Звіти

 

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the VII convocation had been blocked by the opposition factions for 17 days. The most active faction was the UDAR party of Vitalii Klychko. The second session wasn't opened in due time and, as a result, MPs couldn't conduct plenary sittings and work in Committees. The principal demand of the opposition, which has blocked the parliament for a long term, was implementation of the Constitution and adherence to the principles of personal voting by MPs The configuration of forces in the VRU hasn't changed, the Party of Regions has the biggest parliamentary faction, and some MPs of the faction are ignoring plenary sittings and neglecting their duties in committees. After all, their colleagues are openly voting instead of them, despite it's a violation of the Rules of procedure. The opposition has put legal demands with precise political context: delegitimization of laws, adopted with violation of the procedure, and natural decrease of votes given by the pro-power party in the Verkhovna Rada.

 

If the Parliament was blocked till March 7, 2013, on the very next day, the President would have the right (although not obliged) to dissolve[1] the Parliament and announce the conduction of extraordinary parliamentary elections. Ukrainian Constitution provides that if the Parliament fails to perform its activities during 30 calendar days, it can be prematurely dissolved. In accordance to the effective legislation[3], the extraordinary elections shall be conducted during 60 days[2] after the corresponding resolution is published.

 

During its seven convocations, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has seen two and a half political crises, which ended with dismissal of the parliament in 1994, 2007, and 2008. Similarly to 2013, the confrontation was caused by "horizontal" conflict, which appeared between governmental authorities (1994: between the President Leonid Kravchuk and the Chairman of Government Leonid Kuchma; in 2008 – between the President Viktor Yushchenko and the Yuliia Tymoshenko Bloc (YTB)), or between parliamentary groups (in 2007 – the power vs. the opposition). During the parliamentary crisis, the legislative branch cannot perform its functions because the level of political culture is not high enough to compromise, or the opponents are equally influential and are not willing to make concessions. Horizontal conflicts may be resolved in different ways: parliamentary debates, dissolution and extraordinary elections, Vote of No Confidence to the government or the President, substitution of parliamentary Heads, appeal to the Constitutional Court, organization of a referendum on disputable issues.

 

During the independence period, the society witnessed 20 resonant incidents of different scale when the parliamentary rostrum was blocked

 

The parliament was blocked for the longest time:[4]Blocked rostrum in the parliament – is an ordinary situation in the history of Ukrainian parliamentarism. During the last decade, obstructing the work of colleagues in the main legislative body of the country became a popular method of political pressure and resistance, or lobbying tool for political forces. During the independence period, the society witnessed 20 resonant incidents of different scale when the parliamentary rostrum was blocked. Contemporary traditions of obstructing the work of MPs and blocking the parliament were founded in 2000 by the Communist Party of Ukraine and left political forces. The YTB-Fatherland party (Yuliia Tymoshenko Block) has initiated (or participated in) more than a half of parliamentary confrontations which we have noted. The Communist Party and the Party of Regions were less active – they have initiated or participated in around one fourth (25 %) of incidents when the Verkhovna Rada was blocked. The Our Ukraine party which was parliamentary until quite recently, has taken a similar position. Representatives of the People's Party, a non-parliamentary faction (in VII convocation), were the least active in protecting their views by blocking the parliament.

 

  1. Parliamentary action with a slogan "NATO - no!": January 18 – March 5, 2008, with a one-day break (47 days).
  2. Counteraction to reelection of the management of the Verkhovna Rada (so-called "velvet revolution"): January 18 – February 8, 2000 (21 days).
  3. Counteraction to "button-pushers" (non-personal voting): February 5 – February 22, 2013 (17 days).

 

The largest number of MPs participated in blocking:[5]

 

  1. Parliamentary action with a slogan "NATO - no!": January 18 – March 5, 2008, with a one-day break (47 days). Initiated by the Party of Regions (175 MPs), the Communist Party of Ukraine (27 MPs). The average number of MPs participated in blocking – 202 MPs.
  2. Counteraction to the appointment of a new Head of the National Bank of Ukraine (Serhii Tihipko instead of Volodymyr Stelmakh): December 12-14, 2002 (12 days). Initiators – the Our Ukraine (103 MPs), the Yuliia Tymoshenko Block (18 MPs), the Communist Party of Ukraine (60 MPs), the Socialist party of Ukraine (20 MPs). The average number of MPs participated in blocking – 201 MPs.
  3. Creation of so-called anti-crisis coalition: June 27 – July 6, 2006 (10 days). Initiators – the Party of Regions (186 MPs).

 

The Parliament was the most actively blocked in 2008. Only during 5 month of 12, there were no confrontations in the Verkhovna Rada.

 

It is particularly interesting, that every prolonged blocking of the parliament was preceded by formation of a new composition of the Cabinet of Ministers. Before the VR was blocked in January-February 2000, Viktor Yushchenko was appointed as a Prime Minister; before the blocking in 2002 – a new government headed by Mr. Yanukovich was formed; before the blocking on the beginning of 2008 – Yuliia Tymoshenko was appointed as a Prime Minister; before the parliament was blocked this year (2013) – a new Cabinet of Ministers headed by Mykola Azarov was formed.

 

In countries, which are on the stage of forming and strengthening of parliamentary practices, PMs are using different forms of protest and boycott

 

CHRONOLOGY OF INCIDENTS WHEN THE PARLIAMENT WAS BLOCKED IN UKRAINEWorld parliamentary practices contain a lot of examples of blocking parliamentary activities with the use of formal or enforcing methods. 17-day obstruction to the opening of the second session of the newly-elected Verkhovna Rada is not Ukrainian know-how. In countries, which are on the stage of forming and strengthening of parliamentary practices, PMs are using different forms of protest and boycott. Parliaments which have long-lasting traditions of legal procedures and political compromises rarely suffer from similar incidents. Parliamentary strengthening process provides the certain mechanisms of finding a compromise which don't require extreme measures from individual MPs or their groups. In this aspect, the legislative solution of the personal voting issue is to become a catalyst for further formation of legal, public, predictable principles of parliamentary cooperation. From the report prepared by the Civil Network OPORA, you may know about examples of parliamentary confrontations in Turkey, Macedonia, Hungary, South Korea, and India.

 

Counteraction to reelection of the management of the Verkhovna Rada (so-called "velvet revolution"): January 18 – February 8, 2000 (21 days). Initiators – the Communist Party of Ukraine (115 MPs), the Socialist party of Ukraine (22 MPs), the Peasant Party of Ukraine (15 MPs), the Progressive Socialist party of Ukraine (11 MPs). The average number of MPs participated in blocking – 163 MPs.

 

  1. Reasons. On the beginning of 2000, right after the Presidential election in which Leonid Kuchma has won, a pro-presidential rightwing majority was formed, which included the Revival of the Regions group, SDPU (u), the Fatherland, the Labour Ukraine, the Ukrainian People's Movement, the People's Movement of Ukraine, and the People's Democratic Party. The agreement on creation of parliamentary majority, concluded between factions, included an obligation to achieve resignation of all left leadership of the Verkhovna Rada. Then Head of the Parliament was Oleksandr Tkachenko, and his First Deputy Head – was Adam Martyniuk. Left parties had been blocking the Verkhovna Rada for three weeks, in order to prevent no confidence vote against O. Tkachenko.
  2. The course. The blocking was moderate at first. Left parties refused to register for voting every time the issue of changing management of the Parliament was raised, as long as the quorum of two thirds of the complement was needed to take such decision. Some time later, they blocked the rostrum and presidium, as well as offices of the Speaker and his First Deputy Head. Deputies which participated in blocking were staying in the Parliament even at night. There were even some conflicts between representatives of the majority and the left opposition. The parliamentary majority decided to leave premises of the Verkhovna Rada and moved to Ukrainian House, where they were conducting their sittings. The minority of MPs was staying in the parliament, but couldn't perform its duties due to the absence of quorum. On the beginning of February, some MPs of left parties declared hunger strike. After these very events, Ukrainian Parliament was named "political circus" by the public.
  3. Arguments. The first reaction of left parties, and the Speaker in particular, was refusal to recognize the new parliamentary majority, because, allegedly, it was situational and completely dependent on the President. Then, all activities of the parliamentary majority, i.e. sittings in the Ukrainian House, which were aimed at changing the management of the Verkhovan Rada, were interpreted by those blocking the parliament as violation of the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure.
  4. The result. The majority has voted in the Ukrainian House for reelection of the Verkhovna Rada management. Ivan Pliushch became the Chairman of Parliament, Deputy Heads – Viktor Medvedchuk and Stepan Havrysh. Heads of eight committees, which were headed by representatives of left parties before, were also reelected. In order not to give the President reasons for dissolving the Parliament, left factions had to put up with the change of Parliamentary leaders.

 

Counteraction to the appointment of a new Head of the National Bank of Ukraine (Serhii Tihipko instead of Volodymyr Stelmakh): December 12-14, 2002 (12 days). Initiators – the Our Ukraine (103 MPs), the Yuliia Tymoshenko Block (18 MPs), the Communist Party of Ukraine (60 MPs), the Socialist party of Ukraine (20 MPs). The average number of MPs participated in blocking – 201 MPs.

 

  1. Reasons. The formal reasons for blocking became attempts of newly-created parliamentary majority (For United Ukraine block and SDPU (u)) to adjust Parliamentary Committees, amend the budget for the next year (adopted by the opposition parties), and appoint the new NBU Head.
  2. The course. MPs have blocked the rostrum and presidium of the parliament. There were constant conflicts between MPs, during which a number of microphones was broken. The incident when Yuliia Tymoshenko damaged the shoe of Hryhorii Surkis with her heel in return to his elbow punch, received exceedingly great publicity.
  3. Arguments. Including the issue on dismissal of V. Stelmakh from the position of the NBU Head to the agenda of the sitting(December 12) was considered by the opposition parties as a violation of the Rules of Procedure. The issue wasn't preliminary included to the agenda of the sitting. After MPs have voted (by secret ballot) for the appointment of S. Tihipko as a new Head of NBU, and reelection of heads of parliamentary committees, the opposition has received new arguments for resistance. In particular, representatives of the opposition were convinced that such voting procedure wasn't provided by the Rules of Procedure and personal voting standard was violated.
  4. The result. On December 24, participants of the confrontation have came to an agreement. The resolution on reelection of the Committees of the Verkhovna Rada was considered as ineffective. In order to unblock the parliament, there was created a Conciliation Commission, which included one representative from each faction and group. There also was introduced a moratorium on the reelection of heads of Parliamentary Committees until the political agreement is concluded between deputy factions and groups. Still, the issue of changing the NBU Head was decided in favor of the parliamentary majority.

 

Counteraction to so-called "political reform": December 23-14, 2003 (2 days). Initiators – the Our Ukraine (102 MPs),  the Yuliia Tymoshenko Block (19 MPs). The average number of MPs participated in blocking – 121.

 

  1. Reasons. The blocking was caused by the draft resolution on preliminary approval of the bill on making amendments to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. This draft resolution was the first step of Leonid Kuchma's "political reform" which provided Ukraine becoming the parliamentary-presidential republic and enabled the election of the President by the Parliament.
  2. The course. MPs have occupied the rostrum and presidium of the parliament. The system of electronic voting was deactivated. A Christmas tree, decorated with draft laws on making amendments to the Constitution, was laced on the presidium table. During the first day of blocking, the Speaker have announced a pause five times. Around 50 MPs have stayed in the Parliament for the night.
  3. Arguments. The opposition was against the political reform of the President. They were convinced that the only way to be heard was blocking the parliament.
  4. Results. The draft resolution on preliminary approval of the bill was supported by 276 MPs. Still, its adoption required the support of the constitutional parliamentary majority (300 MPs). The corresponding voting, which took place on April 8, 2004, was failed (only 294 MPs have voted).

 

Creation of so-called anti-crisis coalition: June 27 – July 6, 2006 (10 days). Initiators – the Party of Regions (186 MPs).

 

  1. Reasons. The formal reason for blocking the parliament became an intention of three parties of the parliamentary majority (the Our Ukraine, Yuliia Tymoshenko Block, and the Socialist party of Ukraine (SPU)) to conduct a batch voting for positions of the Speaker and the Prime Minister.
  2. The course. MPs have blocked the presidium, rostrum, and the whole sitting hall, including entrances.
  3. Arguments. "No batch voting for the election of Speaker – the Law is one for everybody" – under this slogan, MPs which blocked the parliament called to observe the Constitution and the Regulation when appointing the officials.
  4. The result. The blocking has ended with the creation of so-called anti-crisis coalition, which included 186 MPs from the PR, 31 MPs from the SPU, and 21 MPs from the CPU.

 

Parliamentary action with a slogan "NATO - no!": January 18 – March 5, 2008, with a one-day break (47 days).Initiated by the Party of Regions (175 MPs), the Communist Party of Ukraine (27 MPs). The average number of MPs participated in blocking – 202 MPs.

 

  1. Reasons. The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, the Prime Minister Yuliia Tymoshenko, and the VRU Head Arsenii Yatseniuk have sent a letter to the NATO General Secretary, saying that Ukraine expects to join the Membership Action Plan for NATO during the forthcoming Ukraine-NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008. This letter was signed by the Speaker, and MPs of Ukraine were not even informed about it. It was the formal reason for blocking the Parliament.
  2. The course. The rostrum and presidium were blocked, and a lot of balloons with inscription "NATO – no!" were hanged in the parliamentary hall. Representatives of the Party of Regions have put coins into voting consoles.
  3. Arguments. MPs which were blocking the Parliament were convinced that, having signed the letter addressed to the NATO General Secretary, the Head of the Verkhovna Rada has exceeded his powers. However, the most important argument was that the Party of Regions is categorically against Ukraine's accession to the NATO.
  4. The result. The parties have signed the Protocol of Understanding and adopted the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on NATO. According to the Resolution, the decision on Ukraine's accession to the NATO may be taken only by the national referendum.

 

Obstruction the President's statement in the Parliament, and demanding bills for countering the inflation May 13-14, 2008 (3 days). Initiators – the Yuliia Tymoshenko Block (156 MPs)

 

  1. Reasons. The formal reason for blocking the Parliament became the demand of urgent adoption of three bills for countering the inflation, which were not submitted for consideration of the Verkhovna Rada for some months. Besides that, the weighty reason for blocking the parliament were personnel issues, particularly, leadership changes in the State Property Fund and the Antimonopoly Committee. Besides that, parliamentary blockers were trying to prevent balance changes in the Constitutional Court in favor of V. Yushchenko, as long as new judges of the President's quota were to take an oath.
  2. The course. The YTB started blocking the Parliament on the very day the President Viktor Yushchenko was to deliver his annual message on the internal and external situation of Ukraine. The presidium, rostrum, and the whole sitting hall was blocked. The President didn't manage to take the floor in the Parliament, and his message was published in mass media later.
  3. Arguments. Making amendments to the Law of Ukraine On Customs Tariff of Ukraine, introduction of a tariff quota on importing some sorts of meet to Ukraine in 2008, limitation of extra charges in supermarkets – all these changes were supposed to lower prices on food according to the government of that time. Nevertheless, most of opponents belonging to the government of Yu. Tymoshenko, were convinced that such changes will endanger domestic commodity producers.
  4. Results. Bills for countering the inflation were included to the agenda of the VR only after the partners of the Coalition (YTB and the Our Ukraine) came into agreement. As a solution, the Law of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine was adopted, which secured returning a number of powers to the President. Still, this agreement didn't secure the adoption of bills which the YTB introduced: one of them was rejected, the second – carried only in the first reading, and only one was fully adopted. Besides that, the method of political struggle when the pro-power coalition hindered the address of the effective President, publicly became the collapse of democratic coalition.

 

The reaction on Yu. Tymoshenko's hunger-strike April 24-27, 2012 (4 days). Initiators – the YTB-Fatherland party (100 MPs).

 

  1. Reasons. The blocking was caused by employing force against Yu. Tymoshenko during transportation from the Kachanivska penal colony in Kharkiv to the Ukrzaliznytsia hospital, and her hunger-strike.
  2. The course. MPs have blocked the presidium and rostrum. Entrance doors were propped up by chairs.
  3. Arguments. Opposition MPs demanded a report of the Prosecutor General Viktor Pshonka on transportation of the former Prime Minister Yu. Tymoshenko from the Kachanivska penal colony to the hospital. Besides that, they demanded to let MPs which received medical education meet the former Prime Minister in the colony. In general, the blockers more expected to draw media attention to the hunger strike of Yu. Tymoshenko, than to get satisfaction of their demands.
  4. Results. The blocking didn't bring any results besides the media effect. The other MPs of Ukraine even managed to work and vote while the Parliament was blocked.

 

Counteraction to "button-pushers" (non-personal voting): February 5 – February 22, 2013 (17 days). Initiators – the All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland (99 MPs), the UDAR (42 MPs), All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda (36 MPs). The average number of MPs participated in blocking – 177 MPs.

 

  1. Reasons. The opposition is convinced that the Party of Regions can't provide stable majority in the Parliament and, therefore, that's why they are voting instead of their absent colleagues. Despite such activities contradict the Rules of Procedures of the VR, the Law doesn't provide any responsibility. To prevent this, the Parliament should put into operation the new system of personal voting – "Rada-3" (with the use of touch buttons).
  2. The course. On February 5, the opposition blocked the rostrum and presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine before the beginning of the second session. The rostrum was hanged with banners "Button pushers – get out from the Rada","Vote personally", and "The Rada Rots from Rybak". Leaders of three parties have announced, that the Parliament will be blocked until the corresponding amendments will be made to the Rules of Procedure of the VR, which were proposed to be voted for by hands or ballots. The night watch was established in the Parliament so that the majority couldn't unblock the rostrum. During almost three weeks, the opposition carried on negotiations with the majority regarding the necessary sanctions for non-personal voting and adoption of the corresponding changes to the Rules of Procedure.
  3. Arguments. The parties had different views on the methods for introduction of personal voting. The opposition insisted upon double registration of MPs; deactivation of voting cards belonging to unregistered in the session hall MPs; punishing those violated the principle of personal voting by prohibiting their participation in Parliamentary sittings; mandatory repeated voting on decisions, taken by non-personal voting. Besides that, the opposition insisted on the introduction of new system of personal voting – "Rada-3", but has later given up on this idea, as long as the touch button can't secure a hundred per cent personal voting. The Party of Regions faction leader Oleksandr Yefremov informed that the majority is ready to support the personal voting. Still, propositions of the opposition regarding the hand or ballot voting is unsuitable as time-consuming, and touch button voting system still has to be improved.
  4. The result. The amendments to Rules of Procedure were adopted during negotiations between the opposition and the majority. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has taken in the first reading a bill on making amendments to the Rules of Procedure,according to which, in case non-personal voting is detected, the card of absent MP should be removed and the voting is to be repeated. Besides that, on the beginning of each sitting, the VRU Head shall announce names of MPs which are absent.

 

Short-time blocking of the Verkhovna Rada:

 

  • April-May 2004 – short-time blocking of the rostrum by the Communist Party of Ukraine and the Socialist party of Ukraine. They demanded from the Parliament to take a decision on recalling Ukrainian troops from Iraq. The blocking didn't bring any results. However, in December 2004, the Verkhovna Rada has taken the decision on recalling Ukrainian troops from Iraq.
  • In 2005, members of the SDPU (u) faction have bocked the rostrum few times, demanding to release Ivan Rizak – ex-chairman of the Zakarpattia State Raion Administration, than-secretary of Zakarpattia Regional Committee of the SDPU (u), who was involved in election fraud during Mukachiv Mayoral election in April, 2004. In particular, on September 13, 2005, members of the SDPU (u) faction have blocked the parliament rostrum and occupied the Government lodge. After negotiations with the Prosecutor General Sviatoslav Piskun, the parliament was unblocked and I. Rizak was released on bail.
  • On November 3, 2005, the CPU (56 MPs), with the support of the Ukrainian Regions faction (50 MPs), have blocked the rostrum in order to hinder consideration of draft laws on Ukraine's accession to the World Trade Organization. The communists resorted to similar actions (they megaphones with hooters) on November 15, 2005. However, MPs managed to adopt a number of necessary bills.
  • In February 2007, members of the Yuliia Tymoshenko Block, were trying to counteract against blocking the rostrum by the Party of Regions, and turned off the electricity in Parliamentary premises. Nevertheless, blockers have connected the Rada voting system to an alternative power source.
  • In 2008, during June, July, and October, members of the Yuliia Tymoshenko Block have blocked the rostrum few times. Formally, they were demanding consideration of draft laws on repealing immunity for parliamentarians, on imperative mandate, on making amendments to the current state budget, adoption of bills for countering the inflation. However, in fact, they were trying not to let the Party of Regions block the rostrum, which demanded the report of the Government, and were ready to support a vote of nonconfidence to the Cabinet of Minister.
  • On April 27, 2010, members of the Party of Regions have blocked the rostrum and presidium of Parliament before the ratification of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the presence of the Russian Federation's Black Sea Fleet on Ukrainian territory. During the voting, MPs were fighting, throwing smoke pots and eggs. Nevertheless, the Agreement was ratified.
  • On December 16, 2010, members of the Yuliia Tymoshenko Block had blocked the rostrum and presidium of the Verkhovna Rada after Yu. Tymoshenko was called for questioning to the Prosecutor General. Blockers have hanged posters "Hands away from Tymoshenko!" and "Stop political repressions" in the session hall. The blocking ended up with uncontrollable fight between members of the Party of Regions and YTB and OUPSD (the Our Ukraine - People's Self-Defense faction).
  • On February 24, 2012, members of the YTB-Fatherland faction had blocked the parliamentary rostrum, protesting against the consideration of the draft law on reforming the Naftohas of Ukraine NJC. They also demanded to obey the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and stop political persecutions in the country. As a result, the document wasn't considered. In March, the YTB faction have also blocked the Parliament with the same demands.
  • In May 24-25, 2012, the Rada was blocked by the opposition factions in connection with the adoption of the bill on the principles of state language policy. The parliament was unblocked when the cassation appeal of Yulia Tymoshenko's sentence in the so-called “gas case” was to be considered. After all, the daft law #9073 On Principles of State Language Policy was supported in the first reading on June 5, 2012, and on July 3, 2012, it was adopted.

 

FOREIGN EXAMPLES OF BLOCKING THE PARLIAMENTARY ACTIVITIES

 

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

 

In July 2011, MPs of the newly-elected Grand National Assembly of Turkey from the Republican People's Party (135 mandates) and pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (36 mandates) were refusing to take an oath for two weeks[6]. This demarche was caused by the position of Central Election Commission and judiciary institutions of the country, which refused to recognize authorities of MPs which were in investigation isolators or prisons when the parliament entered into operation. Having refused to take an oath, opposition MPs have blocked activities of Turkish parliament, which consist of 550 seats. Despite the traditionally high level of conflicts between the pro-power majority and the opposition minority in Turkey, the parties managed to compromise. The Justice and Development Party, headed by the Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, and the opposition Republican People's Party have signed a binding document on legislative decision of the issue with deputy mandates. After the conflict was resolved, all opposition MPs have taken an oath[7].

 

In February 2012, MPs of the Republican People's Party have blocked the parliamentary rostrum, protesting against makong amendments to the code of conduct in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. According to the opposition representatives, the changes to parliamentary rules were aimed at limitation of the parliamentary minority rights. MPs had blocked the rostrum and demanded the resignation of Parliamentary Speaker Cemil Çiçek. After the announcement of an adjournment, MPs started fighting. At the same time, the leader of the Republican People's Party Kemal Kilicdaroglu had declared that the blocking of the parliamentary rostrum is a "democratic act"[8].

 

REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

 

In December 2012, deputies of the Social Democratic Party had tried to block the parliamentary sitting, during which the state budget of Macedonia for 2013 was considered. Social democrats tried a method of the Italian strike at first, and proposed a large number of amendments to the draft budget. Some time later, representatives of the opposition had barricaded themselves in the parliamentary session hall, and hindered pro-power coalition MPs to take their seats. The conflict became so acute that the police had to evacuate the speaker from the parliamentary premises[9]. At the same time, the opposition parties and parties in power organized meetings in front of the legislative body. However, the ruling coalition Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization - Democratic Party of Macedonian National Unity have managed to approve the budget of the country. The police had forcibly removed opposition MPs from the parliamentary hall and the voting was successfully conducted[10].

 

HUNGARY

 

In December 2011, representatives of the opposition party Politics Can Be Different had chained themselves to the fence in front of the Hungarian Parliament[11]. The leader of the Hungarian Socialist Party, Ferenc Gyurcsany, who was the Prime Minister of the country in 2004-2009, has joined the action. MPs were against the adoption of a new voting legislation and the law on the National Bank. Th police had stopped the parliamentarian action by detaining them for a short period of time. We should mention, that mentioned laws and their consideration was sharply criticized by the international community, including the European Commission.

 

SOUTH KOREA

 

Power confrontations between the ruling and opposition members of the National Assembly are already traditional in the South Korea. In particular, in December 2008, representatives of the Grand National Party have barricaded entrances with the furniture and hindered the opposition MPs of the Democratic Party to come to the sitting of the Assembly, which was considering the ratification of a South Korea-U.S. free trade agreement. Some time before, representatives of the opposition threatened with counteraction to any decisions of the Parliament on this document. When the opposition was trying to enter hall, both conflicting sides used fire extinguisher and metal sledge hammers (pictures at the link)[12]. The South Korea-U.S. free trade agreement was ratified only in November 2011. Before the final voting on the ratification, a member of the Democratic party have remonstrated against it and used tear gas in the session hall[13].

 

INDIA

 

In August-September 2012, representatives of the opposition have blocked activities of two houses of Parliament of India, demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Parliamentary members of the Bharatiya Janata Party were hindering consideration of the agenda by shouting accusations against the government. The reason of blocking was the report of the local Accounting Chamber, which stated that the country had lost almost 34 billion USD as a result of ineffective sale of licenses for the development of coal field[14]. The opposition accused the Prime Minister with corrupt activities and demanded his resignation. Despite active protests of the parliamentary opposition and mass street actions, the Head of Indian government managed to keep his position.

 

During adoption of resonant decisions, parliaments are often under internal pressure, which sometimes results in the use of force. For example, in September 2012, participants of the Seize the Congress action, which were against the adoption of budget economy measures, had paralyzed activities of the lower house of the Spanish Parliament[15]. In 2012, the Greek Parliament was adopting new anti-crisis policy while protestants of multiple meetings were trying to break into its premises. These examples may be a warning to Ukrainian MPs, as long as thier ability to solve internal issues is a minor part of the parliamentary efficiency.

 

 

[1] Part 2, Article 90, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

 

[2] Part 2, Article 77, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

 

[3] The Law of Ukraine On Elections of People's Deputies of Ukraine

 

[4] All the data were taken into account, not only working or plenary days. Such calculation is due to the fact that the Parliament was blocked without time limit, during working days and in weekends – no matter whether the opposite part is present and whether it tries to resist the blocking.

 

[5] We took a potential number of participants, not virtual, and counted all the MPs which belonged to factions that initiated the blocking, and , therefore, were involved in the blocking or could join it any time.

 

[6] http://rus.azatutyun.am/content/article/24249503.html

 

[7] http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/tr_rapport_2012_en.pdf

 

[8] http://news.day.az/world/314399.html

 

[9] http://www.rferl.org/content/macedonia-budget-clashes-parliament/24807240.html

 

[10] http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_1362536519

 

[11] http://www.svoboda.org/archive/ru_news_zone/20111223/17/17.html?id=24431422

 

[12]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1097434/Democracy-South-Korean-style-MPs-blasted-extinguishers-trying-break-Parliament-hoses-sledgehammers.html

 

[13] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/22/south-korean-mp-lets-off-tearga

 

[14] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-19385949

 

[15] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/spain-protest-parliament_n_1912434.html