The West Imposes "Kazakhstan Elections" on Ukraine

The Venetian commission doesn't recommend Ukraine to come back to the mixed election system, the director of the Venetian commission Thomas Markert declared on Monday at the hearings of the commission on discussion of bills of elections of people's deputies in Ukraine, news agency RIA News informs.

On Thursday the Ukrainian parliament plans to consider five bills of elections of people's deputies, among them there's the bill brought in the Supreme Rada by the majority, developed by the working group created by the president Victor Yanukovych. The bill provides introduction of the mixed party-majority electoral system and increase of a passing barrier for the parties from 3% to 5% from the results of voting as a whole across Ukraine.

"Ukraine already has experience of introduction of the mixed system and it's very negative, therefore mixed system can lead to abuses in the Ukrainian conditions", - Markert told.

As he said, changes in the elective legislation were carried out by the parliamentary majority without taking into consideration position of the Ukrainian opposition parties.

"Such unilateral changes will undermine trust of voters to electoral system", - the director of the Venetian commission added.

From editorial board: I am not a big expert of the Ukrainian constitution but I believe that situation here is mirrowlike the Russian one - the Organic law demands to choose deputies, while so-called "elections" pass between the parties. Though, in the Constitution of the Russian Federation a word "party" appears only in one place - in the article where it is specified that parties can exist, they have this right. Yury Mukhin wrote a lot and intelligibly about legislative aspect of the given question, there is no sense to repeat.

However what do we see in Ukraine? The president Yanukovych decides to correct developed system and to return citizens the right to vote not for parties but directly for candidates, let it be even partial, halfway. What do the West? The West immediately checks "unsuitable to euro-integration" Yanukovych - it's forbidden!

It's interesting that such situation is possible in France and is forbidden here in Ukraine or in Russia?!
What was so negative in the experience of introduction of the mixed system in Ukraine or, say, in Russia? In the period when elections on majority districts were possible, dictatorship of one party - party in power - was impossible in the Russian parliament - such elections are much more difficult for forging, citizens receive possibility to be not only supernumeraries on party "roll-call" but also to put forward candidates. Certainly, it is a disorder - all should be as in America, either the republican, or the democrat. Only political scientists understand the difference between the republicans and the democrats.

Or here you are an example of solar Kazakhstan against which elective system the Venetian commission doesn't have basic objections: only one party is present in the parliament under the party lists - "Nur Otan", so to say, republicans and democrats in one bottle.

Thus it is necessary to understand that the republics of the former USSR don't have parties similar to the republicans and the democrats in the USA (or to the labourites and the conservatives in Great Britain). All of them represent new growths which are in no way implanted in the political environment. Parties appear and disappear, merge and share - as a rule they are being created under separately taken leader. The voter even doesn't remember them under the names, people just say: "Yanukovych's party", "Timoshenko's party", "Yatsenjuk's party". Only the communists perhaps have identification on all space of the CIS, all others - are ideologically muffled, have no real party active, as a matter of fact they are "projects", not parties.

So why it's democratic to vote for "Yanukovych's list" or "Timoshenko's list" but not democratic to vote for separately taken candidate (even if with instructions of his party membership)?

This logic can't be understood if not to recognize - the West is terribly interested that the states of the CIS remained authoritative, semi-gangster clan communities, that even the word "state" in relation to them should be put in inverted commas. Therefore the West though screws up its face for the sake of appearances but always recognizes "elections" even following the most exotic rules - either in Russia, in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan, or even in Turkmenia.

Let's think who allowed (almost imposed) cancellation of elections on districts? Who pushes cancellation of the column "against all", cancellation of voter turn-out, electronic systems of voting and so on? Perhaps some authoritative structures, some communists-fascists? No, it being made by "progressive" leaders, true democrats  treated kindly by the West.

If nobody wonders why democrats-Westerners as soon as they come to power immediately limit free will of citizens? Abolish electivity of the governors, carry out votings by party lists even to local authorities where there are no parties at all? Why citizens of the CIS don't choose judges, public prosecutors and sheriffs though there are instructions on it in each typical constitution stamped in the new "states" following one sample? Why more and more often elective mayors give way to "city-managers"? Why, at last, written down in every constitution referendums become as a matter of fact impracticable under the initiative from below? Why promotion of the president is possible only from the party but not in other way?

Why does the West impose us "democracy of the second grade"?

If I am mistaken, result examples of the dictator in the territory of the CIS (for some reason we have only dictators) who is declared in the West the person non-grata because of roughly garbled "elections"? Then it turns out that our ghouls suit the West completely?

While when someone suddenly starts acting under the law and common sense, he is started to be pressed: "Yanukovych, cancel Timoshenko's sentence" - as though they have not the court in Ukraine but a laying under the president; "Yanukovych, don't dare to carry out election of deputies, instead of the elections of the parties" - as though Ukraine is the country of cave men who shouldn't be allowed to choose similar individuals, only indicated ones.

Let's recollect that the West supported Mubarak for 30 years - till Egyptians themselves threw him off, for they got tired of him. The West supports Saudi Arabia - for now the wildest feudal mode on a planet, the Chechen Republic in comparison to it - the democratic secular state. The West lives in peace with Kazakhstan as well...

Anatoly Baranov, editor-in-chief of FORUM.msk

Send by mail

Print