Question and Doubts Raised as to Legality and Validity of President’s Third Decree

June 6, 2007

Less then one day old serious questions as to the legality of president’s third decree have been raised.

At the heart of the president’s decree and the agreement designed to settle the political crisis that has merged since the president first tried to dissolve Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament is the need for 151 or more members of parliament to submit their resignation.

According to reports in the media at least 26 members of Yulia Tymoshenko Block have not consented to or have withdrawn their resignation. There is even allegations of forgery with a number of members claiming that they have not consented to notices of resignation submitted by the leadership of the opposition parties on their behalf .

(See Foriegn Notes Blog – Will 151 deputies give up their seat in VR? and Is the crisis really over?)

It is understood that the Central Election Committee needs to receive the notice of resignation which is supposed to be presented to the parliament at which time the resignation is then forward to the Central Election Commission to determine if the vacancy and be filled from the registered party list.

Both Our Ukraine and Yulia Tymoshenko block have registered the cancellation of their party lists the question remains as to if 150 or more members of parliament have effectively resigned. According to Article 91 section 6 of Ukraine’s Constitution a member of parliament must remain a member of the party/bloc that elected them. This is what forms part of the Imperative Mandate in Ukraine’s Constitution. The provisions of the Imperative Mandate have been specifically singled out by the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) Venice Commission which has recommend it should be abandoned.

There are a number of legal questions surrounding the implementation and operation of the imperative mandate provisions. Although an member of parliament must remain a member of the party that appointed them there is no limitation or requirement on how the member votes. In theory each member has the freedom to decide on what issues and how they will vote. Party administration has limited opportunities as to the circumstances in which the member’s mandate can be summarily removed and any decison of the administrative arm of the politcy bloc is challengeable in court. If a member of the opposition refuses to resign, as long as they remain a member of the party that nominated the then there is very little that can be done to remove them or deny their rights to fulfil their appointed mandate.

If less then 150 members resign then in theory the remaining members can decide on block to represent the party/faction within the parliament.

This is all theory at this stage and again the issue would need to be resolved by the courts on the basis of law.

26 members of Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc have had their mandate withdrawn by the party congress unswr Article 81 subparagraph 6 (the Imperative Mandate provisons) a member must maintain membership of the party in which they were appointed.

However the Article 81 of the Constitution also states

“The pre-term termination of the authority of a People’s Deputy of Ukraine shall also be caused by the early termination, under the Constitution of Ukraine, of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, with such termination of the Deputy’s authority taking effect on the date when the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of a new convocation opens its first meeting.”

“A decision on pre-term termination of the authority of a People’s Deputy of Ukraine on grounds referred to in subparagraphs (1), (4) of the second paragraph of this Article shall be made by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, while the ground referred to in subparagraph (5) of the second paragraph of this Article shall be a matter to be decided by court.” (sub paragraph 1 refers to resignation through a personal application; subparagraph 4 relates to a person relocating and taking up permanant residence abroad, subparagph 5 refers to incompatibility of the deputy’s mandate with other types of activity).

It is the last paragraph of Article 81 that is in question

“Where a People’s Deputy of Ukraine, as having been elected from a political party (an electoral bloc of political parties), fails to join the parliamentary faction representing the same political party (the same electoral bloc of political parties) or exits from such a faction, the highest steering body of the respective political party (electoral bloc of political parties) shall decide to terminate early his or her authority on the basis of a law, with the termination taking effect on the date of such a decision”

This has yet to be tested in a court of law and this is were the potential conflict lies.

The 26 members in question did join the BYuT parliamentary faction but it is unkown as under what circumstances a parliamentary faction can excerise control and withdraw the mandate of a particlur member once appointed. This provison opens up a can or leagal nightmares and is the bais of concern about the Imperative Mandate as express by the PACE Venice commission. It goes well beyond the current poltical crisis and there are many more question such as what happens if a paralimnetary faction such as Our Ukraine splits or dissolves?

The Courts will have to decide and if this issue is allowed to continue unresolved my end up as another issue for Ukraine’s Consitutional Court. To add to problem Yushchenko has made the Constitutional Court dysfunctional the only courts that are still functioning are administrative civil courts which can also consider this issue be it under limited circumstances.

It is now incumbent on the president and the speaker of the parliament to publish the list of resignations.

Until the parliament is officially and legally dissolved following the resignation of at least 150 members of parliament the governing parliamentary majority insists that the parliament has the right to continue to operate and govern. under Ukraine’s Constitution

In the absence of a determination of the Constitutional Court — a court that Yushchenko had made dysfunctional in order to prevent the court reviewing the legality of his earlier decrees, the president’s actions and the political accord are once again brought into question.

Advertisements

Question and Doubts Raised as to Legality and Validity of President’s Third Decree

June 6, 2007

Less then one day old serious questions as to the legality of president’s third decree have been raised.

At the heart of the president’s decree and the agreement designed to settle the political crisis that has merged since the president first tried to dissolve Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament is the need for 151 or more members of parliament to submit their resignation.

According to reports in the media at least 26 members of Yulia Tymoshenko Block have not consented to or have withdrawn their resignation. There is even allegations of forgery with a number of members claiming that they have not consented to notices of resignation submitted by the leadership of the opposition parties on their behalf .

(See Foriegn Notes Blog – Will 151 deputies give up their seat in VR? and Is the crisis really over?)

It is understood that the Central Election Committee needs to receive the notice of resignation which is supposed to be presented to the parliament at which time the resignation is then forward to the Central Election Commission to determine if the vacancy and be filled from the registered party list.

Both Our Ukraine and Yulia Tymoshenko block have registered the cancellation of their party lists the question remains as to if 150 or more members of parliament have effectively resigned. According to Article 91 section 6 of Ukraine’s Constitution a member of parliament must remain a member of the party/bloc that elected them. This is what forms part of the Imperative Mandate in Ukraine’s Constitution. The provisions of the Imperative Mandate have been specifically singled out by the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) Venice Commission which has recommend it should be abandoned.

There are a number of legal questions surrounding the implementation and operation of the imperative mandate provisions. Although an member of parliament must remain a member of the party that appointed them there is no limitation or requirement on how the member votes. In theory each member has the freedom to decide on what issues and how they will vote. Party administration has limited opportunities as to the circumstances in which the member’s mandate can be summarily removed and any decison of the administrative arm of the politcy bloc is challengeable in court. If a member of the opposition refuses to resign, as long as they remain a member of the party that nominated the then there is very little that can be done to remove them or deny their rights to fulfil their appointed mandate.

If less then 150 members resign then in theory the remaining members can decide on block to represent the party/faction within the parliament.

This is all theory at this stage and again the issue would need to be resolved by the courts on the basis of law.

26 members of Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc have had their mandate withdrawn by the party congress unswr Article 81 subparagraph 6 (the Imperative Mandate provisons) a member must maintain membership of the party in which they were appointed.

However the Article 81 of the Constitution also states

“The pre-term termination of the authority of a People’s Deputy of Ukraine shall also be caused by the early termination, under the Constitution of Ukraine, of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, with such termination of the Deputy’s authority taking effect on the date when the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of a new convocation opens its first meeting.”

“A decision on pre-term termination of the authority of a People’s Deputy of Ukraine on grounds referred to in subparagraphs (1), (4) of the second paragraph of this Article shall be made by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, while the ground referred to in subparagraph (5) of the second paragraph of this Article shall be a matter to be decided by court.” (sub paragraph 1 refers to resignation through a personal application; subparagraph 4 relates to a person relocating and taking up permanant residence abroad, subparagph 5 refers to incompatibility of the deputy’s mandate with other types of activity).

It is the last paragraph of Article 81 that is in question

“Where a People’s Deputy of Ukraine, as having been elected from a political party (an electoral bloc of political parties), fails to join the parliamentary faction representing the same political party (the same electoral bloc of political parties) or exits from such a faction, the highest steering body of the respective political party (electoral bloc of political parties) shall decide to terminate early his or her authority on the basis of a law, with the termination taking effect on the date of such a decision”

This has yet to be tested in a court of law and this is were the potential conflict lies.

The 26 members in question did join the BYuT parliamentary faction but it is unkown as under what circumstances a parliamentary faction can excerise control and withdraw the mandate of a particlur member once appointed. This provison opens up a can or leagal nightmares and is the bais of concern about the Imperative Mandate as express by the PACE Venice commission. It goes well beyond the current poltical crisis and there are many more question such as what happens if a paralimnetary faction such as Our Ukraine splits or dissolves?

The Courts will have to decide and if this issue is allowed to continue unresolved my end up as another issue for Ukraine’s Consitutional Court. To add to problem Yushchenko has made the Constitutional Court dysfunctional the only courts that are still functioning are administrative civil courts which can also consider this issue be it under limited circumstances.

It is now incumbent on the president and the speaker of the parliament to publish the list of resignations.

Until the parliament is officially and legally dissolved following the resignation of at least 150 members of parliament the governing parliamentary majority insists that the parliament has the right to continue to operate and govern. under Ukraine’s Constitution

In the absence of a determination of the Constitutional Court — a court that Yushchenko had made dysfunctional in order to prevent the court reviewing the legality of his earlier decrees, the president’s actions and the political accord are once again brought into question.


Question and Doubts Raised as to Legality and Validity of President’s Third Decree

June 6, 2007

Less then one day old serious questions as to the legality of president’s third decree have been raised.

At the heart of the president’s decree and the agreement designed to settle the political crisis that has merged since the president first tried to dissolve Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament is the need for 151 or more members of parliament to submit their resignation.

According to reports in the media at least 26 members of Yulia Tymoshenko Block have not consented to or have withdrawn their resignation. There is even allegations of forgery with a number of members claiming that they have not consented to notices of resignation submitted by the leadership of the opposition parties on their behalf .

(See Foriegn Notes Blog – Will 151 deputies give up their seat in VR? and Is the crisis really over?)

It is understood that the Central Election Committee needs to receive the notice of resignation which is supposed to be presented to the parliament at which time the resignation is then forward to the Central Election Commission to determine if the vacancy and be filled from the registered party list.

Both Our Ukraine and Yulia Tymoshenko block have registered the cancellation of their party lists the question remains as to if 150 or more members of parliament have effectively resigned. According to Article 91 section 6 of Ukraine’s Constitution a member of parliament must remain a member of the party/bloc that elected them. This is what forms part of the Imperative Mandate in Ukraine’s Constitution. The provisions of the Imperative Mandate have been specifically singled out by the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) Venice Commission which has recommend it should be abandoned.

There are a number of legal questions surrounding the implementation and operation of the imperative mandate provisions. Although an member of parliament must remain a member of the party that appointed them there is no limitation or requirement on how the member votes. In theory each member has the freedom to decide on what issues and how they will vote. Party administration has limited opportunities as to the circumstances in which the member’s mandate can be summarily removed and any decison of the administrative arm of the politcy bloc is challengeable in court. If a member of the opposition refuses to resign, as long as they remain a member of the party that nominated the then there is very little that can be done to remove them or deny their rights to fulfil their appointed mandate.

If less then 150 members resign then in theory the remaining members can decide on block to represent the party/faction within the parliament.

This is all theory at this stage and again the issue would need to be resolved by the courts on the basis of law.

26 members of Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc have had their mandate withdrawn by the party congress unswr Article 81 subparagraph 6 (the Imperative Mandate provisons) a member must maintain membership of the party in which they were appointed.

However the Article 81 of the Constitution also states

“The pre-term termination of the authority of a People’s Deputy of Ukraine shall also be caused by the early termination, under the Constitution of Ukraine, of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, with such termination of the Deputy’s authority taking effect on the date when the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of a new convocation opens its first meeting.”

“A decision on pre-term termination of the authority of a People’s Deputy of Ukraine on grounds referred to in subparagraphs (1), (4) of the second paragraph of this Article shall be made by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, while the ground referred to in subparagraph (5) of the second paragraph of this Article shall be a matter to be decided by court.” (sub paragraph 1 refers to resignation through a personal application; subparagraph 4 relates to a person relocating and taking up permanant residence abroad, subparagph 5 refers to incompatibility of the deputy’s mandate with other types of activity).

It is the last paragraph of Article 81 that is in question

“Where a People’s Deputy of Ukraine, as having been elected from a political party (an electoral bloc of political parties), fails to join the parliamentary faction representing the same political party (the same electoral bloc of political parties) or exits from such a faction, the highest steering body of the respective political party (electoral bloc of political parties) shall decide to terminate early his or her authority on the basis of a law, with the termination taking effect on the date of such a decision”

This has yet to be tested in a court of law and this is were the potential conflict lies.

The 26 members in question did join the BYuT parliamentary faction but it is unkown as under what circumstances a parliamentary faction can excerise control and withdraw the mandate of a particlur member once appointed. This provison opens up a can or leagal nightmares and is the bais of concern about the Imperative Mandate as express by the PACE Venice commission. It goes well beyond the current poltical crisis and there are many more question such as what happens if a paralimnetary faction such as Our Ukraine splits or dissolves?

The Courts will have to decide and if this issue is allowed to continue unresolved my end up as another issue for Ukraine’s Consitutional Court. To add to problem Yushchenko has made the Constitutional Court dysfunctional the only courts that are still functioning are administrative civil courts which can also consider this issue be it under limited circumstances.

It is now incumbent on the president and the speaker of the parliament to publish the list of resignations.

Until the parliament is officially and legally dissolved following the resignation of at least 150 members of parliament the governing parliamentary majority insists that the parliament has the right to continue to operate and govern. under Ukraine’s Constitution

In the absence of a determination of the Constitutional Court — a court that Yushchenko had made dysfunctional in order to prevent the court reviewing the legality of his earlier decrees, the president’s actions and the political accord are once again brought into question.


President issues early poll decree Questions asked as to the legality of the latest decree

June 6, 2007

President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushencko, has issued his third-decree seeking to dismiss Ukraine’ democratically elected parliament this time pursuant to Article 82 of Ukraine’s Constitution.

In a statement issued by the President on June 5, 2007 the president has called for the holding of fresh elections on September 30 and he has charged the Central Election Committee to hold elections within 60 days.

Already there are questions as to the legality of the Presidents latest decree which on the surface of it most certainly does not appear to be in accordance with Ukraine’s Constitution and is somewhat premature in its context.

See Dissecting Ukraine’s President’s Third Decree.

June 5, 2007

President Victor Yushchenko on Tuesday issued a decree to hold early parliamentary elections on September 30, 2007.

Based on last week’s decision by the pro-presidential party, Our Ukraine, and Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc to give up their seats in parliament, the decree is in line with the May 27 Joint Statement by President Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yanukovych and Speaker Moroz as well as Ukraine’s constitution and the October 17/2002 ruling by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The Central Election Commission has to organize the snap poll within sixty days and the cabinet of ministers has to finance it.

The decree was officially published in The Gazette of the President of Ukraine (issue no. 14) on June 5.

The president also signed a decree to rescind his April 26 Verkhovna Rada dissolution decree as well as his decrees issued on May 29, May 31, and June 1.


President issues early poll decree Questions asked as to the legality of the latest decree

June 6, 2007

President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushencko, has issued his third-decree seeking to dismiss Ukraine’ democratically elected parliament this time pursuant to Article 82 of Ukraine’s Constitution.

In a statement issued by the President on June 5, 2007 the president has called for the holding of fresh elections on September 30 and he has charged the Central Election Committee to hold elections within 60 days.

Already there are questions as to the legality of the Presidents latest decree which on the surface of it most certainly does not appear to be in accordance with Ukraine’s Constitution and is somewhat premature in its context.

See Dissecting Ukraine’s President’s Third Decree.

June 5, 2007

President Victor Yushchenko on Tuesday issued a decree to hold early parliamentary elections on September 30, 2007.

Based on last week’s decision by the pro-presidential party, Our Ukraine, and Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc to give up their seats in parliament, the decree is in line with the May 27 Joint Statement by President Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yanukovych and Speaker Moroz as well as Ukraine’s constitution and the October 17/2002 ruling by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The Central Election Commission has to organize the snap poll within sixty days and the cabinet of ministers has to finance it.

The decree was officially published in The Gazette of the President of Ukraine (issue no. 14) on June 5.

The president also signed a decree to rescind his April 26 Verkhovna Rada dissolution decree as well as his decrees issued on May 29, May 31, and June 1.


Will the End Justify the Means?

June 6, 2007

Two months and four days since the president of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, first signed a decree seeking to dissolve Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament, the president has now signed his third decree dissolving parliament and setting the date for fresh elections to be held on September 30, 2007.

The compromise deal, reached at the end of May that set the stage for fresh parliamentary elections to be held on September 30, was in line with proposals that were first put forward by Ukraine’s governing majority in April but rejected at the time by the president.

Unlike the previous two decrees the third decree is based on Article 90 section 3 of Ukraine’s Constitution and is subject to 151 or more members of parliament resigning and the inability of Ukraine’s Central Election Committee (CEC) to fullfill the vacant mandates by a count-back based on the registered party list submitted prior to the March 2006 parliamentary elections. Under the terms of Ukraine’s Constitution (Artcle 82) if the elected parliament is no longer represented by 2/3rds of its complement then the authority of the parliament ceases exist and in 30 days following the loss of a competent majority the president has the authority to dismiss the parliament and call fresh elections. (Article 90 section 3) within 60 days.

The previous presidential decrees were not made in accordance with Ukraine’s Constitution and as such the authority of the president to dismiss Ukraine’s parliament was under dispute and challenged in the court. Viktor Yushchenko, faced with the possibility of losing all power and authority following the defection of a number of opposition members of parliament who had indicated that they would support the governing coalition, became embroiled in a bitter and destructive power struggle been the office of the president and the elected parliament.

The president, having previously given an undertaking to abide by the determination of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court, when he became aware that the Constitutional Court would rule his earlier decrees unconstitutional took extra-ordinary steps to avoid judicial review and accountability by dismissing three Constitutional Court Judges on the eve of the Courts deliberations so as to prevent the court from making a ruling on his decrees. If the Court had ruled that the president’s decrees were unconstitutional, Viktor Yushenko would would been under great pressure to resign as president in order to restore confidence in Ukraine’s office of president and its head of state.

Public Opinion

Recent pubic opinion polls indicate that 46% of Ukrainians opposed the president’s decision to dismiss the parliament and hold fresh elections whilst 40% approved. The results of the poll reflects the same result of all the other polls undertaken with the latest poll published on May 29 showing the main governing Party of Regions securing 35.6% of voters support (representing 51% of the number of parliamentary seats) with the opposition parties securing only 29.4% (43% of seats) and the Communist Party holding 6% of the remaining seats with 4.6% of the vote and the Socialists Party of Ukraine falling just below the 3% parliamentary threshold with 2.8% of the vote.

Whilst Viktor Yushchenko tries to put a positive spin on the events of the last two months, the fact remains that the ongoing conflict and political indecisiveness resulting in the president riding roughshod over Ukraine’s Constitution and undermining Ukraine’s democratic institutions, bringing Ukraine close to civil unrest and militarily intervention has not served well Ukraine’s best interest.

It is difficult to see to what end and justification.

If anything it is the Office of the President that has lost out the most in the recent political power struggle with the president maintaining the lowest support and public trust in opinion polls compared to his rivals Yulia Tymoshenko (Opposition Leader) and Viktor Yanukovych (Prime-Minister). Most Ukrainians treat with despair resulting in a serious loss of public confidence in the state of political affairs in Ukraine.

The loss of public confidence that is the most damaging to Ukraine’s democratic development.

The actions of the president in undermining Ukraine’s judicial system in order to avoid judicial review of his decrees and the deployment of armed forces is the most damaging of all. Something that the president will unlikely recover from as pressure and growing dissatisfaction in the way in which the president has managed his term of office increases the less likely the president will continue to hold office if as expected the results of the election produce no overall change. The actions of the president over the last two months will be reviewed by recorded in history as a president who was prepared to do what ever it took to try and claw back presidential power and authority from Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament

Looking for the positive

If there is any positive to come from recent events it will be sharpening of focus Ukraine’s political elite for the need to tighten-up Ukraine’s Constitution to prevent the unconstitutional abuse of power usurped by Ukraine’s president. Parliament should consider and support the adoption of a full parliamentary system line with other European States as recommended by the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) in their report in April 2007. The extent and direction of changes to Ukraine’s constitution being the next major political battle on the horizon.


Will the End Justify the Means?

June 6, 2007

Two months and four days since the president of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, first signed a decree seeking to dissolve Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament, the president has now signed his third decree dissolving parliament and setting the date for fresh elections to be held on September 30, 2007.The compromise deal, reached at the end of May that set the stage for fresh parliamentary elections to be held on September 30, was in line with proposals that were first put forward by Ukraine’s governing majority in April but rejected at the time by the president.

Unlike the previous two decrees the third decree is based on Article 90 section 3 of Ukraine’s Constitution and is subject to 151 or more members of parliament resigning and the inability of Ukraine’s Central Election Committee (CEC) to fullfill the vacant mandates by a count-back based on the registered party list submitted prior to the March 2006 parliamentary elections. Under the terms of Ukraine’s Constitution (Artcle 82) if the elected parliament is no longer represented by 2/3rds of its complement then the authority of the parliament ceases exist and in 30 days following the loss of a competent majority the president has the authority to dismiss the parliament and call fresh elections. (Article 90 section 3) within 60 days.

The previous presidential decrees were not made in accordance with Ukraine’s Constitution and as such the authority of the president to dismiss Ukraine’s parliament was under dispute and challenged in the court. Viktor Yushchenko, faced with the possibility of losing all power and authority following the defection of a number of opposition members of parliament who had indicated that they would support the governing coalition, became embroiled in a bitter and destructive power struggle been the office of the president and the elected parliament.
The president, having previously given an undertaking to abide by the determination of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court, when he became aware that the Constitutional Court would rule his earlier decrees unconstitutional took extra-ordinary steps to avoid judicial review and accountability by dismissing three Constitutional Court Judges on the eve of the Courts deliberations so as to prevent the court from making a ruling on his decrees. If the Court had ruled that the president’s decrees were unconstitutional, Viktor Yushenko would would been under great pressure to resign as president in order to restore confidence in Ukraine’s office of president and its head of state.

Public Opinion

Recent pubic opinion polls indicate that 46% of Ukrainians opposed the president’s decision to dismiss the parliament and hold fresh elections whilst 40% approved. The results of the poll reflects the same result of all the other polls undertaken with the latest poll published on May 29 showing the main governing Party of Regions securing 35.6% of voters support (representing 51% of the number of parliamentary seats) with the opposition parties securing only 29.4% (43% of seats) and the Communist Party holding 6% of the remaining seats with 4.6% of the vote and the Socialists Party of Ukraine falling just below the 3% parliamentary threshold with 2.8% of the vote.

Whilst Viktor Yushchenko tries to put a positive spin on the events of the last two months, the fact remains that the ongoing conflict and political indecisiveness resulting in the president riding roughshod over Ukraine’s Constitution and undermining Ukraine’s democratic institutions, bringing Ukraine close to civil unrest and militarily intervention has not served well Ukraine’s best interest.

It is difficult to see to what end and justification.

If anything it is the Office of the President that has lost out the most in the recent political power struggle with the president maintaining the lowest support and public trust in opinion polls compared to his rivals Yulia Tymoshenko (Opposition Leader) and Viktor Yanukovych (Prime-Minister). Most Ukrainians treat with despair resulting in a serious loss of public confidence in the state of political affairs in Ukraine.

The loss of public confidence that is the most damaging to Ukraine’s democratic development.

The actions of the president in undermining Ukraine’s judicial system in order to avoid judicial review of his decrees and the deployment of armed forces is the most damaging of all. Something that the president will unlikely recover from as pressure and growing dissatisfaction in the way in which the president has managed his term of office increases the less likely the president will continue to hold office if as expected the results of the election produce no overall change. The actions of the president over the last two months will be reviewed by recorded in history as a president who was prepared to do what ever it took to try and claw back presidential power and authority from Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament

Looking for the positive

If there is any positive to come from recent events it will be sharpening of focus Ukraine’s political elite for the need to tighten-up Ukraine’s Constitution to prevent the unconstitutional abuse of power usurped by Ukraine’s president. Parliament should consider and support the adoption of a full parliamentary system line with other European States as recommended by the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) in their report in April 2007. The extent and direction of changes to Ukraine’s constitution being the next major political battle on the horizon.