[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4944-4945]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET 
                                 UNION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MARCY KAPTUR

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 5, 2000

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, functioning democracy in the newly emerging 
independent states of the former Soviet Union requires setting up new 
political institutions and developing the means of conducting the 
people's business. As we have seen in many of these countries, this is 
proving to be a challenge beyond the patience and political will of 
their leaders, particularly given the harsh economic conditions 
throughout the region. More often than not, responsible economic 
policies represent, in the short term, even greater hardships for the 
people whose support is essential if democracy and market economy are 
to be sustained in these countries.
  In Ukraine this challenge was put to test earlier this year when the 
Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, was confronted with a serious 
political crisis over the selection of the Speaker and other leadership 
positions. The Leftist forces, though in the minority, have managed to 
control the parliament for the past 18 months, thwarting the majority's 
efforts to implement President Kuchma's legislative agenda.
  A vivid description of how the leftist speaker, Oleksandr Tkachenko, 
thwarted the majority and the subsequent developments that lead to his 
ouster are provided in a report by the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation. In 
Update on Ukraine, February 24, 2000, Markian Bilynskj writes. ``Until 
January 21, the final day of the fourth parliamentary session, the Rada 
was presided over by a chairman whose political ambitions and sense of 
indispensability were matched only by his limitations. Oleksandr 
Tkachenko had been elected essentially by default 18 months earlier as 
elements within the Rada and beyond fought to prevent the chairmanship 
from falling into the hands of anyone harboring presidential ambitions. 
His eventual, somewhat surprise decision to run brought about a further 
politicization of the legislative process and was the principal reason 
behind the Rada's growing ineffectiveness. Tkanchenko's final unabashed 
identification with the communist candidate--a fitting conclusion to 
what can only be described as a parody of an election campaign--
represented an abandonment of any pretense as impartiality and 
irreversibly undermined his credibility as Rada chairman. At the same 
time, President Leonid Kuchma's re-election altered the broader 
political context within which the Rada had to operate to such an 
extent that Tkachenko was transformed from a largely compromise figure 
into an anachronism''.
  After the December election, President Kuchma's administration joined 
with the pro-reform majority to challenge Speaker Oleksandr Tkachenko 
and his Communist-Left forces and succeeded in electing a new Speaker 
and many of the leadership positions in the Rada. The result is a newly 
constituted parliament with a majority now occupying key positions that 
is capable of responding to

[[Page 4945]]

President Kuchma and Prime Minister Yuschenko's reform agendas.
  I would like to submit for the record and bring to the attention of 
my colleagues an interview with Grigority Surkis, a prominent, 
businessman and member of the Rada.

                       It's Time for Transparency

                          (By Grigoriy Surkis)

       It would be desirable if our Parliament did not have deep 
     divisions between the majority and minority factions; however 
     this is not possible due to deep-rooted ideological divisions 
     in the country.
       Former Speaker Tkachenko, leader of the Communists in the 
     Rada, demonstrated his inability to work out a compromise 
     even when the majority announced a willingness to work 
     cooperatively with Communist leaders on a legislative 
     program.
       By the way, leaders of the Ukraine Communists should learn 
     a lesson from their Russian counterparts, who recently made a 
     deal with the pro-government factions in organizing the Duma 
     and distributing assignments among party leaders. They have a 
     difficult time understanding that Communist authoritarianism 
     does not exist in post-Soviet societies, nor is it as strong 
     after eight years of democracy.
       However, it remains to be seen how the pro-government bloc 
     in Russia will get the Communist Speaker of the Duma to act 
     on progressive legislation and actually achieve results. I 
     sincerely wish that this arrangement will work so that the 
     people of Russia benefit from progressive changes that will 
     improve living standards that make for a better society.
       In my opinion, Ukraine has chosen the right path. In 
     parliament, we formed a majority bloc by uniting the 
     ``healthy'' forces who were committed to reform legislation. 
     This is necessary to ensure speedy action on a range of 
     progressive proposals to deal with the problems of our 
     pension system, taxes, and the criminal and civil code. This 
     will help us to clean house in the Rada and institute badly 
     needed changes that, in the past, impeded our efforts to 
     confront these needs.
       Is compromise possible? Let's think about it. We want our 
     people to live in a new environment but there are some who 
     want to pull us back to the old Soviet system. To go back is 
     to lose hope and confidence in our ability to improve our 
     situation. The reformers want a government that will enable 
     people to own property while the Communists want people to be 
     the property of the state. We believe that the Constitution 
     is the basic law, but they still believe the ``Party'' is the 
     supreme authority.
       Finally, in a democracy it is acceptable to have a 
     compromise, which is how people work out their differences. 
     But the old guard distrusts working with what they see as the 
     ``bourgeois'' and reject efforts to resolve differences 
     amicably. So we are not talking about compromise in terms of 
     confronting the issues and resolving differences, but the 
     Communists see any negotiations with reformers as selling out 
     or imposing a kompromat on us. I am reminded of the words of 
     the great Golda Meir, who was born in Kiev, who once said: 
     ``We want to live. Our neighbors want to see us dead. I am 
     afraid that this does not leave any space for compromise''.
       The problem would not be so serious if we were talking only 
     about Parliament. However, we are talking about society as a 
     whole. The Leftists seem committed to destroying the Rada, 
     the one institution that ensures representation of the people 
     in government decision-making. Perhaps they do not know about 
     Abraham Lincoln's statement that a house divided cannot 
     succeed and that their intransigence will prevent democracy 
     from taking root in Ukraine. Everyone knows what happens to 
     the person if his right leg makes two steps forward and the 
     left remains rooted in the same spot.
       I want to stress again that after the 1999 presidential 
     election, it became obvious that a divided parliament with a 
     Communist as Speaker would prove unacceptable and only serve 
     to obstruct the reform agenda of the government. Had the 
     Communists prevailed, they would have taken the country down 
     the back road of political fatalism. Yet there are some who 
     worry that the unfairness of winners hides the guilt of 
     losers. I can only say that if the Leftists had won the 
     election, we would not be asking these questions.
       I am afraid that if the majority had allowed a Communist to 
     remain as Speaker, it would have proved to be a temporary 
     solution, similar to what will happen with the Duma. In the 
     United States, it is possible for the Republicans to control 
     the Congress and the other party to have the Presidency. This 
     is possible because America has 200 years of experience 
     working within a democratic system.
       Our country does not have time to wait. For us, every day 
     without enacting and implementing laws is a huge setback for 
     a country that must accomplish so much in a critically short 
     time. The majority knows that it is impossible to form a 
     parliament without the opposition, and it is our intention to 
     treat proposals from the opposition seriously. We have 
     assumed political responsibility that gives us an opportunity 
     to cooperate with the newly re-elected president who bears 
     the main responsibility for society as a whole.
       We recognize that it is the president who must provide the 
     leadership and direct the institutions of government. 
     Throughout the years of Ukraine's independence, there is not 
     a single case when the three branches of power simultaneously 
     worked together on behalf of Ukrainian citizens. Today we 
     must take responsibility and are ready to be accountable for 
     our actions.
       Once again, we do not have time. The majority of Ukrainian 
     citizens spoke very clearly in the recent election by giving 
     President Kuchma a new four-year term. By this vote, they 
     rejected the Communist Party and the idea of turning back to 
     the old system where freedom and human rights did not exist.
       The Communists, of course, feel threatened by the new 
     democratic forces and their reform agenda. They do not want 
     to relinquish power and recognize that a new generation of 
     intelligent and resourceful leaders is taking charge. That is 
     the promise of democracy and, if given a chance to succeed, 
     the future of Ukraine in the new millennium.

     

                          ____________________