Kravchuk: There have been a dual power for 26 years in Ukraine

Kyiv: In 2017, the first Ukrainian government and 100 years of Ukrainian parliamentarism turned 100 years old. On the eve of the 26th anniversary of the Independence Day of Ukraine, Front News International talked with the first president of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk. “Father of Ukrainian Independence” spoke about the thorny path of Ukraine before the collapse of the Soviet Union and after it. Kravchuk also assessed the activities of all presidents of independent Ukraine.

 

Front News: Less than a month remains until the Day of Independence of Ukraine. Can you tell us at what price we got it? Can we today call Ukraine politically independent?

 

Leonid Kravchuk: When people talk about independence, sometimes they do not detail the very category of independence. There is political independence, economic, spiritual, and not only of man, but of society. So, we got political independence in 1991. Its essence lies in the fact that part of a great country, or the metropolis of the empire, is allocated to a separate state entity. This happened in 1991. But it happened in a special way. According to the Constitution of the Soviet Union and the Constitution of Ukraine as part of the Soviet Union, there was an article that every nation has the right to self-determination, up to separation. But there were no mechanisms. How to do it, by what order: a vote, a referendum or through a decision of the Congress of the CPSU. Nobody knew how. I, like the person who led this process, raised many questions.

 

On August 24, we proclaimed independence, but we are not recognized. No country before the referendum in December 1991 recognized Ukraine as an independent state. To my question “why?”, there was an answer, “in January 1991 there was an all-union referendum”. Ukraine then voted to preserve the USSR as an updated federation. But the Verkhovna Rada can not, according to international law, abolish the referendum decision – the direct will of the people.

 

The question arose how to proceed. We held a referendum. Immediately changed the attitude towards Ukraine. On the same day, we were recognized by two states. For a long time already there is a competition, who first – Poles or Canadians. There’s a time difference, but still they tend to believe that the Poles were the first, and the second was the Canadians. So, until December 31, almost all states of the world recognized us.

 

I did not have time to answer telegrams about recognition, appeals. Here is the answer, how the world community treats every step of any state, there are international laws, and not like us, “what do you want?”. So it’s specific, but that’s not all. But there is a referendum and the Union is, how to get out of it?

 

We proclaim that now we are an independent Ukraine. And the Soviet Union says that the Constitution does not have a mechanism, how do you see it, announce by radio, that the decision has been made, and you will already become independent? Gorbachev calls me and says: “Leonid Makarovich, is everything thought out there?”. I want to say that everything is not so simple. Then I had a very simple and real idea: if you can not get out, then what we are leaving, we must break up. And there will be no need to go out – he is not.

 

The Belovezhsky Agreement was the idea of ​​all. Białowieжьеa was not exactly the main theme for me to go to Ukraine, the main theme was to get independence, which would not allow anyone to take Ukraine by the hand. It was impossible to leave the Union alive and well. In Bialowieza, I held this idea as soon as I could. And the essence of the Belovezhsky agreement was to end the existence of the Soviet Union, it sounded in the preamble of the agreement, which we accepted. Then there would be no need to go out.

 

Now Ukraine’s independence is political, as I said, and we have every reason to say that Ukraine has received it. It has become a state with all its attributes: we choose, vote, have a Constitution. There are all forms, all international documents, which confirm that Ukraine is an independent, independent state.

 

FNI: Today actively discussing the issue that in fact Ukraine is not a parliamentary-presidential republic, but already has signs of a presidential-parliamentary one. Suggestions are made to change the constitutional model to a parliamentary model. Is this possible, and what will it lead to?

 

LK: When I became president, we had a parliamentary-presidential republic. The president had great powers, but the composition of the government, those people who were supposed to be part of the government, claimed the Verkhovna Rada. It’s the same now. Kuchma came, on the second day began to turn the parliamentary-presidential republic into a presidential-parliamentary republic. He was president for 7 years, and at the end of the second term introduced a new draft amendments to the Constitution, where again (Ukraine – FNI) turned into a parliamentary-presidential one. After Kuchma, Yushchenko came and tolerated the parliamentary-presidential one. Then Yulia Tymoshenko raised her active activity, she acted according to the Constitution. Parliamentary-presidential was a republic. The government was elected and had more influence. After Yushchenko came Yanukovych. He did not stand on ceremony with democracy. He instructed the Constitutional Court, and he returned back to the presidential-parliamentary. The demands of the Maidan were to turn the country into a parliamentary-presidential one. Poroshenko came and turned. However, in these 26 years Ukraine has never been either a parliamentary-presidential or a purely presidential-parliamentary one.

 

26 years in Ukraine – dual power. And the parliament, the president, and the prime minister do not have clearly separated powers. The president interferes with the powers of the Cabinet. The Cabinet often sorts out the powers that the president must fulfill. As long as we have a dual power, all other reforms can not be carried out for real. Judicial reform and local government reform are also important. I do not deny this, but when two housewives cook borsch in the kitchen, you will not get a real borscht. I am for the parliamentary-presidential state.

 

FNI: How to change this?

 

LK: For example, I do not mind, an important issue recently raised by the Constitutional Commission on the status of the Crimea. We even determined the time frame for how to turn the Crimea – as an integral part of Ukraine – everything is important. But what is written there, it is impossible to realize while the Crimea is occupied. Instead of pretending to reform, it is necessary to change (determine the powers – FNI) of three institutions: BP, the government and the president. It is necessary to determine precisely the form of government. If this is a presidential republic, then take an example from the United States of America. And the president is responsible for everything. At us the president for what does not answer. And if there is no law on the impeachment procedure in the Constitution, then he feels himself, as he wants, because there is no control over the president. In addition, to go to the Maidan and pick up the flags. Or make a parliamentary republic, like in Germany. Then all the reforms will go in the proper order and everyone will know who is responsible for what. That’s the whole scheme. I will not say anything new. We do not want this. The first one who does not want this is the president.

 

FNI: Is it possible to create a parliamentary model in Ukraine?

 

LK: You need 300 votes. And where can I get them? We can not dial 27. And if they do not vote in the presidential faction … There will be no vote. We need the inner conviction of all participants in the political process. We have lived for 26 years in the system of dual power, or tri-power. We can not bring order to the state. Our political elite could not, during this time, create a management system that would meet the interests of the Ukrainian people. Presidents surround themselves accordingly with people who say what they want to hear. And these people think about business and their job, and not about Ukraine.

 

FNI: The political trend in Ukraine is the issue of immunity. Is it possible in Ukraine to make a parliament that will not have immunity?

 

LK: This is a separate issue. I’m not a supporter of completely taking away immunity. There is a limit where inviolability is meaningless, and where it is needed. After all, a deputy must fulfill his powers. There is inviolability, which prevents the state from living, and the deputy allows him to be a corrupt official. This inviolability must be removed. It will not lead to anything bad. When a person takes bribes, when a person must be arrested while committing a crime, what kind of immunity should be? Remain only what is needed (deputies – ed.) To fulfill their powers.

 

FNI: For the draft amendment to the Constitution in the matter of immunity and after the scandal with Saakashvili, the question is actively debated whether signs of dictatorship appeared in Ukraine?

 

LK: I do not think so. I do not think that we already have signs of dictatorship in Ukraine. I can say that there is a tug of war. Since there is a dual power, since the Constitution does not clearly define whether powers can be transferred from one to the other. Everyone, using his position, as well as the Constitution and laws, can, with great strength, pull the blanket over himself. For example, the president has the greatest power. When asked a question, he says “I have been chosen by the whole people, and I have a mandate from him”. This is true, but it is not a sign of dictatorship.

 

Dictatorship is when you are not allowed to speak. You are not allowed to go to church, you are not allowed anything. I lived under a dictatorship. That is, do not need any small restrictions or any signs of any impact on one person immediately put in a dictatorship.

 

FNI: Depriving Saakashvili of Ukrainian citizenship as president, in your opinion, is dictatorship?

 

LK: What kind of dictatorship is this? The fact that the president deprives Saakashvili of citizenship is a dictatorship already? There is a law where two conditions are written for the deprivation of citizenship. The first is dual citizenship, which Saakashvili does not have. The second condition is that when a person concealed from the state whose citizen he wishes to become, information that the person was being tried. Saakashvili considers this a misunderstanding. That we have an international court. Give, decide, who forbids? Or you will not be given the opportunity (appeal – FNI) issue in the international court? Will give. Secondly, when Saakashvili entered Ukraine, he knew that he would not be the second president? We will not have two presidents – Poroshenko and Saakashvili. We have one president – Peter Poroshenko, until 2019. There are influences, there is an excess of authority in certain issues, there is an assumption of uncharacteristic functions, there are misunderstandings, or the president does not attach much importance to his word, exaggerating anything. However, this is life, not dictatorship.

 

FNI: If we analyze the institution of the presidency in Ukraine, then what did each presidents remember?

 

LK: The most important thing for the state is the emergence of the state itself. There is no state – you can hang all your visas on a carnation. They will not be easy. The most important thing that can be done is to build a new state. I had involvement in this. This one is enough for my whole life. All signatures about the creation of the Ukrainian independent state and its troops – there is the signature of “Kravchuk”. No one else. This is not because they did not want to deliver, but because that’s what history ordered. Ukraine is, it is being built, upset, with mistakes and miscalculations.

 

FNI: What do you think Leonid Kuchma did in your opinion?

 

LK: Kuchma continued to build the Ukrainian state. But Leonid Kuchma’s character as director of the military plant had more centralization motives than decentralization. For example, as soon as he became prime minister, he immediately wanted the Cabinet of Ministers to issue decrees. After all, he saw few decrees and laws of the Verkhovna Rada. For the first time in history, know-how. He persuaded the Verkhovna Rada. The Verkhovna Rada gives the Cabinet of Ministers the right to issue decrees. It is unique why: the executive branch issues decrees for themselves and performs them themselves.

 

Leonid Kuchma transformed the parliamentary-presidential republic into a presidential-parliamentary republic. Than finished – has transformed already presidential-parliamentary on the contrary in parliamentary-presidential. And during this period, they also accepted treaties between the Verkhovna Rada and the president, where they deprived the Cabinet of Ministers of the opportunity to make important decisions. Of course, this had consequences, the same was the beginning of a dictatorship. Beginning of the introduction of forms of government dictatorial content. Such a switch to authority: both decrees, and the transformation of the Constitution, and these agreements, deprived the Cabinet of concrete decisions – all this desire to pull the blanket over. The nature of this. I do not want to say that President Kuchma did nothing. He raised many economic and social issues necessary for Ukraine. But he made serious changes and reforms.

 

FNI: Is not the main merit of President Viktor Yushchenko the beginning of the process of obtaining a visa-free Ukraine-EU?

 

LK: Of course, it began during the presidency of Viktor Yushchenko. But is visa-free – this is the main thing for Ukraine ?! Well waited how much it? Do you know how many people travel to Europe? Do not know. 70% of people said they do not know what it is. And you live those 30%. Aunt Manya, who has no insurance, no dollars, no euro, will she go to Europe? What are you saying! The people live by myths and legends. Yushchenko has done a lot in this regard in order to restore national and historical memory. He did a lot for spiritual growth, for the same course in Europe. But the key reform of the authorities did not happen.

 

FNI: How do you characterize Yanukovych?

 

LK: I think that if Yanukovych was left the prime minister, and there was a president who could take control, as a strong-willed man and a business executive, he (Yanukovych – ed.) Could do something better for Ukraine. And as the president, when he was released from control, he thought that the president could do anything. He used the presidential post, the laws and the Constitution are not always in the interests of Ukraine. But the process of visa-free travel and Yanukovych continued. He also spoke about Europe, and the Party of Regions voted. It can not be said that Yanukovych did nothing because of the visa-free regime. Poroshenko completed this – and successfully.

 

FNI: Today President Petro Poroshenko is called one of the most effective. Do you agree with this?

 

LK: There are achievements of Poroshenko in that we are clearly defined in the international course: Europe and visa-free. But this is not the main issue. We created a relatively efficient army. We have passed laws and created bodies, started to take steps on reforms. This, you can say, is all. We have not solved one issue – the poverty of people. If we do not solve this main issue, then everything else will not influence society.

 

FNI: Will Poroshenko be called the president who reformed the country?

 

LK: In what way? Where is the result? Name at least one result, so that at least one reform was carried out. Do not talk about flowers, you need to talk about the fruits. What is done in Ukraine so that you remember and say that it’s better? An investigation bureau was established, the competition was held for about six months. Let’s grow up. People will believe the authorities when they have money in their pockets. If up to 70% of people live poorly – below the subsistence minimum, tell them a song about the reforms. You go to the market? Every day, prices are rising. People can not pay for utilities, because there is not enough money. And you tell them about the reforms that are going on in frantic steps. But where is the result? Reforms are conducted for a better life, and not just power for the sake of power.

 

FNI: What is missing for the modern president of the country?

 

LK: If we talk about Poroshenko, I will say that he is one of the most educated presidents. He graduated not in absentia, but permanently university. He worked in such positions, which gave him political and spiritual growth. He was directly engaged in business. And this means that he knows the economic situation well. What is missing is Poroshenko – he does not like criticism and reacts sharply to criticism. He exaggerates the successes. When he collects journalists, he does not even let them ask a question. When I listen to Poroshenko, it seems to me that we already have communism. All of us support, everything is in order: Minsk agreements are working, sanctions are working, all of us support, well, everything is fine! So the president can not act. Recently, the Supreme Court was established. Journalists act slyly, first ask public figures about how the contest was held (candidates for positions in the Supreme Court – Ed.). There not everything turned out: some of the judges returned old. Among them (the finalists of the contest are ed.) There are judges who conducted political affairs. After that, give the floor to the President, who said that this competition – sample, and other countries may take us an example. How can you say such a contrast? The President of Ukraine has to say so that was a possibility the president to change or clarify or submit a statement of the form so that was no longer so straightforward. Surroundings too. Why only business partners should be around it. These are people or Roshen, or business partners. There is the Administration of the President, people in ministries, people in specific public positions. For example, “Ukroboronprom.” Look at who works there.

 

FNI: On the minuses. The president failed to implement the promised peace plan in two weeks. Is not this his biggest failure?

 

LK: Not because Poroshenko did not want this. He was sincere, I listened to the inauguration, I was sitting in the hall. He was sincere, frank, he was still a very young pioneer president. He just took up the mace. He thought that if he says that the war is over, then there will be an end. Did not work out. And I think that no one would have happened. Not only Poroshenko. Put anyone in his place. With Russia, it was impossible to immediately solve all the issues, because it has already crossed all boundaries. Therefore, it was necessary to assess it more calmly. This is experience, not Poroshenko’s fault. It is necessary to search for an alternative, it always exists. I lead to something – I call for sobriety, reason. Do not say stupid things. If it’s evening today, after 2 hours there will be night. There is no alternative for the night. There will be a day, but later. And when people make any agreements, there is always better or worse. But this is an alternative.

 

FNI: Is it possible to predict how long it takes for the return of the Crimea and the Donbass?

 

LK: It can be both very fast and very long. For example, in 1991, the end of October and the beginning of November. The heads of all states, Gorbachev, are solving the question of preserving the Soviet Union. On the new union treaty. About converting a federation into an updated federation. Some speak of confederation. That is, there is a very serious talk about the future of the Soviet Union. On December 6, the Soviet Union was no more – a month and a half after this conversation, although we discussed the preservation.

 

Therefore, when it comes to history, actions are taken by the people, it is very difficult to say when something can happen. If internal shocks of such magnitude occur in Russia that the people will rise, then this can happen very quickly. And Crimea will return, as he returned in 1954. We just imposed it, we did not ask for it. And all the rest. That is, let’s not fantasize. It is necessary to reckon with realities. And the realities are not in favor of Russia. I tell you this frankly. Not in favor of improving its economic situation.

 

She climbed all the cases so deeply. I think that Putin would also like to think about how to get out of Ukraine, so I can guess. He does not even know how. Just picking up and taking everything out means surrendering. But what does it mean to surrender to Putin ?! Tomorrow he will no longer need anyone. It is no accident that Putin says that Putin can not give up power.

 

Because he will be judged or an international tribunal, or his own people will finish it. Therefore, he reached a point where he had to hold on to power. Having lost power, he will lose everything. He will stick in various ways, I do not know what. Therefore, everything needs to be thought through. All details. It’s hard to say when it will end. I want to know, like you, when you can go to the Crimea to rest.

 

FNI: Putin may be interested in settling or ending a conflict with Ukraine?

 

LK: Settle? I do not know if he will be interested or not. He does not decide everything himself. And what to do with those who are now in the Donbass? 40 thousand troops. The army was already created by the “DNR” and “LNR” – trained, armed, regular troops. Destroyed the Donbass, there is already nothing in the Donbass – no coal, no gas. Destroyed factories, factories, everything was exported. That is, in life there can be so complex problems that neither Putin, nor anyone else can solve. Therefore, he will look for some way out. I do not know which one, but will look. So it can not be long. Or he will end the conflict, or it will provoke internal problems in Russia.

 

FNI: What is the way out in Ukraine? Your attitude towards the adoption of the law on the special status of Donbass.

 

LK: If Ukraine goes to such a compromise, then it will make a huge mistake. The law should be adopted so that Ukraine is responsible for what is Ukrainian. If Ukrainian flags are placed in the Donbass, the Ukrainian government will be selected under international control, there will be Ukrainian media, Ukrainian parties – with this part of Ukraine I agree. If she is under the Kremlin, she will live according to the laws of the Kremlin, choosing militants who will shoot and kill Ukrainians, and we will recognize and hold them, I think no one will do it. Only a fool can go for it. I reject this (the law – FNI). There should not be any special status. Donbass should have the same status as all other regions.

 

Interview by Anastasia Svetlevskaya, Front News