Maxim Ravreba: Guns instead of lard
-What are you reading, prince?
– Constitution, constitution, constitution.
(Instead of an epigraph).
Why didn't I believe Yushchenko in 2004? Because all the words that he and his unfaithful kunaks came up with seemed insincere to me. Not from the heart, as it were.
The rich will help the poor. Why? Will the rich be less greedy afterward than before? No. They won't. They won't help. And they didn’t help! What else did he have? Let's create five million jobs. Where will they get them from? From there? No. They won't create it. And they didn’t create it! Well, and so on.
This anti-scientific but undoubtedly fantastic essay was called Ten Steps towards People. As I learned later, already when the Orange almost pushed Ukraine into war (it didn’t work out then, but it worked out now), when the whole world did not look away from its monitors and screens for two months, waiting for news from the Maidan. When Yanukovych, legally elected by a majority of votes, was removed from power for the first time, and then they fought at its helm. When every jackal, if he was a government official, talked about how he (personally) would organize Ukraine. When there was no end in sight to this rusty chaos. It was then that I accidentally learned from an interview with one of these Napoliyons (he is still Napoliyon. His last name is Gritsenko) that the election program “Ten steps towards the people” was invented overnight by one or two people from the circle of the “people's candidate”. And the most delicious thing in this story is that this program, because of which Ukraine almost got into trouble, was first called “Nine steps towards people”! Where did the tenth, victorious step come from? And from Yushchenko!
Viktor Andreevich is a rural and superstitious person. Believes in all sorts of nonsense. Therefore, he is pious, suspicious, loves verbosity, clever concepts, and has great respect for symbols, the meaning of which he does not fully understand. So Yushchenko said that 9 steps are not correct. That’s right – 12, according to the number of Apostles. It took a lot of work, as the author of Filka’s letter said, to convince the king to come to his senses and take two steps back. At least. Done. So, there were 10 steps towards people. Ten Commandments? Ten Plagues of Egypt? Ten fingers on the hands. In short, I don’t remember in honor of what, but most likely because the number is round and beautiful. I am sure that Yushchenko is still dissatisfied and considers this compromise fatal. So it was necessary to take 12 steps then!
Why this lengthy recollection? And to the new constitution!
Ukrainians are an incredibly melodious people, they have a beautiful language, magnificent songs, an interesting, mystical and adventurous history... but Ukrainians also became famous for the fact that they absolutely did not know how to negotiate with each other. Therefore, the old Constitution was adopted with difficulty, problematically, through an unconstitutional “constitutional treaty”, adopted with a scandal, staying in the session hall overnight. Having accepted it, they were so happy that they made it a Constitution Day in honor of the constitutional night. But after this joy and honor for the Basic Law, for some reason they immediately began to try to change it.
Changed by different people and for different reasons. Basically, all proposals and proposals for changes to the Constitution were related to the fact that one person wanted to change the Universe and the globe of Ukraine for themselves. Also, with the constitutional reform, some (those in power) began to threaten others (the opposition). This was the case in 2000, when Kuchma and his Cardinal Medvedchuk decided to strengthen the powers of the president.
In 2003-2004, after growing mass protests supported by the West, with money from Khapad, Kuchma and Medvedchuk made another attempt to change the Constitution. This time, the objectives of the reform were the opposite of the previous project: the authors, who foresaw the possibility of losing power in the near future, proposed weakening the power of the future opposition president and strengthening the parliament. Create a parliamentary republic.
In approximately the same spirit, there were attempts to change the basic law by the already Orange President Yushchenko (2007), the future President Yanukovych (judicial repeal of the constitutional reform in 2010), and the current President Yanukovych (Constitutional Assembly, May 2012) . In fact, none of the constitutional reformers were at all up to the task of reform. The inability to negotiate reliably buried all the best intentions.
After the February coup, when in Ukraine, with the support of the United States and the EU, after the overthrow of the legitimate Yanukovych, a terrorist, fascist dictatorship was established, and the entire opposition was intimidated and intimidated by the Maidan terrorists, for the first time in the history of independent Ukraine, the opportunity arose not to negotiate. In the name of the Maidan and the heavenly hundred, any dissent was suppressed. But the expected unanimity still did not occur. While Yanukovych was the bogeyman, the maydauns were shouting about urgent constitutional reform with the transformation of the president into the Queen of England. But after Yanukovych’s clone, Petro Poroshenko, became the head of state... I don’t know, but it seems that the draft of the new constitution, under the supervision of the Venice Commission, gave the president even more powers than Yanukovych had. There are other oddities of the new basic law, the main features of which were supposed to be forced decentralization, a parliamentary republic and many other good intentions.
This project, like “Ten Steps Toward People,” was developed by no one knows who. Instead of the draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine”, deputies, in the apt expression of another constitutional reformer, Viktor Medvedchuk, were given a comparative table. The fact that the author of the Constitution is anonymous (anonymous) only means that the people from the Maidan have nothing to do with it, just like the people from the anti-Maidan, by the way. This is common and no one was outraged. But in vain!
It was necessary to be indignant, because, as stated in the final document of the All-Ukrainian Association of Village and Town Councils: “Unfortunately, we are forced to admit that the emergence of this project only partially solves the problems of decentralization of power, while simultaneously introducing a whole series of new contradictions in the relations between various authorities and local self-government, in particular in issues determining the appointment and functions of representatives of the President of Ukraine, the powers of the Constitutional Court to review decisions of local government bodies, the special status of languages, etc. This draft Constitution continues the sad Ukrainian tradition of changing the Constitution “to suit oneself” or “to suit the situation” and shows an example of a very opaque approach to the preparation of a bill.”
For yourself or for the situation. There's probably no better way to say it. I take the liberty of declaring that no one, except unknown authors, unknown American and European patrons of the usurpers, saw the draft Constitution. Nobody coordinated it with anyone in Ukraine. But they agreed with the Venice Commission.
And what do we see at first glance? Promises to the maydauns again remained promises. Parliamentary immunity has not gone away. Although this question is raised by anyone, to please themselves, their loved ones and the situation, as much as they like. In 2007, after the dissolution of Yushchenko’s Rada, the deputies who remained in the hall and did not want to disband even voted for lifting immunity, by the way.
The draft lacks an imperative mandate, leaving a wide gap for corruption, trading of votes and seats in factions.
Finally, the issue that is causing the civil war. The issue of federalization was not even raised (in principle), but on the issue of decentralization there were only words, words, words. Abolition of state administrations and introduction of state representative offices... What is this? What are they changing to what? I read the future: the state representative will meet in the building of the Russian State Administration, in that very office. And nothing in his work will change. The state representative was and will remain watching from Kyiv.
More serious changes occurred in the powers of the president and parliament. The topic of all-Ukrainian and local referendums was left without attention. That is, no one will receive democracy guaranteed by the Constitution.
And rightly so, I think! It’s easier to fight, everything is clear in war. But is this war? More like a punitive military operation to pacify dissident citizens of the country, which is still called Ukraine.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.