{"id":7410,"date":"2022-05-31T13:42:02","date_gmt":"2022-05-31T11:42:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/centreua.org\/?p=7410"},"modified":"2022-05-31T13:42:02","modified_gmt":"2022-05-31T11:42:02","slug":"oksana-syroyid-on-constitution-euromaidan-and-crimea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/centreua.org\/en\/parliamentary-republic\/oksana-syroyid-on-constitution-euromaidan-and-crimea\/","title":{"rendered":"Oksana Syroyid on Constitution, Euromaidan, and Crimea"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ukraine has changed its system of government several times since independence. However, so far it is still unclear which system is the most suitable for Ukrainians. As part of the #ukrstateunderconstruction<\/span><\/a> project dedicated to the 30th anniversary of independence, the Centre of United Actions conducted a series of interviews about the formation of the modern Ukrainian state and its institutions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ukrainian politician and lawyer Oksana Syroyid is one of those who took responsibility for the fate of Ukraine after the Revolution of Dignity. An MP of the Verkhovna Rada of the eighth convocation and a member of the Samopomich party, she was the first woman to serve as the Deputy Speaker of Parliament. Today she is the head of Samopomich. She perceives events and changes in the system of government not through the prism of power games or political interests but as a search for the balance of power.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u0421onstitution has not limited the influence of the President<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

What was your reaction to the independence of Ukraine? What were the emotions?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

I remember everything quite clearly. I understood that we owe it to Archbishop Andrei Sheptytsky. He started to build state institutions at a time when no state yet existed. A significant part of his work was spreading the belief that we must prepare for the emergence of a state of our own. When the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed in 1991, I thought it was quite normal, that finally there will be no muscovites here. Of course, it was a great uplift, a marvelous joy.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the beginning of your career, you worked as an assistant to Ihor Yukhnovskyi, a legendary figure who drafted the Constitution of Ukraine.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

I started to work as an assistant to Ihor Rafailovych right at the end of 1996. That is why I was even a little jealous of those who had been involved in drafting the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n

Was that your first job?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

I started my career working with another legendary person, Mykhailo Horyn. In 1994, I worked with both Mykhailo Horyn and Levko Lukianenko. When I later came to Ihor Rafailovych, I already had two years of work experience.<\/span> Already a grown-up, a twenty-year-old person. That, of course, was a great honor for me.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

After working with Ihor Rafailovych, I understood his phenomenon. He was a fantastic moderator. He was not seeking recognition. He even ran away from a photoshoot, can you imagine?<\/span><\/p>\n

The famous one after the voting for the Constitution in 1996?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes. He always managed to find a proper place for everyone, he always was able to highlight everyone and show their importance. That is how he managed to maintain the process.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Constitution of 1996 was supposed to limit presidential powers. Did it succeed in doing so?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nothing was limited. It is a myth.<\/span><\/p>\n

But quite a widespread one<\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

It is a known fact <\/span>that Kuchma got<\/span> extraordinary <\/span>powers under a<\/span> constitutional treaty that<\/span> was<\/span> in a year. He demanded extra powers<\/span> under the pretense that we needed <\/span>reforms. Presidents always say<\/span> that there will be no<\/span> reforms if they do not get some extra powers.<\/span><\/p>\n

But there was another reason. A<\/span>t about <\/span>that time the foundations<\/span> for our <\/span>oligarchic monopolies were laid<\/span>. Leonid Dany<\/span>lovy<\/span>ch has <\/span>built a system where <\/span>the P<\/span>resident was<\/span> the arbiter of this entire <\/span>construct.<\/span><\/p>\n

So<\/span> do <\/span>you agree that Kuchma is the father of this oligarchy?<\/span> Was there anything good that he made for our country?<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Are<\/span> oligarchic monopolies good or bad for the country? Of course bad. The question is, could these monopolies have been avoided in the \u201990s? I doubt it because the whole industrial sector was shut down<\/span>. We needed someone who would be able to launch some production <\/span>in Ukraine.<\/span><\/p>\n

The option we have chosen is another matter<\/span>. We could have followed the example of<\/span> Poland, in particular, to<\/span> go for smaller privatization.<\/span> However,<\/span> there was no money. Ukrainians did not have private property until 1991, i.<\/span>e.<\/span> there was no Ukrainian capital<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

That is true<\/span>, all our gold and foreign exchange <\/span>reserves remained in Moscow.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

I<\/span>t was<\/span> not just about <\/span>gold and foreign exchange reserves. We,<\/span> Ukrainians,<\/span> had no<\/span> money because even those who had savings lost them<\/span>. Then, in my opinion, the worst possible thing <\/span>happened: the <\/span>Russian capital came and began to take control over<\/span> access to resources.<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, they had petrodollars.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

T<\/span>hey either took over <\/span>these resources directly or got them through figureheads <\/span>like Dmytro<\/span> Firtash.<\/span><\/p>\n

The institution of the presidency<\/span> was something <\/span>completely new to us. What did Leonid Kuchma turn it into during his<\/span> second term? How did he change it?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The layout<\/span> introduced<\/span> by<\/span> the Constitution of 1996 has not changed much to this day<\/span> despite amendments<\/span> to the Constitution of 2007. We lack<\/span> the<\/span> balance of power a<\/span>nd that is why <\/span>we were doomed to slide into authoritarianism. That is just the nature of this <\/span>model. What is it all about<\/span>? P<\/span>eople first <\/span>elect a president and <\/span>like him for a time being<\/span> but then the same people <\/span>crucify him for them being so naive<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

And this story is recurring<\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The fact is that our president is de facto the head of the executive branch. The executive branch is not about titles<\/span>, the executive branch is about <\/span>money and control over the use of force. In Ukraine, t<\/span>he President has twice or thrice <\/span>more control over money and power than the Cabinet<\/span>. In<\/span> this model, the Prime Minister is toothless.<\/span><\/p>\n

Let us get back to the Parliament.<\/span> Leonid Kuchma never had his own party but he was quite effective when it came to influencing the P<\/span>arliament. Which<\/span> tools allowed him to do that<\/span>?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

That became possible <\/span>after financial and industrial groups had<\/span> formed. With presidential <\/span>support, they received a number of tax benefits and access to resources: zero<\/span> rent for gas and oil, and tax breaks available to anyone. And they wanted to preserve this status quo<\/span>. This was how <\/span>oligarchic political projects began to emerge. At some point <\/span>it ceased to matter<\/span> who particularly was backed up by oligarchs to run for the Parliament:<\/span> they <\/span>could nominate<\/span> Mickey Mouse or Cheburashka, and those two would also <\/span>obediently press buttons. Meanwhile, b<\/span>ehind the scenes were several figure<\/span>s who ensured that everything was under control.<\/span><\/p>\n

After the Orange Revolution, Viktor Yushchenko became president. How did he use his powers?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

By the time Viktor Yushchenko became president, the monopolists already had the upper hand<\/span>. All doors to<\/span> embassies and governments were <\/span>opened for<\/span> them. They controlled their <\/span>territories<\/span>. T<\/span>he newly elected P<\/span>resident had to decide whether he would continue to be the arbiter for<\/span> the oligarchs. Leonid Danylovych has<\/span> not become an oligarch. To<\/span> become an oligarch was also an option:<\/span> two presidents<\/span> tried to become oligarchs while in office. One more option was to<\/span> challenge the oligarchs.<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2006, w<\/span>e resorted to<\/span> an <\/span>early election, the <\/span>first truly <\/span>free election. Rebooted the system<\/span>. And once more<\/span> got a dysfuncional p<\/span>arliament. Why was the <\/span>Parliament blocked? W<\/span>hat wa<\/span>s the reason?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

P<\/span>eople behind the scenes of Ukrainian politics remained the same<\/span>. You, I think, also <\/span>witnessed how<\/span> people hug each other privately <\/span>and then arrange a scandal near the parliamentary <\/span>podium.<\/span><\/p>\n

As a result, we got President Yanukovych. How did<\/span> society react<\/span>?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

I think it was a <\/span>disappointment. We were disappointed in ourselves. I remember a poll at the end of the term of<\/span> President Yushchenko:<\/span> people were asked if they voted for Yushchenko in 2004 and only a minority admitted that they did<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yanukovych <\/span>immediately regained<\/span> the powers of Kuchma times. What were the results<\/span>?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Come on<\/span>. G<\/span>uys at the time <\/span>were simple,<\/span> no one paid attention to niceties<\/span>. The f<\/span>irst “ax decisions” were actually made by President Yushchenko. It was his trademark<\/span> to dismiss people<\/span> by amending decrees on their appointment<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Later<\/span>, when Yanukovych and company came to power, they decided, for example, to change the Constitution by reverting previous <\/span>amendments to<\/span> the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, you<\/span> have t<\/span>o understand that there were no good alternatives<\/span>. N<\/span>ot that<\/span> many were ready to vote for<\/span> Yulia Tymoshenko.<\/span><\/p>\n

I think that the phenomenon of Yanukovych as the President <\/span>was that he did not understand his country and his people at all. Ukrainian<\/span> citizens, on their part,<\/span> just dissociated themselves from the establishment<\/span>. They realized that this was not their establishment<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>hey went to Maidan. Euromaidan demanded to<\/span> change the system, not faces. Why didn\u2019t this happen?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Do you remember <\/span>how the relations between President Poroshenko and the P<\/span>arliament were <\/span>built after the Euromaidan?<\/span><\/p>\n

We <\/span>then thought <\/span>that to have real <\/span>power one must have some sacred knowledge. We thought that those who were<\/span> at<\/span> the Maidan stage had that sacred knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

Is it true that many<\/span> a<\/span>nti-corruption bodies<\/span> and<\/span> regulators were created in violation of the Constitution?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

First, there was a demand <\/span>from people for<\/span> some qualitative changes. Second, it was clear that the window of opportunity is short and we must do something very quickly<\/span>. The layout defined by the <\/span>Constitution was and is very confining<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Was the Parliament a balancing force in times of Poroshenko?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

It was a parliament where <\/span>at least 60 people at the beginning <\/span>and maybe 40 at the end<\/span> were independent. T<\/span>hey could act at their own discretion<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

If you remember the end of Poroshenko\u2019s term, there was a moment when <\/span>he wanted to declare<\/span> martial law for two months, probably dreaming<\/span> to<\/span> postpone<\/span> the election.<\/span> I<\/span>t was the P<\/span>arliament that told him: “Bull!<\/span> Only in <\/span>10 border regions and<\/span> for one<\/span> month only<\/span>.” President Poroshenko then slammed the door, offended like a “capricious and delicate <\/span>young lady.”<\/span><\/p>\n

There was<\/span> an even more important example. The year <\/span>2015. Poroshenko insisted on amending the Constitution to grant special status to Donbas. If not for<\/span> the P<\/span>arliament, we wouldn\u2019t be talking with you today. I was the first one <\/span>to publicly speak out against it<\/span>. To harras me, <\/span>Poroshenko even <\/span>asked Chancellor Merkel to send emissaries and talk to Syroyid<\/span>. They tried to <\/span>“steamroll<\/span>“ me thrice <\/span>so that I would give up and support Petro Poroshenko.<\/span><\/p>\n

To implement<\/span> the Minsk agreements?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

To implement<\/span> the Minsk agreements. W<\/span>hen I saw 282 votes on a parliamentary display<\/span> on August 31, 2015, I was ready to hug each of those 18 MPs <\/span>who failed the attempts to get <\/span>300 votes.<\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span>phenomenon of <\/span>Avakov. How did it happen that this minister survived three parliaments, four prime ministers, two presidents,<\/span> and held this position for 7 years?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The <\/span>Parliament has no<\/span> control over <\/span>anyone at all today. When someone asks me<\/span> how to prevent the Minister of Internal Affairs, the President, or judges from abusing their powers, I answer that the solution <\/span>is in the Budget Code and in the role of the P<\/span>arliament. So far, the P<\/span>arliament is just a bystander <\/span>in a<\/span> budget process.<\/span><\/p>\n

The flaw of our budget process looks like this: whoever controls the money controls everything. When the United States Congress is considering the budget, every ministry sends its representatives. They know that everything depends on the parliament.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Ukraine, though, everything depends on the President who can refuse to sign the budget.<\/span><\/p>\n

So<\/span> even a <\/span>formally pro-European coalition has not managed to<\/span> change this practice?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

How can you change it? If you try amending the <\/span>Budget Code, you will have to convince the <\/span>President to sign it<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

But<\/span> formally our President was<\/span> also <\/span>pro-European\u2026<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

What t<\/span>he pro-European President really wanted was E<\/span>uropean enrichment. That\u2019s why the<\/span> budget process suited him well<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Look, we have the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada \u2014<\/span> it is <\/span>a law. There is the Law “On <\/span>the Cabinet of Ministers.<\/span>” However,<\/span> there is no law when it comes to <\/span>the President.<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, our people think of <\/span>presidents<\/span> as monuments<\/span>, so who will even think about sending them to prison<\/span>?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

I have prepared a bill “On <\/span>the President”. This was at <\/span>the end of our parliamentary <\/span>term. I spelled out there<\/span>, for example, the status of the <\/span>president\u2019s wife, medical <\/span>treatment procedures, certificates, e.g. medical certificates<\/span>. All this stuff has to be regulated<\/span>. We are talking<\/span> about the institution, not a<\/span> name.<\/span><\/p>\n

We tried to propose regulations<\/span> but were met with <\/span>a tornado <\/span>of hatred. At first,<\/span> it was intriguing<\/span>. We <\/span>thought it was done by the<\/span> bot farms of the newly elected President Zelensky. Later, though,<\/span> we<\/span> found out that these were R<\/span>ussian bot farms.<\/span><\/p>\n

I think that Russians just really do not want us to have effective governance. <\/span>They thought<\/span> this will be<\/span> a threat to them<\/span>. W<\/span>hy do we still have no<\/span> clear policy on liberating our occupied territories? Who should lead this process?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Policies concerning war and peace cannot be voiced by someone who is not the Head of State and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.<\/span><\/p>\n

How would you <\/span>describe the system of government under<\/span> President Zelensky? What are its strengths and weaknesses?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

You know, I have a<\/span> metaphor for that<\/span>. Before w<\/span>e were like a ship at anchor and the scenery floated around us. Our <\/span>leaders told us: “Now w<\/span>e are sailing towards <\/span>such and such <\/span>achievements, now<\/span> we are sailing towards <\/span>the course to<\/span> NATO.” In truth, though, we were a part of the scenery<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

What happened when Zelensky came to power? He tore or even blew up those anchors,<\/span> and we started sailing<\/span> somewhere. Nobody knows where and nobody knows how to row.<\/span><\/p>\n

A<\/span>n interesting allegory. So where is the ship Ukraine sailing to?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

We must give birth to knowledge about ourselves, about<\/span> what our state should be like, and <\/span>how we want to govern it. Neither the Venice Commission, Washington, nor Brussels has<\/span> this knowledge. Only we have it<\/span>. And I really want us to understand from the results of all these administrations<\/span>, including the administration <\/span>of Volodymyr Zelensky, that the President is not a sacred figure. The institution of the presidency<\/span> must be regulated by law and controlled by the P<\/span>arliament. T<\/span>his is not because it is written in some c<\/span>onstitution or recommended by <\/span>the Venice Commission. No, it\u2019s because we want to sail in some<\/span> clear and predictable direction. The oligarchs have to <\/span>be dealt with <\/span>not by introducing a<\/span> register but by restricting the <\/span>monopoly on <\/span>access to natural resources.<\/span><\/p>\n

All these changes<\/span> must proceed simultaneously<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In old democracies, it took <\/span>200 years. We cannot wait that long<\/span>, we have an enemy, a country that wants us destroyed. And this, by the way, is a shockingly powerful<\/span> motivation to persevere and perpetuate<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

It seems to me that we are still talking about what we should be like, like in the Soviet Union<\/span>. But we exist already<\/span>. We are fine. We have survived despite hundreds of years of destruction. And we learn. So, everything is alright<\/span> with our abilities.<\/span><\/p>\n