Warning: this column may be hazardous to your health (06/30/96)

JOURNALIST'S NOTEBOOK IN UKRAINE

by Marta Kolomayets
Kyiv Press Bureau

Warning: this column may be hazardous to your health

Before you begin reading this column, I feel I should warn Weekly readers who have heart conditions or high blood pressure, or suffer from being tried and true Ukrainian patriots and idealists, to stop here and turn to the next page.

Unfortunately what you are about to read is not fiction, nor is it history dug up from the annals of the bad old days of the Soviet empire.

It happened right here in Kyiv, right now, June 24, 1996, two months before the fifth anniversary of Ukrainian independence. And, if I had not seen it with my own eyes, I would not have believed it.

It all began on Monday afternoon, June 24, after an unproductive Parliament session on Friday, June 21, regarding adoption of the draft constitution in its second reading.

Although they were not getting anywhere on Friday, Parliament Chairman Oleksander Moroz was determined to have the deputies get to work on Monday, at noon, despite the fact that the last week of the month is always devoted to lawmakers' work in their oblasts and raions.

Ignoring threats from left-wing factions in Parliament, who seemed hell-bent on stalling adoption of independent Ukraine's first constitution until after Russian presidential elections on July 3, Mr. Moroz (who is the leader of the Socialist Party and, therefore, a member of the left wing himself) was firm in his commitment to work on Ukraine's fundamental law.

He even put a ban on any travel outside of Kyiv for the 422 lawmakers currently holding mandates to ensure that there would be a quorum in the Parliament chambers on Monday, June 24.

Sure enough, 392 deputies registered for the session, enabling the tedious work of adopting, article by article, the 161-article draft constitution (which needs 301 votes to pass) to begin. The work day was even extended until 8 p.m. to allow the deputies more time to examine matters as integral for a neophyte democracy as state symbols, the status of language and the right to private property.

But, the work went slowly, as the deputies could not even agree on the first phrase of the preamble to the constitution: "We the Ukrainian people... (Ukrainskyi narod)." Such staunch members of the left as Natalia Vitrenko (former Socialist Party member who quarreled with Mr. Moroz and left a few months ago to form her own leftist party) and her sidekick, Volodymyr Marchenko, voted against this idea. Oleksander Tkachenko, vice-chairman of the Ukrainian Supreme Council, abstained from voting on this issue. Which leads this writer to ask: What is he then? (Is he not one of the "Ukrainian people"?)

[The good news is that the next day, the Parliament did adopt the preamble in full, which begins: "We, the Ukrainian people - Ukrainian citizens of all nationalities...]

However, on Monday no one knew what was going to happen on Tuesday, or if there was even going to be a Tuesday session, because Monday looked very bleak indeed.

I have chosen to talk about the debate regarding Ukraine's state symbols: the blue-and-yellow flag, the trident (tryzub), which dates back to the times of Prince Volodymyr the Great; the Ukrainian national anthem; and the capital of Ukraine. Well, this discussion - or should I say shouting match - was quite an eye-opener.

Mykhailo Syrota, who belongs to the Centrist faction in Parliament, for the last two months has had the thankless task of attempting to find compromise on scores of issues, trying to keep deputies from all factions on the ad hoc committee out of fist fights and dubious diatribes, striving to plow through over 2,000 suggestions submitted by lawmakers and incorporating the best into this latest version of the draft. He is now true to his name (syrota - orphan) - he is the lonely guy who stands in front of the podium, reading the ad hoc committee's proposals for various articles, which Chairman Moroz then puts to a vote.

And so, Mr. Syrota, who had yet to lose his cool, was - unbeknownst to all - about to lose it on the issue of the Ukrainian flag.

Article 20 reads: The state flag of Ukraine is the a blue-and-yellow banner (two horizontal stripes of equal size). When Mr. Syrota read this and it was put to a vote, only 202 deputies voted for the flag, while 122 voted against it. For the record, among those who voted against the blue-and-yellow flag, which was adopted as the national flag by law in 1992, were: Anatoliy Franchuk (President Leonid Kuchma's in-law), Communist Party leader Petro Symonenko, Inter-Regional Deputies group leader Yuriy Boldyrev and Parliament Vice-Chairman Oleksander Tkachenko.

While the right and center forces expressed outrage and began to stomp out of the legislature, Mr. Syrota tried to deal with the bedlam, hoping to reason with his colleagues in the chambers.

Mr. Moroz then stated the following: "Unfortunately, we don't have national symbols in Ukraine, as of yet."

Mr. Syrota: "What do you mean, we don't have symbols?"

Mr. Moroz: "Legitimate state symbols we don't have..."

Mr. Syrota: "We have state symbols in Ukraine, and they are, respected colleagues, recognized throughout the world.... Perhaps some of you don't want these symbols, but we do have them.

"Look at the flag that has been flying over the Parliament, on our cupola for the last five years....

"We will not let you remove it, we will not allow it," said Mr. Syrota, choked up.

Mr. Moroz then acknowledged that the flag had been adopted by law in Parliament - but, he noted, this was not a constitutional majority decision.

Bedlam continued in the corridors of power, with left-wingers yelling out obscenities, right-wingers walking out, pulling out their cards of registration.

One Communist (I can't swear which one it was) yelled out that the blue-and-yellow banner is not a flag, but a rag (in Russian).

Mr. Syrota continued to defend his country's flag and honor.

Needless to say, the trident of Volody-myr the Great also did not get the necessary majority to pass in the Parliament.

Although deputies did provide a constitutional majority granting Kyiv the status of capital of Ukraine (344 votes), seven deputies voted against and six abstained. Among those against this motion were Communist Yevhen Marmazov, as well as two members of the Peasant Party, one from the Inter-Regional Bloc of Deputies and two from the Independent faction of deputies. One can only wonder: Is it Moscow they want as their capital?

I could go on and on about the various issues under attack today in free and independent Ukraine. But, I'll save it for a time when I can laugh about it instead of cry....

| Home Page |