Legislative Initiatives has its own web-site (parlament.org.ua) with a Voter Guide Section in it where you can find a news line covering main parliamentary developments, analysis of legislative initiatives, comments of politicians, professional assessment of pivotal parliamentary decisions, positions of parliamentary factions and members of Ukrainian parliament in relation to the most pressing social problems.

However, since the majority of voters have no Internet-access, we have used mass media and NGO possibilities to update the public on the progress made by their elected representatives.

At the beginning, the concept of the project provided for analysis of legislation that was related only to campaign programs produced by parties and blocs. However, it appeared that such limitation would hinder procurement of comprehensive and complete information on the legislative process. Therefore, the concept was adjusted with extension of the monitoring to bills drafted by majoritarian members of parliament and by the government.

The project methodology is based on the following approaches. To analyze the relevance of legislative initiatives to election commitments, we examined the programs of members of parliament elected in one-seat constituencies and programs developed by parties and election blocs. The analysis covers both specific commitments (e.g. to pass specific acts, to raise pensions to the cost of living level etc) and declarative ones that do not envisage any specific result (e.g. to raise public well-being, to improve free public health care etc). There are certain peculiarities associated with assessment of declarative commitments. For example, if any member of parliament promises “to provide young families with residential property”, such a commitment does not refer to specific terms and ways of its fulfillment, therefore it cannot be assessed simply as fulfilled or not fulfilled in 2006. That is why any bills initiated by such member of parliament to solve the residential problem shall be assessed as partially relevant to program commitments. If the analysis reveals no positive effective of the bill in any specific area (e.g. provision of young families with residential property), a conclusion may be that it contradicts program commitments).

Any bill is also deemed partially relevant to the program if it is compatible with certain provisions, but runs counter others. The same conclusion is also made if objective reasons prevent a bill from solving the problem it is aiming at. For example, a program provides for raising minimum wages to the cost of living level. However, with due consideration of state budget potential, the legislator proposes to increase wages only to 50% of the cost of living. Since this increase does not meet the program commitment, it may be regarded as partially relevant to the program. However, this conclusion shall be seen more as an indicator, rather then a verdict. Members of parliament may fulfill their commitments before 2006 when all bills related to minimum wages will be analyzed, and such analysis may yield positive results then.

To sum it up, specific election commitments in terms of their timing (e.g. over the term of parliamentary powers), method (e.g. state funding) and final aim (e.g. 100% increase of health care funding) may be assessed as fulfilled or not fulfilled, while declarative (not specific) commitments may be defined as partially fulfilled or not fulfilled. Conclusions shall be proved by direct quotations of program provisions.

There may also be cases when MPs file a bill aiming to solve a problem not mentioned in the program. Such bills are taken as irrelevant to the program.

First, there are interim reports prepared on the results of each session. The interim reports are then revised altogether for the purposes of a general report on fulfillment of each election campaign program. The final report is based on final versions of initiated bills. This means that if between the interim and final reports a bill is amended in the way that runs counter the program, the final results may differ from the initial ones.

It is important to note, however, that it is quite difficult to preserve univocal objectiveness of conclusions due to the nature of election commitments per se. Therefore, the presented conclusions shall be used only as a voter guide. For these purposes, this information resource provides original texts of election programs and bills for the voters to make their judgments about them.

The election campaign program developed by Victor Yushchenko Our Ukraine Bloc defines responsible, professional, and fair government as a guarantee of public well-being. Consequently, ethics is described as the main principle of politics.

The concept of the program is developed on the necessity to pursue efforts initiated by Yushchenko government. Our Ukraine divides its key parliamentary tasks into long-term priorities and short-term moves.

Strategic priorities and tasks are grouped into four sections. The first section includes transparency of relations between the public and the government through introduction of arrangements for civic oversight of public spendings, civic discussion of public decisions, and continued law-enforcement and judicial reforms.

The second section aims at making the economy work for the well-being of every individual though a transparent and comprehensive tax system, simplified licensing procedures, introduction of the property tax, as well as improved quality and decreased cost of public health care. This implies that the program is bases on the following economic policy principles: support to legal business, secured social justice in relevant relations, and improved quality and accessibility of health services.

The third section targets recovery of traditions of individual development through introduction of innovative forms of education, involvement of the youth in politics, support to business activity among the youth, and introduction of simplified taxation for domestic publishers. In other words, Our Ukraine youth and education policies should be aiming at modernization of education, encouragement and promotion of political and business activity among the youth.

The forth section embraces international activity priorities for development of transborder cooperation, Ukraine’s accession to the World Trade Organization, introduction of the European environmental standards, and establishment of cooperation with the Ukrainian Diaspora.

The Our Ukraine program provides for ten top priority moves that aim at bringing professional officials to power, repaying depreciated individual savings, increasing salaries and pensions, setting up the system of target social assistance, mother and child care, legalizing Ukrainian labor migration by international treaties, ensuring efficient lending of the agrarian sector, eliminating bribery, securing transparency of the budget process, and preventing youth violence and drug addiction.

Characteristically, though, the program features almost no provisions that could be measured exactly in terms of their fulfillment or failure. The text abounds with evaluative notions like “efficacious”, “efficient”, “coherent”, “fair” etc, as well as vague and slogan type of verbs like “increase”, “activate”, “enhance” and others. This makes the Our Ukraine program look like that of objectives, as it defines practically no measures or moves required for their achievement.

In terms of the content, the program:

– Describes no vision of the system of government development;

– Tacitly avoids issues related to development of priority economic sectors (excluding the publishing business); and

– Touches on social issues only in the most general and declarative sense.

106 bills were analyzed as to their relevance to the Our Ukraine program. Out of them, 41 bills were filed by MPs elected on the Our Ukraine list, and 65 – jointly with MPs elected in one-seat constituencies and on other lists.

Out of the total number, 45 bills are relevant to the program, 8 are partially relevant, 5 contradict the program, and 46 are irrelevant.

The Communist Party program is distinguished by its clear structure with aims and tasks followed by results that the Communists strive to achieve if they win elections. However, this did not prevent them from including countless demagogic statements (“The earth will burn under the feet of criminals”, “Ukraine’s prosperity in the equal union of fraternal peoples of sovereign states” etc) and populist promises (“Workers and not criminals or criminal authorities shall become the masters of life”, “Let’s set up decent conditions for the woman, guardian of the humanity”, “The Ukrainian black earth shall yield generous harvests for all people, and shall not serve for enrichment swindlers” etc).

The program features certain legislative plans, which, even if unlikely to be implemented, can be easily assessed in terms of their accomplishment. Such plans are:

– To cancel the Land Code in the version that was adopted illegally;

– To establish state monopoly for production, use and sale of alcoholic beverage and tobacco products, foreign trade, use of power supply networks, railroad, pipeline, maritime, and aircraft transport;

– To cancel the VAT and set a flat sale tax for volumes of goods and services;

– To make Russian the second official language;

– To set minimum wages and pensions at the level not less than the cost of living in 2003;

– To repay indexed individual savings over the period of five years;

– To provide proper funding to science and education as required by law; and

– To transform Ukraine into a parliamentary-presidential republic.

Out of the 17 Communist tasks, 8 deal with economic policy, 4 with social policy, and 2 tasks are set for foreign policy and law-enforcement. At the same time, almost all results that the Communist Party is planning to achieve after winning elections concern solution of social problems.

69 bills were analyzed as to their relevance to the Communist Party program. Out of them, 21 bills were filed by MPs elected on the Communist Party list, and 48 – jointly with MPs elected in one-seat constituencies and on other lists.
Out of the total number, 26 bills are relevant to the program, 12 are partially relevant, 8 contradict the program, and 23 are irrelevant.

There is quite a number of provisions in the campaign program developed by the For United Ukraine bloc that are purely declarative making it impossible to define the general trend that the Bloc may follow in Parliament to implement the program. Such provisions, in particular, include commitments to strengthen the efficiency of the system of government; recover Ukrainian family values; develop efficient systems of social and pension security, and public health care; provide the youth with realistic prospects; ensure cooperation between the government, political parties, and civic society; modernize science and education; rejuvenate official public authorities; set up a continuous dialogue between the government and the public; speed up the administrative and the judicial reforms; harmonize the interests of the center and the regions; counteract extremism and intolerance; and support respect of constitutional human rights.

There are, however, a few provisions that suggest general guidelines for the Bloc to follow in Parliament. These provisions are also quite abstract and include the following commitments arranged by areas:

Economy:

– To ensure stability of the national currency; to increase the real income of the population by 1,5; to lead economy out of the shadow; to support entrepreneurship, small and medium business; and to stimulate development of the internal market;

Environmental Protection:

– To ensure environmental security of the country and to overcome the consequences of Chernobyl disaster;

Social Policy:

– To protect Chernobyl victims; to guarantee social rights of military servants, pensioners, and disabled individuals; to ensure productive employment; and to create 1,5m of new jobs;

Foreign policy:

– To support complex European integration of Ukraine; to strengthen relations with CIS countries; and involve Ukraine into the international coalition of combating terrorism;

Development of Government System and Local Self-Governance:

– To set up the parliamentary majority that shall be responsible for the results of economic and social development; to introduce civic oversight of the system of government; to support development of municipal and regional democracy and local self-governance;

Agrarian Policy:

– To develop the agrarian market infrastructure; to set up an efficient system of legal protection of land title and its holders; to provide state support to farms, family, small and medium agricultural companies.

There are also certain provisions suggesting specific actions to be taken in Parliament. In the economic sector, it is a promise to in crease the GDP by 6-7% annually, to pass the Tax Code and to decrease a tax burden; in development of government system and local self-governance, it is an obligation to set up a second parliamentary chamber, the House of Regions, and introduce a new system of interbudget relations where no less than 40% of taxes shall stay in regions; in the agrarian sector, it is a commitment to introduce mortgage lending.

58 bills were analyzed as to their relevance to the For United Ukraine program. Out of them, 13 bills were filed by MPs elected on the For United Ukraine list, and 45 – jointly with MPs elected in one-seat constituencies and on other lists.

Out of the total number, 25 bills are relevant to the program, 10 are partially relevant, 4 contradict the program, and 19 are irrelevant.

In general terms, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc’s program is quite specific and well-structured. Its text is based on listing key conflicts and contradictions in various public sectors and proposals of their solutions.

The top priority is given to the ethics area where it is proposed, inter alia, to combine the efforts of the government and religious confessions to fight drug addiction, AIDS, children homelessness, prostitution, crime and other social diseases. Quite indicatively, the program lists “the birth of true freedom of speech” as one of the ways to overcome problems in the ethics area.

To solve problematic issues in politics, the program advocates introduction of systemic trainings for efficient public management, legislative regulation of impeachment procedures for all “unconscionable elected officials”; and definition of the status of the opposition in the Basic Law and provision of the opposition with certain important oversight powers over operation of the government. In addition, it is proposed to transfer part of the personal income tax to the account of the party/bloc elected and supported by each specific individual. This also means that, the general tax volume shall be decreased.

There is a special part of the program that is dedicated to the legal policy where a number of measures are proposed to improve legal culture and education of citizens in line with simplified procedures and enhanced efficiency of judicial protection of civic rights. The Bloc also suggests differentiation and mitigation of punishments for criminally liable actions.

The program contains extensive and detailed provisions on measures proposed in the economic sphere. Such measures aim to solve the existing conflicts and include inspection of legality of privatization and inventory description of public property; development of “openly protectionist conditions” for the national capital at the stage of its establishment; prohibition of tax inspections more than once in three years; use of economic levers to decrease loan rates to 5-6% etc. The program contains an important proposal of limiting land title holders only to the Ukrainian citizens “living and working on the land”. Besides, there is a proposal to exclude corporate bodies from the agents entitled to hold agricultural land titles.

The program suggests a few comparatively specific measures for social policies, including preservation of the existing pension age definitions and repayment of depreciated and “stolen” saving over four years. One of the most interesting measures, however, is reimbursement of material and moral damages to deported individuals (including those deported from Kholmshchyna, Pidlyashshya, Lemkivshchyna, and Nadsyannya).

Irrelevance of the “low” status of Ukraine in international relations to its huge potential possibilities is defined as the key conflict in the foreign policy area. The program, however, lacks clearly defined trends of Ukraine’s foreign policies. Instead, it pronounces implementation of national foreign policies in relation to all countries with which Ukraine has common interests.

42 bills were analyzed as to their relevance to the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc program. Out of them, 18 bills were filed by MPs elected on the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc list, and 24 – jointly with MPs elected in one-seat constituencies and on other lists.

Out of the total number, 16 bills are relevant to the program, 2 are partially relevant, 3 contradict the program, and 21 are irrelevant.

The Socialist program seems to be maximally precise and concise. It is developed on the principle of very specific commitments combined with measures necessary to achieve the defined objectives. For example, it is proposed to raise teacher salaries to 350 UAH by introduction of 1.5% of tax for imported cars that cost more than 50,000 UAH and residential property valued at over 500,000 UAH. The program also requires that children allowances paid to parents form the state budget shall be no less than 200 UAH per month. These are the type of specific commitments that dominate the program.

The Socialists advocate transformation of the system of government. Their efforts aim at enhanced role of Parliament and independence of the Cabinet of Ministers (the Ukrainian government). The program provides for adoption of the Presidential Impeachment Act and promotion of direct election of oblast and district public authorities.

In terms of support to the rural areas, there are both specific and declarative statements, like “Ukraine shall trade bread, not land!” that can be understood in a number of different ways. It is proposed to keep a fixed flat land tax, provide long-term loans and guarantee “beneficial” governmental orders.

The program suggests introduction of a flat fixed tax for small and medium business and commits to eliminate “bandit racket, tax authorities raids, and bribers “in law”. There are also protectionist measures proposed to protect domestic producers.

Despite of other provisions, however, the key emphasis is made on various aspects of social policies, which is rather characteristic of leftist parties. In particular, the following commitments are made:

– Average salary fixed in legislation at the level of no less than double cost of living and mandatory governmental enforcement of this norm;

– Pensions and other social payments not less the cost of living (342 UAH);

– Guaranteed preservation of privileges, free health care, moral peace and respect of the society for the older generation.

By using Ukrainian natural gas and “cheap” nuclear power, the Socialists undertake to decrease utility charges by 30% and establish a legislative limit of 12% of the family income on such charges.

Young men can become interested in the promise to decrease the term of military service to 12 months.

One of the important aspects of this program is that it is absolutely void of provisions that would characterize the party’s foreign policy aspirations not counting the reference to the bill on principles of domestic and foreign policy developed, according to the program, by the Socialists.

41 bills were analyzed as to their relevance to the Socialist Party program. Out of them, 9 bills were filed by MPs elected on the Socialist Party list, and 30 – jointly with MPs elected in one-seat constituencies and on other lists.

Out of the total number, 12 bills are relevant to the program, 5 are partially relevant, 1 contradicts the program, and 23 are irrelevant.

The program of the Social Democratic Party (united) features clear and logic structure. It states key program priorities and sets certain tasks for the party.

Government Development and Local Self-Governance

The program objectives are to overcome legal nihilism of the government system; to establish a party political system; to ensure public oversight of the government; to form the majority in Parliament and a politically responsible government. At the same time, the program covers no issues related to local self-governance.

Legal Policy

This area also does not get enough attention in the program. The program only mentions that there is need to prevent Ukraine’s transformation into a “shadow society” governed by illegal norms.

Economy and Industry Policy

The program defines the following priorities in this area: development of efficient and socially oriented economy; stabilization of economic legislation; state enforcement of mandatory execution of commercial agreements and strict compliance of all business agents with their commitments; protection of the internal market and domestic producer by all means that are compliant with international rules including moderate protectionism; support to development of small and medium business; creation of strategic planning systems to ensure continuous efforts of the state aiming at long-term problems. The program sets elimination of consequences of the exhausted social and production infrastructure as the top strategic task. It also stresses the urgent need to pass the Tax Code and a set of laws to support full-fledged implementation of the Land Code.

Social Policy

The program is quite focused on the issues of social policy, culture and ethics development. The priorities in these areas include: stable job supply (through creation of new jobs); possibility of free and high quality medical treatment; decreased gap between the richest and the poorest social groups; simplified and less bureaucratic social security arrangements; provision of the young people with a possibility of getting modern education, profession, and residential property; ensured state support to families, mothers, and children; elimination of beggary and children homelessness. Achievement of these tasks provides for development and adoption of a number of important legislative acts and codes: a new Labor Code and trade union legislation; a set of laws to guarantee reformation of the public health care system through improvement of budgetary funding arrangements combined with gradual introduction of social health care; amendment of the tax and labor legislation to decrease differentiation of incomes.

In culture and ethics area it is planned to recover traditions of high Ukrainian culture, spirituality, and ethics; ensure and multiply intellectual potential of the society; harmonize interethnic and inter-confession relations; develop national, language, and religious originality; ensure full-fledged and free development of the Russian language and culture.

Information Policy

No reference is made in the program.

National Security and Defense

No reference is made in the program.

Foreign Policy

The Program provides for strengthening national sovereignty and active participation in international division of labor; Ukraine’s accession to world and European international organizations; development of relations with Russia under the conditions of partnership, equality and mutual benefits; setup of the all-European collective security system together with Western European and Central and Eastern European countries and Russia.

All in all, the program focuses on such areas as development of the system of government, economic and social policies. At the same time, it pays no proper attention to such important issues and legal and information policies.

11 bills were analyzed as to their relevance to the SDPU(u) program. Out of them, 2 bills were filed by MPs elected on the SDPU(u) list, and 9 – jointly with MPs elected on lists of other parties and blocs.

Out of the total number of bills only 1 bill is relevant to the program, 2 bills contradict the program, and 8 bills are irrelevant to any provisions of the program.