on 20 March 2024, MPs Mariana Bezuhla and Halyna Tretiakova registered in the Verkhovna Rada a draft law on amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine to establish liability for misappropriation of state functions. Although the document was withdrawn after devastating criticism, the wording “for revision” does not exclude the MPs from returning to the idea of punishing those who decided to communicate with foreign politicians without permission from above. Komersant Ukrainskiy asked a political scientist, director of the Kyiv Institute of Politics Yevhen Magda about the reasons for this and its consequences.
– Who was supposed to be the object of this law if it was adopted, who was intended to be punished?
– Frankly speaking, the draft law is ambiguous, as Ukraine has recently been experiencing a dictatorship of advisers, and one could imagine that they could become a vector for the application of this law if adopted. However, Ms Bezuhla’s close and nakedly visible affiliation with the President’s office excludes this scenario. I think that this initiative was aimed at reducing the international activity of opposition politicians, experts, and civil society activists.
– Who is/was supposed to be the beneficiary of this draft law if it is adopted?
– The answer is obvious – the government, represented by the Office of the President, because we now live in an office-presidential republic, although the Constitution provides for a parliamentary-presidential republic.
– What is more important in this story – the emergence of the legislative initiative itself or its rejection?
– This “initiative” is an example of information spin (switching channels of attention) on the part of the authorities, diverting attention to the wrong object. It seems to me senseless and harmful.
– How do you assess Ms Bezuglaya’s explanation online – “provocation” and so on? …. At the same time, Tretyakova withdrew the report for revision… Does this mean that the same initiative will reappear in the parliament in an amended form?
– On the one hand, legislative spam is not new, not Ukrainian know-how. On the other hand, 750 days have passed since the start of Russia’s large-scale invasion, and the Verkhovna Rada has not yet turned into a conveyor belt for passing the laws the state needs. This parody of lawmaking is simply shameful and humiliating in front of our partners.
– Bezuhla was probably the first to make herself known in the process of reforming the SBU, and she was the most active in advocating and commenting on changes to the legislation governing the special service. She did so as a lobbyist for the interests of the SSU, not civil society. Tretyakova was quite dismissive and defiant in her comments on social issues, provoking the anger of many voters. Does this mean that these two ladies have been deliberately chosen by someone to play the role of jesters – “bad guys” on whom the public’s reaction to some dubious legislative initiatives is tested?
– Sadly, these ladies were elected to parliament in 2019 as representatives of the Servant of the People party, with Bezuhla being a majoritarian and Tretyakova a list member. Everything else is speculation, I propose to analyse their actions and draw appropriate conclusions. My experience as a political expert does not allow me to predict that they will continue their political careers after the current parliamentary convocation.
– Against the backdrop of numerous decisions by MPs to resign, should the story of the Bezuhla-Tretiakova bill be seen as a symptom of the degradation of Ukrainian parliamentarism?
– Obviously, yes, along with the unwillingness or inability to focus on issues important to society.
– Is the degradation of parliamentarism in times of war natural or not?
– The root cause of the degradation of Ukrainian parliamentarism is the centuries of statelessness of the Ukrainian nation. However, this is not a reason to continue to demonstrate to the world and fellow citizens the low level of our own lawmaking capabilities.
Read also:
Erdogan lost to the fridge: what does the defeat of his party mean?