A few days ago this
entry appeared which
mentioned draft law №2123a “On amendments to some legislative acts of
Ukraine concerning prevention and counteraction to political corruption” due
for tabling for vote within the Verkhovna Rada on 8th October.
In a nutshell, the core elements of this draft law proposed “administrative and
criminal liability for violations for the provision or receipt of donations to
a candidate submitting knowingly false information with regard to property,
income, expenses and financial obligations, and misuse of campaign funds.
It proposes strengthening the instruments available to
the Accounting Chamber and the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption
over the financing of political parties. It aims to limit the amount of
contributions to parties by individuals and legal entities, disclose major
donors to parties, establish annual internal and independent financial audits
of a political party as well as its local organisations that hold legal status.
Further it will oblige all parties to publish a report
on the property, income, expenses and financial obligations in full on the
official website of the National Agency for Prevention of Corruption. It also
seeks to introduce State funding of political parties, subject to party
discipline and financial statements.”
A fairly significant piece of legislative amendment if it passed and if
effectively policed when it comes to forcing some transparency upon Ukrainian
elections – particularly so when employed in concert with the roles of
anti-corruption bodies, and a move toward open party lists etc.
The draft Bill did indeed garner sufficient votes to pass – albeit only
just, with a meager 229 MPs seeing the draft law through to become legislation
(a 226 vote minimum required). The Ukrainian voting constituency may be
wise to consider why those MPs who did not support a law that makes
electioneering and political party mechanics more transparent decided not to do
so. Inferences perhaps should be drawn.
Unsurprisingly, draft law №2123a that suggested amendments to existing
legislation was itself subject to amendment prior to the vote – when is
Ukrainian legislation not subject to amendment prior to, or some time after
adoption, when vested interests may otherwise suffer?
At the time of writing, being blind to what those amendments actually
were – and thus the impact upon the original draft – Interfax reports that “According to the law,
state funding will be provided to the parties that passed the 5% threshold at
parliamentary elections.
According to the law, the state budget provides funds
for the statutory activities of political parties, which are not connected with
their participation in elections, and reimburses parties’ expenses related to
the financing of their election campaign during parliamentary elections.
The annual volume of the state funding of statutory
activities of political parties will amount to 0.02 of a minimum wage, as
established on January 1 of the year proceeding the year of the allocation of
the state budget, multiplied by the total number of voters who participated in
voting nationwide.
An additional 10% will be awarded as a bonus to the
political parties which comply with the principle of gender balance.
The law also states that the total amount of a
contribution for the support of a party by a citizen of Ukraine in one year
cannot exceed 400 minimum wages. The maximum amount of the contribution of
legal entities is 800 minimum wages.
According to the law, political parties cannot be
financed by government and municipal agencies, as well as legal entities, which
have a more than 10% share of the statutory capital, which is owned by the
state or local government. Foreign states and foreign legal entities or
individuals are forbidden from making any contributions to political parties.
The document lays down the procedure of financial
reporting of a political party.”
Whatever the result of the amendments, there is some good and necessary
stuff still in there, and throwing out the good in pursuit of the best is not
necessarily wise – however there is one issue that seems rather striking – the
law will come into effect from 1st July 2016.
Why such a delay?
It is certainly not for reasons to allow for the completion of the
current on-going local election campaigning under the old legislation when the
electioneering has already started. For a start the law cannot be
retrospectively applied, and as yet it has still to be signed into law by
President Poroshenko and duly published to officially become Ukrainian
legislation. Constitutionally the President has 15 days to sign, veto, or
return the law to the Verkhovna Rada with suggested amendments, and should it
take a day or two to reach him, then when added to the aforementioned 15 days,
the local elections would have taken place under the old legislation anyway.
Is it a nod toward the proposed date for the elections within the
occupied Donbas of 21st February 2016 to insure they are over before the new
law takes effect? (If those elections actually take place at all, or if
they do take place whether they are deemed to have been free and fair with the
results duly accepted.) Maybe – maybe not.
Would that justify a law passed on 8th October 2015 coming into effect
upon 1st July 2016 – almost 9 months later?
Is it to allow time to create another independent body to implement and
audit the outcomes that these amendments would generate – despite theoretically
there now being no scheduled elections per constitutionally stated electoral
terms for several years now? If that is the reasoning then it is a fairly
lame reason, if reason at all, when no elections are officially due until
several years after 1st July 2016 when these amendments come into force.
Therefore, is it more likely to relate to yesterday’s
entry and to the
numerous reasons listed as to why an early Spring 2016 Verkhovna Rada election
remains a distinct possibility (or indeed probability)?
Would not a Spring 2016 Verkhovna Rada election therefore fall within
the current non-transparent, easily influenced and regularly abused
legislation, rather than the legislation just passed that comes into force from
1st July 2016?
Exactly!
Indeed for those with a healthy dose of cynicism, the timing of the of
this legislation entering into force would add yet another reason to expect
early Verkhovna Rada elections in Spring 2016. The timing allows for one
last corrupt, nefarious, opaque electoral hurrah and huzzah for the national
legislature that would greatly assist the retention of certain vested interests
for a few years more before succumbing to some form of enforced electoral and
political party funding transparency – or subsequently amending these newly
passed legislative amendments into essentially meaningless impotence at an
opportune moment hence.
Are there any good arguments that can justify the delay of this legislation
coming into force until 1st July 2016? (Other than yet another grubby
political deal to provide an avenue to preserve vested interests via
shenanigans behind the political curtain for a few more years in any early
Verkhovna Rada elections obviously.)
A 9 month delay before this law enters into force takes some explaining.
No comments:
Post a Comment