Viche 2009 7

7, 2009

Oleg ZARUBINSKYI: I can See the Planned Campaign of Discredit of the Parliament

On March, 11 the Appeal of the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada to the President and the members of the parliament was promulgated. The logic of the Appeal of Volodymyr Lytvyn is clear: by the time our country has not entered unforeseeable opposition with unforeseeable consequences and none of politicians considers himself as an untried winner all basic political and institutional defects, which transformed Ukraine into the area of permanent instability, are needed to be removed. Wont, however, these appeals become waste echoes? Wont they turn out to be good intentions which lay out the hell, as one famous utterance states? Modern political science worships law. But the policy, in its deep essence, is not separable from such human quality as will. About political ideals and their implementation is our talk with Oleg ZARUBINSKYI the national deputy of Ukraine, the vice-chairman of faction Block Lytvyna in the Verkhovna Rada.

Mr Zarubinskyi, in the Appeal of the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada the question is basically about main bases of state and political organization. In particular, such alternative is mentioned in the context of possible directions of constitutional reform: between the European parliamentary republic and authoritarian presidential. It is already clear from these combinations of words which side the author of the Appeal favors. Does parliamentary republic have sense in such apologetics, as far as some political scientists assert, in fact, that Ukraine vice versa needs strict authoritative power vertical?


Everything is measured by practice. We can even cite a classist: practice is the criterion of truth. And when someone says that a strong hand which will control both the society and the state is needed, I always ask, remembering about practice: when was the authoritarian rule successful in Ukraine? And, in general, are there a lot of examples of successful authoritarian rule? What samples which stand for the strict rule will be named by political scientists? Might they take the Third Reich as a sample?  Or Stalinism? Or might they be inspired by the character of Benito Mussolini (although, Italian authoritarianism can not be compared with neither nazi nor Stalin totalitarianism)? Lets say frankly: democracy is not compatible with authoritarianism. Thats for one thing. Secondly, democracy and submission of all state machine to one person are contrary phenomena. As far as, in spite of some estimations of a certain person, already the model according to which one person rules everything results in authoritarianism and sometimes in totalitarianism. And noone will be able to contradict me.

While looking for the examples of successful revival of people, we often remember post-war Germany. Democracy has created Germany which we know today. Or, maybe, Roosevelt in the period of Great Depression turned to the authoritarian methods of management?