skip to main |
skip to sidebar
If Ukraine's new system was so dysfunctional, why didn't anyone change it before now? The problem was that no faction in the country's bitterly divided political system trusted any other faction to change the setup, fearing that reform would benefit one political group at the expense of all others. Thus when Yulia Tymoshenko, currently an opposition leader, proposed changes as prime minister, the attempts foundered.
The move back to a presidential system now will give Yanukovych powers Yushchenko lacked, allowing him to hire and fire ministers with far less interference from parliament.
By promoting calm, this could benefit all of Ukraine, though whether stability ultimately improves or not will depend on how Yanukovych follows up on the court's ruling. He has two options. He can either work with parliament to change the constitution -- the more promising path. Or he can unilaterally declare the previous 1996 constitution in effect, an approach guaranteed to fire up the opposition and estrange his coalition partners in parliament.
Nice summary of the court ruling earlier this month in Foreign Policy, but the I don't agree that there is a "calm" or that the change will "benefit all of Ukraine". The new president has shown a disdain for fair play and a preference for more authoritarian style of leadership. For those who think that this will somehow be good for the economy, lets take a look at Dani Rodriks article on authoritarianism and economic growth.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment