From May 22 to June 1, 2013 the Civil Network OPORA was conducting an Expert poll "The Verkhovna Rada of VII convocation: first results." The research was aimed at assessment of internal parliamentary processes, role of the Parliament in society and the state government system, as well as topical directions for the future parliamentary activities.
40 experts, particularly representatives of specialized NGOs, parliamentary journalists and editors of the national media, leading scientists, sociologists, political scientists and political technologists, participated in the poll. The poll was conducted through personal interview and the remote processing of questionnaires.
EXPERT POLL FINDINGS
- The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is rather dependent than independent subject when it comes to taking important for the country decisions. The President of Ukraine, the Party of Regions Faction, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine have the greatest impact on the functioning of Parliament.
- The Parliament still doesn't have stable pro-power majority, as long as it requires constant coordination of varied interests and compromises for specific agenda items. Agreement between the opposition factions becomes more complicated due to difference in political goals and interests.
- Compromises on functioning of the Parliament, achieved by MPs of Ukraine, have controversial results. There is no definite solution for non-personal voting on plenary sittings, what is violation of the Constitution of Ukraine. At the same time, division of regulatory functions and leading positions in committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine between pro-power and opposition forces was quite diverse.
- An off-site sitting, conducted by pro-power MPs on April 4, 2013 created threatening preconditions for neglecting any opinion of the opposition. Nevertheless, continuous blocking of parliamentary sittings, as a political reaction of the opposition, should not become systematic.
- Incidents of AUU Batkivshchyna members leaving the faction are manifestations of political corruption. In order to prevent such incidents in the future, peculiarities of electoral and party systems should be taken into consideration, what requires making amendments to the corresponding legislation.
- Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine didn't manage to demonstrate equally distant position to parties, factions, the President, and the Government, as well as proper level of political independence. As a result, this circumstance complicates establishing stable and efficient activities of the Parliament.
- The parliamentary control secured by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, its influence on Government’s priorities, as well as on political decisions of the President of Ukraine, is unsatisfactory. However, if compared to the Parliament of VI convocation after Victor Yanukovych was elected as the President, the level of influence of the current convocation has risen. The same situation is observed when it comes to political competition in the deputy corps. Instead, the use of mixed election system on 2012 elections didn't have positive impact on the efficiency of Parliament.
- The best political strategy for the Parliament of Ukraine would be development of own reforms for the country. Among the most important necessary changes would be strengthening controlling functions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and reforming internal parliamentary procedures.
- The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine should concentrate its activities on problems in the law-enforcement and judicial systems, as well as fighting against corruption, economic reforms and strengthening of local self-government. The Parliament should secure free and fair voting process for 2015 Presidential election on legislative level. As for wider activities of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, a meaningful dialog on key development challenges for the country should take place.
- Ukrainian Parliament should take a number of practical steps in order to strengthen its accountability to the society and secure efficiency of elected officials. Among particular steps towards strengthening accountability of MPs are: final liquidation of shameful non-personal voting practices; anti-corruption expertise of legislative initiatives submitted by every MP; introduction of effective sanctions for ignorance of duties; and independent monitoring of income and expenses of MPs. Among the most important necessary measures for securing efficiency of MPs are: attraction of independent experts and competent representatives of the public to the law-making process; strengthening general requirements for the development and consideration of draft laws; introduction of information and communication technologies to inform citizens about activities of MPs.
DETAILED EXPERT POLL RESULTS
Evaluation of internal parliamentary processes
The experts have given the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 2 points for its independence in taking important decisions for the country (0 - totally dependent on the other subjects, 5 - fully independent). According to the experts, the President of Ukraine, the Party of Regions Faction, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine have the greatest impact on the functioning of Parliament. Comparing to these subjects, the leadership of the Parliament, as well as the AUU Batkivshchyna, AUU Svoboda and the UDAR factions have less influence on the legislative body (downward, according to the listing order of factions). According to the experts, the Communist Party of Ukraine has the least influence.
When experts assessed activities of the Speaker Volodymyr Rybak, none of them gave positive answer "yes" to the question "Had the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Volodymyr Rybak showed the ability to organize efficient and stable activities of the Parliament of VII convocation within his authority?" The answer "rather yes" was chosen by 17.5% of experts, "rather no" - by 65%, "no" - 15%. At the same time, the experts were asked an additional question: "Is the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Volodymyr Rybak a political figure, independent from the President, Government, or the certain political party?" None of the experts have answered "yes", 2.5% – "rather yes", 25% - "rather no", 72.5% - "no".
On request to assess activities of pro-power majority, 50% of respondents have answered that it's unstable and needs constant coordination of internal interests. 37.5% of experts are convinced that there is no pro-power majority in the Parliament, and decisions are taken through compromising on specific issues. Only 2.5% of respondents are convinced that pro-power majority has showed the ability to work stable and take effective decisions.
The AUU Batkivshchyna, UDAR, and AUU Svoboda were trying to coordinate their actions, but the difference in political goals and interests hindered. This is an opinion of 55% experts, which participated in the poll. 30% of respondents think that the parliamentary minority showed ability to engage in joint action. 15% have stated that three opposition factions didn't manage to jointly oppose the pro-power part of deputy corps.
When comparing pro-power and opposition forces, 5% of experts stated that activities of the first were more active and prominent. Instead, 27.5% of the inquired describe the opposition with the same characteristics. 40% are convinced that pro-power forces and the opposition were equally active. 12% of experts think that both pro-power forces and the opposition didn't carry conduct any activities, noticeable for the society. 7.5% of respondents deemed it difficult to differentiate between activities of pro-power and the opposition forces.
Legislative steps towards signing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement were considered as the most important initiatives of the pro-power majority. Initiatives of the majority, which concern public procurement, educational, land, and health care reforms, as well as political statements concerning possible referendum in Ukraine, were negatively assessed by the experts.
However, the experts gave positive assessment to initiatives of the opposition concerning personal voting and appointment of Kyiv Mayoral and City Council elections. At the same time, most of respondents are convinced that initiatives which concerned prohibition of abortions, abolition of the pension reform, and repealing immunity for parliamentarians, are non-constructive.
37.5% of the inquired think that division of regulatory functions and leading positions in committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is unfair. 32.5% say that such division is rather unfair than fair, and 20% of experts have the opposite opinion. 10% of respondents have found this issue to be difficult to assess.
As for amendments to the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure, all the inquired experts think that the problem of non-personal voting remains unsolved. Instead, 40% say that, in result of amending the parliamentary rules, the issue is rather solved than unsolved. 25% – is rather unsolved than solved. 20% of experts have stated that amendments to the parliamentary rules don't solve the problem of “button-pushers” among MPs. 5% – own answer (for example, amendments to the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure give the opposition an additional way to control pro-government MPs).
When giving assessment to the "off-site" meeting of the Parliament on April 04, 2013 and its potential consequences, 70% of experts have stated that such a precedent will allow ignore the opposition during consideration of any matter. 5% of respondents think that the "off-site" meeting will positively influence on functioning of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the future, and urge members to compromise and work stably. 2.5% forecast that events on April 04, 2013 were single action without long-term consequences. 7.5% of respondents have proposed their own answers. In particular, they were talking about legislative worthlessness of laws, adopted on the "off-site" meeting, and necessity to call involved persons to account. At the same time, the possibility of new "off-site" meetings of the Parliament was related to blocking of parliamentary sittings.
Only 2.5% of experts think that blocking of plenary sittings of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the opposition is unacceptable under any circumstances. 5% of the inquired state that the blocking belongs to acceptable methods of parliamentary struggle. At the same time, 65% of experts consider some incidents of blocking as justified, but only providing that they will not become systematic. 27.5% have stated that blocking of plenary sittings is a necessary political response of the opposition.
55% of experts have named incidents of AUU Batkivshchyna members leaving the faction as political corruption 27.5% think that it's peculiarity of the election system used in 2012 that MPs are leaving their factions now. 7.5% of respondents state that secession belongs to the right of MPs to shape personal political stance. 10% of experts have proposed their own answer (so-called "tushkuvannia" (running from one party faction in Parliament to another - tr.) - is due to drawbacks of financing system for parties and election campaigns, as well as non-transparency of internal party processes etc.).
Role of the Parliament in the society and the state government system
Political processes and division of influences in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine don't correspond to standpoints of the public. Such view was expressed by 35% of inquired experts. Rather don't correspond than correspond – 35%. 27.5% – rather correspond than don't correspond. 2.5% of experts considered it difficult to choose the answer.
Participants of the inquiry state that the society has little influence on activities of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The experts have given 2 points of 5 to this influence (0 - has no influence, 5 - has strong influence). Besides that, the Parliament's ability to influence on activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, political and current decisions of the President of Ukraine, has received equal assessment - 2 points.
The experts have determined that the parliamentary control of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine over activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and other executive bodies is absolutely unsatisfactory. The parliamentary control have received 1 point (0 - is not secured at all, 5 - is absolutely secured).
Comparing to the Verkhovna Rada of VI convocation after Viktor Yanukovych was elected as the President of Ukraine, the level of political competition in the Parliament has risen. 35% of respondents think that it has definitely risen. Has rather risen than not – 40%. 7.5% think that the level of political competition in the Parliament has decreased. Has rather decreased than risen – 12.5%.
When comparing the level of influence of the current convocation of the Verkhovna Rada to the state government system in 2010-2012, 10% of experts think that it has risen. Another 40% are convinced that the level of Parliament's influence has rather risen than not. Has rather decreased than risen – 25 %. Has decreased – 12.5%.
According to 50% of inquired experts, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine doesn't secure meaningful discussion on key development issues for the country. Rather don't secure than secure – 42.5%. 5% of respondents think that the Parliament secures the corresponding discussion. Rather secures than not – 2.5%.
The mixed election system, which was used on elections to the Parliament, has negatively influenced its efficiency (25% – negatively influenced; rather negative than positive – 40%). 7.5% of experts positively assess the influence of mixed election system. Rather positive than not – 17.5 %. Hasn't influenced at all – 7.5%. At the same time, most of experts think that majoritarian deputies have influenced the parliamentary process (10% - have influenced; 30% - have rather influenced than not; rather haven't rather influenced than have; 10% - haven't influenced; 5% - it's difficult to say).
Political strategy of the Parliament
37.5% of experts think that the Parliament shall concentrate on the development of own reforms and popularize it. 30% state that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine should concentrate on its controlling functions. 10% of inquired are convinced that the Parliament should concentrate on improvement of in internal regulations. 2.5% think that it's better to create the constitutional majority, and 2.5% – that presidential and governmental initiatives should be widely supported. Besides that, the experts have also proposed other possible strategies for the Parliament, like finding the internal compromise on key problems of the country, providing meaningful debate on draft laws, promoting social dialog and attraction of different citizen groups to the law-making process etc.
As long as 2015 Presidential election is soon, the Verkhovna Rada should focus on legislative guarantees for free and fair election process. 62.5% or respondents agree with this statement. Another 10% think that the Parliament shall take advantage of pre-electoral situation in order to strengthen its institutional and political influence. 7.5% of experts state that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine should secure constructive dialog between future participants of the election. 10% of experts are convinced that the Presidential election shall not influence activities of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
In case the national referendum on powers of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Parliament should take any measures to prevent it. Such view was expressed by 45 % of inquired experts. 20% of experts have supported amendment of the Law of Ukraine on National Referendum with further validation of its result. 17.5% of respondents have supported filing an appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine concerning the compliance of questions of the national referendum to the Constitution. 2.5% are convinced that the Verkhovna Rada should initiate mass protests, 2.5% think that it's necessary to inform citizens about the content of questions and the procedure of organizing the national referendum.
Priorities for the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to regulatory issues
According to the experts, law-enforcement system, justice, and fighting against corruption need attention of the Parliament in the first place. The second place is taken by economic and administrative issues. According to the experts, local self-government is on the third place among priorities for the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. In general, 10 different regulatory issues were assessed
The experts have also stated that the Verkhovna Rada should decrease taxes, conduct the administrative reform to widen authorities of local communities, adapt the electoral legislation to European standards, reform law-enforcement agencies and judicial system, conduct pension, health care, and educational reforms. As for the foreign affairs, Ukraine should make every effort to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, and intensify relations with the NATO.
Activities of Members of Parliament of Ukraine
In current social and political situation, the most important function of Members of Parliament of Ukraine is development and adoption of legislative acts. 50% of experts have agreed with this statement. Another 30% of experts think that MPs should concentrate on representation of voter interests. 17.5% have agreed that MPs should concentrate on control over executive authorities, activities of the President, judicial bodies etc.
According to participants of the inquiry, MPs should concentrate on activities in the VR Committees (the first by priority), activities on plenary sittings (second by priority), consideration of appeals from citizens and activities in electoral districts (third and fourth respectively). Intergovernmental parliamentary structures were acknowledged as the best for activities of MPs.
As for the current problems in the parliamentary activities, the experts consider activities in committees as topical. Activities of MPs in electoral districts are of the second importance, according to the experts. Securing consultations of the Parliament is on the third place. In general, the experts have ranked 10 topical issues.
The first five measures for increasing accountability of MPs are the following: liquidation of non-personal voting practice (1); introduction of an anti-corruption expertise of legislative initiatives (2); introduction of effective sanctions for ignorance of duties, absence on plenary and committee sittings (3); introduction of independent monitoring of income and expenses of MPs (4); introduction of strict requirements to reporting back on activities of MPs. In general, the experts have ranked 12 measures.
The first three measures for securing efficiency of MPs of Ukraine are the following: attraction of the public and experts to the development of draft laws and activities in committees (1); strengthening general requirements for the development and consideration of draft laws (2); transference to modern information and communications technologies (in particular, open data format) to disseminate information about activities of MPs/the Parliament (3). In general, 9 positions were assessed.
Among key approaches to the development of draft laws are: anti-corruption expertize (1); economic foundation/price of the project (2); attraction of independent experts (3). In general, 7 approaches were assessed.
Most of the experts don't support the right of MP to introduce draft laws independently (referable submission from factions, committees, deputy groups etc.). Don't support - 42.5%, rather support than not - 27.5%. Only 7.5% support, and 17.5% rather support than not.
According to the experts, there is shortage of information about public reports of MPs of Ukraine about implementation of pre-electoral commitments (1); information about income of MPs and their family members (2); budget of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (3). 13 types of information were assessed.