I do a lot of surveys with average Ukrainians all over Ukraine and from what they saying there is no future for Ukraine or in Ukraine. Does not matter who is in charge things still don’t change. If you really want to help Ukrainian then help them get out of there.

The Presidential plan to dismiss Ukraine’s parliament was hatched well before the 2006 Election. Reports in the media indicated that back in February 2006 (Before the March 2006 Parliamentary election had been decided) the Presidents Political Party “Our Ukraine” had indicated that they (The President) would sack the parliament if the Our Ukraine bloc did not win the election.

Concerns over the President’s planed coup was also aired by Olexander Moroz who one year later in February 2007 exposed the plot to destabilise Ukraine parliamentary system.

On April 2 the President put the long standing plan into operation acting against the constitution of Ukraine and in breach of Article 5 and 90.

The President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko went as far as illegally interfering with the operation of Ukraine’s constitutional Court by sacking three Constitutional Court Judges known to be opposed to his decree on the eve of the Courts ruling in order to prevent the Court from ruling against the President’s decree.

The Court to this day still has not ruled on the questions of legality of the President’s actions.

The Council of Europe, knowing that the President actions were unconstitutional, sat back and watched as Ukraine’s constitutional order and rule of law was being breached. By doing so teh Council European and the OSCE has set a precedent that any despot dictator can now ignore a country’s constitutional rule of law by usurping power and interfering with the Country’s judiciary in order to avoid accountability.

The Council or Europe selectively and politically will decide if it should comment, express outrage at the breach of constitutional law or not. By remaining silent and not insisting on a ruling of the Courts the Council of Europe has seriously compromised their own integrity and independence.

In the absence of a ruling by Ukraine Constitutional Court and the functioning of a proper judicial system the European Council’s Venice Commission should be required to examine the question of legality of the President’s actions to determine whether or not the President had acted lawfully and if so under what principles of law and authority under Ukraine’s Constitution.

To just sweep this issue under the carpet and hope that the stench will not permeate beyond Ukraine is a serious error of judgment.

The holding of the fresh parliamentary election in September 2007 has not delivered positive outcome or provided political stability for Ukraine.

The so called Democratic (in name alone) reformed “Orange coalition” failed to secure a majority of the vote (45% only) but managed to secure a slender parliamentary majority of two. (The previous governing coalition only missed out in winning the election as a result of the Socialist party of Ukraine polling just below the 3% threshold barrier. Had the SPU secured 0.2% more votes the outcome of the election would have been different.)

Ukraine’s Prime-minister elect Yulia Tymoshcneko failed to secure the support of an absolute majority of the parliament during the first round of parliamentary voting, it was only on a second round of voting with a forced show of hands that the new governing coalition was able to maintain party solidarity

The fragile slender majority does little to install confidence in the overall outcome of the election as Ukraine remains bitterly divided with the public support virtually remaining the same as it was back in 2004.

Democracy at a cross roads

Pressure will continue to mount for fresh presidential elections in 2008 early 2009

On April 19 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution in consideration of a report titled Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. (Items 13 and 14) stated:

“ The Assembly deplores the fact that the judicial system of Ukraine has been systematically misused by other branches of power and that top officials do not execute the courts’ decisions, which is a sign of erosion of this crucial democratic institution. An independent and impartial judiciary is a precondition for the existence of a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Hence the urgent necessity to carry out comprehensive judicial reform, including through amendments to the constitution.

The Assembly reiterates that the authority of the sole body responsible for constitutional justice – the Constitutional Court of Ukraine – should be guaranteed and respected. Any form of pressure on the judges is intolerable and should be investigated and criminally prosecuted. On the other hand, it is regrettable that in the eight months of its new full composition, the Constitutional Court has failed to produce judgments, thus failing to fulfil its constitutional role and to contribute to resolving the crisis in its earlier stages, which undermines the credibility of the court.

There is an urgent need for all pending judgments, and in particular the judgment concerning the constitutionality of the Presidential Decree of 2 April 2007, to be delivered. If delivered, the latter should be accepted as binding by all sides.
”

The associated explanatory report under the sub-heading of Pressure on the courts expressed concern that “Several local courts have made decisions to suspend the Presidential Decree only to then withdraw them, allegedly under pressure from the presidential secretariat.” (item 67) In emphasis the report (item 68) stated

“This is a worrying tendency of legal nihilism that should not be tolerated. It is as clear as day that in a state governed by the rule of law judicial mistakes should be corrected through appeal procedures and not through threats or disciplinary sanctions ”

On April 30, on the eve of the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the legality of the president’s decree dismissing Ukraine’s parliament, President Yushchenko, in defiance of the PACE resolution of April 19 intervened in the operation of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court by summarily dismissing two Constitutional Court Judges, Syuzanna Stanik and Valeriy Pshenychnyy, for allegations of “oath treason.” His move was later overturned by the Constitutional Court and the judges were returned by a temporary restraining order issued by the court.

On May 16,Viktor Yushchenko, for a second time, issued another decree dismissing the two Constitutional Court Judges Syuzanna Stanik and Valeriy Pshenychnyy.

On May 23, The Constitutional Court of Ukraine acted to prevent the president’s undue influence on the court system. The court’s ruling was made after Viktor Yushchenko unduly sought to influence the court by illegally firing two Constitutional Court judges Valeriy Pshenychnyy and Syuzanna Stanik for allegations of “oath treason.”.

On July 20 Susanna Stanik won an appeal against the President in the Shevchenko district court of Kyiv. The Court ruled the President’s actions illegal and reinstated Ms Stanik’s entitlement as a member of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court. According to the ruling, the President is obliged to cancel his decree on discharge of Mrs. Stanik..” The other two judges who were also illegally dismissed had previously tendered their resignations and as such were not subject to the courts order.

Following the president’s intervention the Constitutional Court still has not ruled on the question of legality of the president’s actions.

Stepan Havrsh, the President’s appointee to the Constitutional Court, in prejudgment of the courts decision and without authorization from the Court itself, commented in an interview published on July 24

“ I cannot imagine myself as the Constitutional Court in condition in which three political leaders signed a political/legal agreement on holding early elections, which also stipulates the constitutional basis for holding the elections… How the court can agree to consider such a petition under such conditions. ”

Olexander Lavrynovych, Ukrainain Minister for Justice, in an interview published on Aug 3 is quoted as saying

“ According to the standards of the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine, these elections should have been recognized invalid already today. But we understand that we speak about the State and about what will happen further in this country. As we’ve understood, political agreements substitute for the law, … The situation has been led to the limit, where there are no possibilities to follow all legal norms.

First, I did not say anything false. I said that the stated goal of the Party of Rossiya was to get 450 deputies.

Second – you want to talk about the 2006 elections. But that is not the issue.

The issue is whether a group of crooks from the Party of Rossiya could bribe other crooks to CHANGE the factions that were elected, and cause various deputies to hop from faction to faction, based on the highest bids.

Third – in typical neo-sovok style, you try to inject non-issues as bargaining chips. Yushchenko’s job is not up for election at this time. And there’s no reason it should be, except in the minds of crooks from the Party of Rossiya who want to play all sorts of card games with government in Ukraine.

Fourth – seems to me that the Party of Rossiya has selective memory. During Kuchma’s era, there is not a single presidential decree that they questioned. Now, they want to question everything President Yushchenko.

Not surprising, concerning that the Party of Rossiya reinstated Kuchma’s perks and privileges, for no good reason at all.

Fifth – your suggestion that the President needs to resign if the court rules against him is ludicrous and laughable, for several reasons, not the least of which is that it suggests that if the court rules in his favor, then the entire zRada ought to resign.

I’m not sure where it says that if one gets an adverse ruling from a court, one needs to vanish immediately from the scene. Other countries manage to work quite well even when their President receives an adverse ruling from a court, without requiring their President to immediately resign.

The idea of not holding new Parliamentary elections because opinion polls say that no conflicts would be resolved is also ludicrous. Why bother holding elections ever? Just hold opinion polls, and government can be elected not by elections, but by opinion polls.

Where you people come up with this slop is beyond me.

In one thing you are right – whoever is elected must begin to act in the best interest of Ukraine.

And if they can find agreement and compromise – that’s a bonus.

Under the terms of Ukraine’s Constitution 2/3rds (300 not 450 as you have falsely stated) of the Parliament can amend certain provision of Ukraine’s constitution – issues related to general governance of Ukraine – Certain provisions of teh constitution MUST be determined by a plebiscite. The provision related to amending the Constitution is in accordance with other western conities and has not been modified and remain the same as they were before the amendment’s to Ukraine’s Constitution in December 2004.

Contrary to your misleading statements I and others who support Ukraine’s parliamentary democracy are not members of Party or Regions or any other Ukrainian Political Party but it was a nice try to defect the truth of what is going on in Ukraine Today. if you can not play teh ball attack the player.

Ukraine’s transition to a Parliamentary Democracy came into effect following the March 2006 Parliament elections. Elections that were recognised universally as being the most open and democratic elections in Ukraine since independence in 1991. The Transition from a Presidential dictatorship to a Parliamentary ‘rule of law’ democtracy most certainly has brought Ukraine in line with other European Nations – all, with the exception of Cyprus, are governed by a Parliamentary system. This is a fact that you seam to deny or do not whish to acknowledge.

Ukraine has only been a democrtacy for just over one year. It is just begining to catch up with other Eastern European countries who adopted a parliamentary system at the time of their independance.

The crisis facing Ukraine today is not a West versus Russia conflict. It is a battle for power between a President who has lost support and the democratically elected Parliament that was elected last year.

The decision of Ukraine’s President to dismiss Ukraine’s Parliament, is dubious to say the least, if not outright illegal and unconstitutional. This is what is now before Ukraine’s Constitutional Court who hopefully will rule on the issue on the basis of Law as opposed to mob rule on the streets.

The PACE assembly today (Thursday April 19) passed a resolution calling on all parties to abide by the decision of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court. reading between the lines this is a clear indication that the President’s decree should be put on hold pending the out come of the Government’s appeal. Something that all parties should support.

The actions and recent statements of Yulia Tymoshenko can not be supported. They most certainly go against the expressed view made by the Council or European Parliamentary Assembly.

Recent public opinion polling published today indicates that the overall results of fresh parliamentary elections would see the Party of Regions with the support of the Communist Party maintaining majority support of any newly elected Parliament with Yulia Tymoshenko and Our Ukraine losing support.

In the absence of an agreed compromise the only way forward at present is to wait for the determination of the Constitutional Court.

The Government, in line with the PACE resolution passed today, has porposed that the Parliament consider further necessary electoral and constitutional reforms with the intent of holding jointly fresh Presidential and Parliamentary elections in October this year.

This proposal is reasonable and worthy of support.

The main stumbling block being that whilst the President is advocating that the Parliament face fresh elections the President himself is not prepared to put his own position on the line and seek renewal of his mandate from the Ukrainian people.

The suggestion of holding simultaneous Presidential and Parliamentary elections is fair and would certainly reduce the costs associated with holding multiple continueous elections. The President’s term of Office is due to expire in 2009. Where teh paralimnets term of office is due in 2011.

If the Constitutional Court rules against the President then the President will be under considerable pressure to resign, having brought the office of the President into disrepute by undermining Ukraine’s constitutional and economic stability. The President would have not alternative but to accept the proposed compromise of constructing a clean sweep election.

The strategy proposed by Yulia Tymoshenko who has threaten to resign will also backfire. Yes if the parliament can not maintain or form a constitutional composition of 300 members of parliament the President pursuant to Article 90 of Ukraine’s constitution can pass a decree to dissolve the Parliament. But this is not a guarantee as it has been suggested that a count back of the 2006 elections can be undertaken to fill the casual vacancies. In any event the process could linger on and would take another three months before the President could decree to dissolve the Parliament pursaunt to Article 90.

Given the outcome of the current opinion polls fresh Parliamentary elections will not resolve the exisiting division and conflict within Ukraine.

Ukraine’s politicians must find agreement and compromise compromise.

Ukraine’s political leaders must put an end to the ongoing and counter-productive power games and begin to act in the best interest of Ukraine and not the percieved interst of a sgingel group that continues to destabilise Ukraine by seeking elections after election in the hope that a change of fortune’s will come their way.

The opposition certainly has not been acting in the best interest of Ukraine.

More information http://Ukrainetoday.blogspot.com

The president having lost the election and having failed to successfully negotiate a posting in the governing coalition has been at odds with the democratically elected parliament ever since.”

This is the kind of distortion that the thugs in the Party of Rossiya (Regions) put out in order to justify a major power grab.

Just when did the conversion to a parliamentary form of government take place?

By election of the people? Certainly not.

By constitutional referendum? Certainly not.

It took place when the majority simply started enacting whatever laws it wanted.

The stated, confirmed goal of the Party of Regions was to get 450 deputies over to their side. This, of course, would be the instrument of dictatorship, and a reversion to Kuchmism.

And their actions after the President dissolved Parliament confirmed this, from reinstating the previous Election Commissioners that had already been found to have committed vote fraud, to trying to disband the Constitutional Court, to cutting off funds, by fraudulent means, for an election.

The President lost the election??????!!!! President Yushchenko WON – that’s why he’s president.

The Party of Regions supporters have learned to mouth the words “rule of law” and “democracy,” because they have paid Paul Manafort to teach them nice-sounding sound bites.

BUT THEY ARE NOT FOOLING ANYONE!

At the Council of Europe, Yanukovych read his speech, with all the nice phrases, practically in a monotone, and without any conviction or feeling. He even asked, rhetorically in his speech, whether one should consider whether he really means what he says.

THEY ARE NOT FOOLING ANYONE!

And President Yushchenko was absolutely correct in clearing the Parliament of all the Pharisees and moneychangers.

11 out of 18 judges agreed to consider the issues of the appeal on its merits.

The fact that 7 judges (appointed by Yushchenko)refused to consider the issue should be of concern and demonstrates the extent of politicization of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court.

Ukraine opposition says Constitutional Court ‘a farce’ – Yulia Tymoshenko

Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko has described a Constitutional Court session reviewing President Yushchenko decree dissolving parliament as “a farce,” and urged the president to recall the judges appointed on his quota.

Source: RIA Novosti

“The Constitutional Court in its present form cannot and must not be an arbiter,” she said.

She said the crisis can only be resolved by going to the country, not a handful of people who are neither free nor unbiased.

“We will not accept the decision of this Constitutional Court, because it cannot be legal,” Tymoshenko said.

Ukraine’s Constitutional Court said earlier Tuesday it decided to study a presidential decree ordering the dissolution of parliament nonstop, from April 17 through 27, until a final ruling is passed.

The decision was upheld by 11 out of 18 judges.

More: http://UkraineToday.blogspot.com

Dividing Ukraine into `pro-Western` and `pro-Russian` is an offence to the wisdom of the people of Ukraine,” said Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly President René van der Linden.

How true. The sooner the Western and Ukrainian media cease promoting this false stereotype the better off Ukraine and the world will be.

“I would like here to fully endorse the position taken by my colleague, Hanne Severinsen and published on the Maidan website: (http://eng.maidanua.org/node/711).

“Comments I made recently in a telephone interview to a Ukrainian journalist would appear to have been distorted in so far as they suggest a categorical tone and that I am taking sides in the present issue. Since these comments were reported and embellished in various publications (including the newspaper “2000″ and the official site of the Party of the Regions), I would like to stress that any other opinions and statements regarding the present situation in Ukraine made in those publications did not originate from me. I would also suggest that the conclusions and general tone of all of these publications bore little resemblance to what I did in fact say.”

Full statement at http://eng.maidanua.org/node/712

Comments attributed by “Ukraine today” above are inaccurate and untrue.

This plays into the hands of the President who does not want the Court to consider the appeal. The longer the Court tales to decide on the matter the worst the situation gets. IN visiting friends at one of the law institute here in Ukraine all the students and faculty are of the view that the President’s decree is unconstitutional. A view shared by PACE representatives.

This is akin to using a missile to kill a rouge bull.

There is no proven connection between the assignation of a Russian mafia boss and the current crisis or the Ukrainian Government. the comments above are pure speculation pandering to ongoing stereotypes.

This is not a pro West versus pro Russian war. this is a battle for power between the President and the Parliament. give me a Parliamentary democracy any day. All European Union Countries are parliamentary democracies. the Government over the last year has made considerable strides in bringing Ukraine in line with European Standards. the Government was committed to a policy of standardisation and interrogation with Europe. it is possible to be pro Ukrainian and pro Europe and not anti Russian at the same time. They are not exclusive of each other.

As for the Constitutional Court, I believe that it was the Verkhovna Rada that referred the question of legality of the presidential decree on elections to it.

Still, the Court has 15 days to decide whether they at all will want to address the matter, and is in no way bound to the 5 days within which parliament urged them to decide the issue. So, even if they would consider making a ruling, they have lots of time to think the matter through whether they at all would want to meddle into the conflict.

Judging from the composition of the 18 member Court, Yushchenko may well have a majority behind him for turning down even considering the issue. Then the question of a state of emergency may become a reality, following the Constitution.

That Yushchenko did not follow article 90 of the Constitition is quite clear. Consequently, there is no formal constitutional support for president Yushchenko’s decree to disband parliament and call for new elections – either by articles 83 or 90.

Still, one might well argue that he acted in the “spirit of the Constitution” – to uphold the constitutional order. This is a much stronger case, which may explain his statement that it was not only his right – it was his obligation.

I cannot exactly recollect how the rules on constitutional changes are since the 8 December 2004 amendments, but I recollect that there were some prerequisites for a plebiscite confirming constitutional changes. Still, is this an amendment made then – in 2004 – or is it something new? If not, it would appear that a qualified majority (300 out of 450) of MPs may make constitutional changes as they see fit – at least if judging from the changes made in 2004.

If 2/3 of a parliament may make changes in the constitution without arepeated confirmation after another election, it would be an exception to most democratic constitutions. Still, the home of parliamentary democracy, namely Great Britain, has no such bars for constitutional changes. All in all, it is quite an interesting case of the philosophy of law and constitutional law in itself, so it would be very interesting to see a ruling from the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Still, its 6+6+6 composition of judges, parliamentarians, and presidential representatives, will most probably prevent any real discussion on the “spirit of the Constitution”. If such a discussion and consequent ruling would take place, based on a true reasoning on the foundation of the constitution, it might actually strengthen Ukraine as a democracy. This is however not at all realistic, so regrettably the crisis seems to be continuing without really addressing the legal issues at hand.