The violence that occurred outside the Verkhovna Rada building on August 31 is simply unacceptable. Nothing can justify its result: three National Guardsmen dead and more than 100 injured. As our correspondent in Kyiv reported last week, Ukraine that day endured “its most serious domestic political conflict since the Euro-Maidan” when protests erupted over a vote to approve, in the first reading, constitutional amendments that grant more powers to local governments in Ukraine. In fact, there was concern that the governing coalition in Parliament would fall apart, as three out of the five coalition factions voted against the amendments that day.
To be sure, public demonstrations were justified, as among the constitutional amendments is one establishing a “special order” in the districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblast occupied by Russian-backed militants. The controversy over some kind of special status is surely not one to be taken lightly, and there is controversy also over amendments on decentralization in general. Peaceful protests certainly are a way for the citizens of Ukraine to make their voices heard on these issues. But violent protests are not the way to make your case. Who exactly is the enemy here, and who benefits from violence like that which occurred on August 31? Indeed, many observers have commented that the entire incident could well be a provocation to further destabilize Ukraine.
Getting back to the constitutional amendments themselves, some national deputies charge that the “special status” called for by the Minsk agreements is a capitulation to Russia and a betrayal of Ukraine’s national interests. Others say the constitutional amendments on decentralization will actually implement the demands of the Maidan. Some say the amendments will legitimize the authorities of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics, while others say they will do nothing of the sort.
Quite a few political leaders and commentators note absolutely correctly that what is severely lacking is an open public discussion of the amendments. As a result there is much confusion about what exactly these amendments will do and how they will affect both the citizenry and the governance of Ukraine.
Instead of elucidation of the amendments’ provisions, there was pressure exerted on national deputies to vote for approval of the amendments, as well as pressure applied by the West on Kyiv to enact them and unilaterally abide by the Minsk agreements – even though Russia continues to violate the very same agreements. (It should be noted that Russia has since rejected the proposed amendment on the Donbas districts as inadequate, as have the DPR and LPR. Furthermore, Russian President Vladimir Putin is calling for new negotiations on the constitutional status of the occupied territories.)
The vote for the amendments was a strong 265 votes in favor out of the 368 national deputies present. It remains to be seen, however, whether the amendments ultimately receive the required 300 votes to become part of Ukraine’s Constitution. And only then would separate laws be required to spell out regulations for local governance in certain districts of the Donbas, because the constitutional amendment itself merely refers to a “special order” and separate legislation.
In the meantime, the perpetrators of the grenade attack at the Verkhovna Rada must face justice. The president and his administration must do more to explain the constitutional amendments to the people of Ukraine. And the West must stop imposing Russia’s demands to Ukraine’s detriment. The aggressor state must be stopped from calling the shots.