The materials of the “round-table”“The problem of representation of the Crimean Tatar (Simferopol, 8 November 2002) The “round-table” dedicated to the problem of representation of the Crimean Tatar people in bodies of government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was held in Simferopol by initiative of the Crimean Center for Independent Political Researchers and Journalists with support of the International “Renaissance” Foundation. For participation in work of the “round-table” people’s deputies of Ukraine, deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the ARC, scientists, heads of Crimean branches of political parties of Ukraine, representatives of national-cultural communities of Crimea and journalists were invited. During discussion the participants of the “round-table” had practically no differences of opinions concerning the existence of the problem of representation of the Crimean Tatar people in bodies of government of the ARC. At the same time, different approaches concerning electoral systems, under which this problem could be solved, were expressed. A majority of the participants of the “round-table” supported proportional or mixed electoral systems, which solve a problem of representation of Crimean Tatars. At the same time, one noted that from both these electoral systems - proportional and mixed - for providing with guaranteed representation of Crimean Tatars the draft of people’s deputy of Ukraine Yuri Kluchkovskyi is more acceptable. None of the invited experts and participants of the “round-table”, including representatives of Supreme Soviet of the ARC did not support the majoritarian electoral system for the formation of the future composition of representative body of Crimea. Below, with the kind agreement of Crimean Center for Independent Political Researchers and Journalists, we give the texts of speeches of experts, which were presented for discussion to participants of the “round-table”. Center of Information List of participants 1. Chubarov Refat, People’s deputy of Ukraine, first deputy head of Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people; 2. Katusheva Zarema, People’s deputy of Ukraine, CPU; 3. Formanchuk Olexander, head of the Department on information, analysis and protocol of Verkhovna Rada of the ARC; 4. Stasiv Valentina, employee of the Representation of President of Ukraine in the ARC; 5. Semena Mykola, journalist of newspaper “Dzerkalo tizhnya” (The mirror of week) in Crimea; 6. Fomushkin Oleg, head of Crimean Organization of Ukrainian National Movement; 7. Gabrilyan Oleg, political scientist, professor of TNU; 8. Volvach Petro, head of all-Crimean association of scientists “Crimea with Ukraine”; 9. Khalilov Shevket, head of Department of all-Ukrainian Informational-Cultural Center; 10. Fix Yefim, first secretary of Crimean Republican Committee of SDPU (u); 11. Vasilyev Boris, representative of Crimean Republican Committee of SDPU (u); 12. Smirnov Oleg, head of Program “Integration…”, International “Renaissance” Foundation; 13. Pilunskyi Leonid, head of Crimean regional organization National Movement of Ukraine; 14. Pritula Volodimir, deputy head CICPRJ; 15. Osmanov Arsen, employee of Crimean Independent Center of Political Researchers and Journalists; 16. Volvatch Yarina, employee of Crimean Independent Center of Political Researchers and Journalists; 17. Ganiyev Shevket, State TV-radio Company “Krim” (Crimea), Crimean Tatar editorial staff; 18. Emirov Ayder, director of library by I. Gasprinskyi; 19. Abiyeva Gulya, newspaper “Krim” (Crimea); 20. Arifova Lylya, newspaper “Krim” (Crimea); 21. Yermolin A., newspaper “Krimskiye novosti”(Crimean news); 22. Ivanchenko Iryna, newspaper “Respublika Krim” (Republic of Crimea); 23. Koshelev Maxim, State TV-radio Company “Krim” (Crimea), “12 minut novostey” (12 minutes of news); 24. Uspenska Tetyana, newspaper “Krimska svitliza”; 25. Ivanets Andriy, Crimean News Agency; 26. Kravtsov Olexander, Crimean News Agency; 27. Kyslyi Olexander, president of Association “Kultura i svit” (Culture and world); 28. Raupova Usniye, newspaper “Avdet”; 29. Nikolayenko Maxim, news agency “Ukrainski novini” (Ukrainian news); 30. Yunusov Lenur, news agency “Media-Prostir”; 31. Stus Victor, “Krimskaya gazeta” (Crimean newspaper); 32. Avdeyev Y., Chornomorska TV-radio company; 33. Radeva Ë., newspaper “Krimskiye izvestiya” (Crimean news); 34. Khalilova Lentara, newspaper “Golos Krima” (The Voice of Crimea); 35. Bocharov O.I., newspaper “Reyting”; 36. Zhukov Y.N., Crimean News Agency; 37. Balakin A., Republican Information Committee of the ARC; 38. Memetov Shevket, Council of Ministers of the ARC, adviser to head. SPEECHES Refat CHUBAROV, COMPROMISE VARIANT - MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEM WITH Firstly, one of the incontestable progresses of Ukrainian society in the first years of independence of Ukraine is that there are not any conflicts on the basis of ethnic identifications in our territory. At the same time, a lack of characteristic traits can mean that there are no reasons in society, which could under certain circumstances result in sharp opposition of large groups of people on an ethnical basis against the State. When Ukrainian political scientists speak about a potential threat of appearance of interethnic oppositions in Ukraine, they fix their eyes on Crimea. For me, as a politician, such attention of political scientists to Crimea is understandable. In this there is nothing offensive, because, in contrast to other regions of Ukraine, a modern development of public political processes on the Crimean peninsula has its own characteristic features, and they issue from its past, and also the legal basis of the republic within the composition of an unitary state. When we speak or try to find arguments on the importance of representation, in my opinion, we are to understand that adoption of any decisions in such spheres as inter-ethnic or religion by a simply majority will never be fair. And appropriate electoral structure would be - when a certain group of people by virtue of appropriate mechanisms could influence on the one hand adoption of decisions, and on the other be responsible for those decisions, which are adopted with their participation. I think this thesis is the main one among all our thoughts on the importance of representation of Crimean Tatars in bodies of government of the ARC. Either we want really to solve problems jointly with the Crimean Tatar community, and so think of what kind of mechanisms to create, that they work jointly with others, or we don’t solve common problems with them, and thereby want to isolate them maximally, so that they don’t disturb anybody, or by any other way don’t have influence on those developments, which someone envisions in Crimea and who wishes to propose or impose. Why does a problem of representation of Crimean Tatars emerge, or it would emerge, if there were not those consequences of decades of deportation of Crimean Tatars? If there wasn’t deportation, we wouldn’t talk, in such form, about a problem of representation of Crimean Tatars. Nevertheless, almost 50 years of exile could not remain without consequences, which we are to overcome by virtue of nonordinary decisions, including laws on the formation of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea and local bodies of self-government. I want to give some arguments about why such changes took place in Crimea. You know that after the deportation of Crimean Tatars almost to the end of 80's the Crimea was a region in the composition of the USSR, which was continually inhabited, and in different years were adopted different state programs on deportation of people. Whether we want it or not (I would like that it doesn’t offend anybody), the Crimea had been for some decades a peculiar migration pump, through which passed millions of peoples. A part of them remained in Crimea. And now they are our neighbours, including their children, possibly, already their grandchildren. It is understandable that people, who settled in Crimea, until they arrived in Crimea, didn’t know and never got in touch with the culture of those people, who had lived before in Crimea, and they formed a specific mentality, in which there are not for a while yet many appropriate mechanisms for understanding the problems of the Crimean Tatars, who are returning to their Motherland. I would like to note that there were different qualifications for settlement of Crimea, in Soviet times. Not every Russian was able to settle in Yalta; there it was necessary in addition to being the proper ethnic group to have the right social or other status, to be officer of appropriate troops and so on. Concerning another argument - necessity to solve a problem of representation, namely, by way of legal norms. I would like to mention the 90's. The Regional council, there was no autonomy in Crimea yet. On 11 September 1990, the Regional Council adopted a decision on basic principles on settlement of Crimean Tatars on the territory of the oblast. It is a very interesting document. If you look through a filing of newspaper “Avdet”, read my articles, other ones, we paid attention already in that period to what was established in order to not allow such settlement of Crimean Tatars, during their return to Crimea, which could give them any opportunity for real influence during local elections. And if one proceeds from the table, which was approved by the Regional Council, - in not one settlement or district were Crimean Tatars allowed to constitute more than 25%. However, real life somewhere changed these plans, thus, in Belohorskyi district Crimean Tatars are 32%, in Sovetskyi - 26,6%, Kirovskyi - 25,5%, Pervomayskyi - 25% and Bakhchisarayskyi - 22%. However, it changed in reality. You know, which opposition was to not allow more or less compact settlement of Crimean Tatars. Third argument - high politicizing of Crimean society. I already spoke about it while giving the first argument. We are to admit that a level of rejection from the hand of peoples of other nationalities to the return of Crimean Tatars has changed over the years. And we cannot now allege that for 11 years of independence of Ukraine (or if one begins from mass return of Crimean Tatars in 1990), that nothing was changed in the attitude of post-war settlers to Crimean Tatars, and their return. Certainly, it is necessary to recognize that some things in this situation have improved. However, we cannot now state, that there are not any stereotypes. Moreover, in certain moments, which are connected with strengthening of one or another political forces, these stereotypes can increase, or diminish. I don’t want to give such dirty examples, as a recent article in “Krimskaya pravda” (Crimean truth) and its direction. Now, I don’t speak about the content of discussion on the problem of the Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery and its land that is a problem of monastery and authorities, but not the Zindzhirli-madrasah. I mean an intention of journalists concerning position of Moslems towards Christians and so on. It is just an example that the people, who wrote this article, are bearers of these stereotypes, which in one's time were taken into peoples’ heads. Yesterday, I was shown a document from Crimean archives, I think that it will be soon published. I don’t remember exact name of this document, but I, as historian, couldn’t suppose that the ideological indoctrination of the population of Crimea after the deportation of Crimean Tatars could rise even to such a level. It was a resolution of the Crimean Regional Committee of the Communist Party in 1948 “On strengthening of work of state, party, economic bodies on elimination of Crimean Tatar terms in names of settlements, mountains, rivers and kinds of work”. The direction was to eliminate everything that by any means was connected with Crimean Tatars. Presently whether we like it or not when it comes to elections the voters choose on one or the other of two bases - ours-others, proceeding from political sympathies; or on the basis of - Tatar-non-Tatar. When it concerns majoritarian constituencies or competition between more than two political figures, this phenomena applies in total. Researches show that in elections in which there is competition between representatives of different communalities the voter turn-out doesn’t reach 10%, and they sometimes are only 7-8% even when powerful persons are running. Now concerning systems of election. The main thing for me is that the citizens of Crimea who are participating in political life in Crimea would recognize that all issues proceed from the problem of representation of Crimean Tatars. This is the most important. What kind of form this will take - this is already second phase. It it is understandable that there are different forms, which would give an opportunity of representation for Crimean Tatars our sympathies could divide between such forms. As for me, a quota system would be the first step in dealing with the issue. However, I know that there are representatives of certain political forces, which oppose categorically quotas. We could think about proportional system, which gives an opportunity to have a representation of Crimean Tatars. We could think about mixed system. Certainly, there are specific advantages and defects in each of these systems Concerning quotas: Here the main defect is connected with the level of our political culture or our understanding, because in those states, where a quota exists, there are not the debates, which we have during discussion of this question. And advantage that a quota could give is an opportunity to see a competition between Crimean Tatars themselves. That system, which existed in 1994, was most successful, when a quota was given to Crimean Tatars - 14 places - and it was stated: under this proportional system compete between yourselves, and prove to us, who of you has the most support among Crimean Tatars - either the National Movement of Crimean Tatars, or the Organization of Crimean Tatar National Movement, or the Kurultay, or someone else. You know the results of these elections. For me an advantage of quota system is that these quotas would be realized through a proportional system. Now, concerning a mixed system. This is a solution proposed by People’s deputy of Ukraine Yuri Kluchkovskyi. Mr. Kluchkovksyi proposed a mixed system, when 50 deputies are elected in majoritarian constituencies, and 50 - under proportional system. In accordance with proportional system - everything is understandable, and I don’t dwell on it. And in that part, where there are 50 majoritarian constituencies, Mr. Kluchkovskyi proposed the following: 41 majoritarian constituency - for all, except Crimean Tatars, Karaites and Krimchaks, and then 7 - for Crimean Tatars and one each for Karaites and Krimchaks as autochthonous ethnoses of Crimea. Thus, there are 50 electoral spaces. Third system - proportional, Mrs. Katusheva will speak about it. As in proportional, as in mixed system by Kluchkovskyi there is a problem, without its solution we don’t achieve political structuredness of Crimean society, we don’t achieve a joining up of Crimean organizations for work over development of autonomy. As you know, in accordance with Ukrainian laws as participants in these electoral processes can be only all-Ukrainian parties. If you initiatee a proportional or mixed system in Crimea, but do not at the same time allow other Crimean citizens to be part of that process, you would not be able to attract into the electoral process very many politically active people. It means, if tomorrow will be adopted a proportional system, but without broading the spectrum of the electoral process, then only Crimean branches of all-Ukrainian parties could take part in it. And very many NGO’s, which represent ethnical interests, have to go begging to these political parties. For instance, the Greek community or Armenian to realize by any way their own interests during elections will be forced to apply to one or another political organization, which takes place now. But, I want to say that here as always there is a risk. I am in faction “Nasha Ukraina” (Our Ukraine), and Mrs. Zarema is in faction of Communist Party. I think, and Mrs. Zarema thinks, that she represents Crimean Tatar in any measure, and I try to do it likewise. However, it isn’t excluded, that in any moment my understanding of Crimean Tatar interests in any concrete situation or understanding of Mrs. Zarema can result in certain contradictions to the interests of the faction or party, which had offered to the representative of an ethnical community to join its ranks. This is a very grave problem. When I was in Austria, we considered this problem with Slovenes, who go in coalition with one of the Austrian parties. It has often occurred that interests of Slovenes are ignored by that party, in which they take part. However that may be, we won’t find in one “round-table” the most optimal form, but I dwell on another thing. I was shocked by the content of many speeches at parliamentary hearings, which recently were held in the Crimean Verkhovna Rada. I saw nothing in many reports, except desire to keep majoritarian system, because in the opinion of those, who today came, and are in composition of Verkhovna Rada of the ARC, namely, this system allows them once more to use these or other methods, which they used during elections on March 31. Those, who gave money for the last elections think that again if they shake their purse it will be a sure thing. Those, who now are in power and are able to effect the outcome in their local districts to stay in power, and they think they always will be in power. Thus, the results of recent by-elections to Verkhovna Rada of the ARC showed that big money will generate even bigger money. Finally, I didn’t hear serious arguments concerning preservation of majoritarian system. THE ISSUE OF REPRESENTATION OF THE CRIMEAN TATAR PEOPLE Mykola SEMENA, At first, we are to consider - do the Crimean Tatar people need a representation in bodies of the government - parliament of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, regional, local, settlement and rural councils in Crimea? At first sight, the question seems queer - certainly, it is necessary. Undoubtedly, Crimean Tatars are to be represented in bodies of government, at least, adequately according to their arithmetic number in Ukrainian society. This is not a question. Certainly, yes. However, the elections were held, all councils were formed - from low to high. In the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine there are at least three Crimean Tatars, in the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea - 8, totally in Crimea in councils of all levels Crimean Tatars are 14%, though in Crimean society they constitute not for a while yet 12%. Everybody is glad - Crimean Tatars have representatives even more than their number without any special electoral instruments - national constituencies, quotas, participation of non-governmental national cultural organizations in nomination, and not only political parties. It seems that a problem of representation was solved by itself, without participation of politicians. For what was it necessary to break lances during more than 10 years in numerous debates? However, is it the truth, or do we have any understanding of this problem? Let’s think logically. What is to be gained by having representation and what kind of representation? What is the relationship between constituencies and the nationality of deputies? Already, during a first, even perfunctory analysis of the problem it is shown that all of us were brought up on the communist conception of democracy, and so we don’t even understand the essence of the problem. What was the Communist method? The communists in their Central Committees, oblast committees, regional committees and party committees planned the composition of a new membership of any council - regionnal, oblast or Verkhovna - in advance. They thought that in the composition of newly elected deputies should be represented practically all levels of the population and all (in truth those they wanted) nationalities. So, they planned in advance to elect so many communists, members of the Komsomol, non-members of the Party, milkmaids, employees, officials, directors, Russians, Ukrainians, and peoples of other nationalities. This was claimed to result in an ideal democracy: the council was an approximate copy of the population of the region. Is it the truth? Yes. And now let’s have a look at the problem, proceeding from what real democracy involves. In the Soviet Union a common political hegemony of the Communist Party existed (Art. 6 of the Constitution, included provisions that a core of the political system is the CPSU) and such approach to formation of councils was ideal in the opinion of the CPSU. However, does it have something in common with democracy? Yes, with communist democracy, but was the Communist democracy a democracy at all? Certainly, no. As “Sovetskoye shampanskoye” (Soviet champagne) -is not really a champagne, so “communist” democracy was not reeal democracy. Namely, in this connection the problem of real legal representation in councils came to nothing, because of this planning. Who were the deputies in these councils representing, and who were they only pretending to represent? As a conceptual example, in the oblast council of Crimea during all its meetings, although a (one will not name names) poultry farmer was elected, and from another constituency -a milkmaid, from third one - engineer, but Bulgarian by nationality, but never were these people really outstanding. In reports of electoral commissions, as a rule, it was stated, that the elected poultry farmer represents all Crimean poultry farmers, milkmaid - all Crimean milkmaids, and the engineer - all Bulgarians of Crimea. And this was considered the common provision throughout the USSR, not only in Crimea. Certainly, a poultry farmer thinks so, to a certain extent, as all poultry farmers of Crimea think, milkmaid - as all milkmaids of Crimea, Bulgarian - as all Bulgarians of Crimea. However, under a legal point of view, why can one say that a poultry farmer represents all poultry farmers of Crimea? Is it possible that all poultry farmers of Crimea gathered at a meeting and adopted a decision to send her as a delegate to council and entrusted her officially to represent there namely the interests of poultry farmers? Is it possible that all milkmaids gathered at meeting, discussed a candidature of this milkmaid and decided to send her as a delegate and entrusted to represent there their interests? Is it possible that all Bulgarians of Crimea gathered and discussed a candidature of this Bulgarian-engineer and decided to send him as a delegate and entrusted to represent their interests? No! In this connection, it becomes clear that a poultry farmer represents the interests of poultry farmers, as milkmaid - milkmaids and as Bulgarian - all Bulgarians, only mythically, and legally they were elected to the council by the voters of a specific constituency, where live not only poultry farmers, milkmaids, Bulgarians, but also other categories of the population, who really in a legal way delegated her by their voting to the council and gave instruction: firstly, to represent, secondly, to solve there the problems - further there was a list of these problems. Thus, they being officially elected under Soviet plurality system, the deputies represented, as everywhere in the world, only the voters of their constituencies. And non-officially - they represent the interests of those, who really sent them there: all deputies had an interview in regional committees and oblast committees and party secretaries said to them: you don’t forget that actually the Party recommended you as deputies, so you are to be loyal to party requirements and discipline as well. Thus, a representation in the communist system of democracy was broken in to three components: official (legal) representation of society, which was by constituency, actually, a representation of party bodies, which sent them there, and mythical representation of professional, national and other composition of society according to its characteristics. It isn’t even worth mentioning that for the deputies and for the system generally neither official (legal) representation of constituencies, nor mythical representation of society played a real role? The real role was only the actual representation of interests of party organizations by deputies, which tipped the scales of all other components in work of deputies. That is a communist democracy. Let’s now go to the analysis of past elections to Verkhovna Rada of Crimea in March 2002. Let’s take for example, conditionally two of the same constituencies in each of them 25% of voters are Crimean Tatars (this is the mean number, because there were constituencies, in which Crimean Tatars were 10-15%, and where (30-35%), and accordingly 75% of the electors are non-Tatar Crimeans. In each of them, let’s suppose, were registered as candidates 10-12 persons, 2 or 3 of them - Crimean Tatars. The rest of them - non-Tatar Crimeans. The elections were held. In the first of these constituencies (it happened!) was elected as deputy a Crimean Tatar with advantage of 10 votes over the next competitor, let’s name him conditionally Nariman. In another of the constituencies was also elected non-Tatar Crimean as deputy with advantage of 10 votes. They come to Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, receive a mandate, take seats and Nariman says: I am a representative of the Crimean Tatar people. Another deputy from another constituency says nothing. Why, if there are the same constituencies and they were equally elected? At that time, the voters from the first constituency, heard it, and are surprised: why does our deputy, who was elected by 25% Crimean Tatars and 75% non-Tatar Crimeans, say that he represents the Crimean Tatar people? And what about us - 75% of the voters who are non-Tatar Crimeans? Who represents us? On the other hand - did really the Crimean Tatar people gather here and decide to delegate to Verkhovna Rada of Crimea this (not other) Nariman and entrust him to represent our interests? It didn’t happen… Thus, there is again the old picture: legally all deputies, were elected in majoritarian constituencies of Crimea, to represent their own constituencies, and actually? Lets digress from the subject, there are some caveats to the picture that was portrayed here. Certainly, Nariman, and other deputies were elected in majoritarian constituencies, will to some extent solve the problems of their own voters whether they be Tatars of non-Tatars, and deputies who are non- Tatars will one way or another solve the problems of their own voters who are Crimean Tatars. However, what we are discussing is not this issue but rather the problem of representation of an ethnic people as a social group. And actually, of 8 deputies who are Crimean Tatars, and were elected now to the Verkhovna Rada of the Crimea, officially (legally) nobody is able to state that he represents in the Rada the Crimean Tatar people, because the people didn’t delegate anybody there. At the same time, concerning one of the deputies one can say with confidence that the bodies of the Crimean Tatar self-government stated that he is a communist under political convictions and so does not represent the Crimean Tatar people. Another deputy was not recommended for election even by the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people. Six deputies who were recommended for election (certainly, non-officially, because it was not provided by any law) by the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, and received the mandate and in this connection to a certain extent can be considered actually as representatives of the Crimean-Tatar people in the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea. Namely, it raises questions concerning those 75% of non-Tatar Crimeans in those constituencies: if these 6 (or 8?) deputies represent the Crimean Tatar people, who represent us, non-Tatar Crimeans? Thus, what we have? We have a scheme “6+1+1”, which legally is not a representation of the Crimean Tatar people in parliament of Crimea, but it is being claimed that this actually does solve the situation. Some readers can say: what about representation in parliament, for example, of Russians, - but the Russians of Crimea also didn’t organize meetings and did not elect their candidates. And it will be a mistake. Let’s look at the national structure of constituency. As a rule, with minor divergences it has this composition: among voters there are 60-70% Russians, 15-20% Ukrainians, 15-20% Crimean Tatars and 3-5% others. Let’s suppose, mainly all of them (or proportionally according to their own number) came on elections and voted. In our democracy, a decision is adopted by majority of votes. Whose votes will be greater considering nationality? Certainly, Russians. Thus, in each majoritarian constituency who adopted a decision? - Russian majority. Thus, in the totality of constituencies the decisions were adopted by same sum of Russian majorities, thus: the results of elections in general - this is a decision, which was adopted by the Russian majority of Crimea. Actually, even Crimean Tatars, who were elected in Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, (because in each constituency Crimean Tatars as voters are not a superiority, and in all constituencies Russia voters are the majority) are legally the representatives of the Russian majority of voters of Crimea. Thus, it is understandable, why Communists and Russian organizations of Crimea during discussion of electoral law always state that it is impossible to allow a division of voters on the basis of nationality (“do not push us down by foreheads on the basis of nationality, not divide us in national residencies!”) - always with any issue whether it be a communist drive to non-nationalize or to internationalize - the result is the same, namely hegemony of the Russian nationality, as one can see on our example of elections. If elections were conducted “divided” on the basis of a system recognizing nationality, then the parliament would include legal representatives of other nationalities, but when it is not so divided - Russian nationality wins on 100%. The internationalism and rejection of national approaches overall, the way the Russians, “the Slavs” and Communists like to do it, is really a full hegemony of Russian nationality: everywhere “yes” for Russian nationality, ans an open and decisive “no” - for other nationalities, rights and needs of other nations. In this connection, the Russians never raise a question about Russian national quotas, even if they raise this question - they would still receive a quota adequately for their number. For Crimea it means that if will be implemented a Russian national quota that in the Rada there would be 60-65% deputies from Russian community. That’s no small measure, but in a true sense that it will be a significant reduction from what there is now. And really, to raise a question about Russian national quota - means knowingly to prevent the opportunity to have practically 100% of places (in any case, it is guaranteed - from 90 to 92-95!) and reduce the Russian currently non-declared “quota” to only to 60-65%. They are parading around with the claim that this situation is now in practice. It is necessary to say that in Crimea an understanding of the problem of representation has reached a comical level. For example, before elections here the party “Nova sila” (New force) was active. At open press-conference before elections its representatives stated openly that they have the purpose “to win” at least in 90% of constituencies. Taking into account that in that period almost nobody knows this party, and for election there were only 1-2 months, we had a doubt that it is possible. The representatives of the party openly explained to us, how they are going “to win”. They said we take a constituency, arrive in the constituency, and familiarize ourselves with the situation. We observe that among 10-15 deputies have absolute support one or two deputies, among them we discover a doubtless leader, come to him and say: you have certain prospects, but we have also certain opportunities. We can combine our efforts: we assist you to become deputy, but you then will be our representative in parliament. To the journalists there appeared a logical question: if a concrete deputy already is a leader and will be able to win actually without your assistance, for what does he need your party? To come in Parliament on his authority? And here the elections were held. And what was revealed? At once all parties began to state that, namely, they had placed so many deputies in the Rada. And when one summed it up, it was revealed that in the Rada are to be about 300-400 deputies that is in 3-4 times more than they are in reality. What happened? It was shown that not only “Nova sila” was so resourceful. A whole number of parties, which are not able to make something more, visited constituencies and, namely, used this way for recruiting of deputies. Some more known and strong candidates said at once to such recruiters: for what do I need you, to get with my assistance in paradise? And they at once refused them. However, a great part of candidates, who felt themselves not very confidently, agreed on “assistance” of some parties at once, but when they passed, they got into a strange situation, which they didn’t expect: all of these parties, which really entered with their assistance in paradise, demanded from them the obligations, and first of all, the obligations to represent in parliament, namely, their party. Is it worth while to say that from “Nova sila” nobody wanted to work in parliament, though in the beginning, if you remember, their Napoleonic plans reached 90% of constituencies. So life taught a lesson, namely, life indicated that a representation in Council - this is not a question of own, party or corporative ambitions, this is a question, exclusively, of exact legal recognition, which is to be fixed legally and was proved by actual nomination, delegation, mandate and correct accountability of already elected deputy for done work… Thus, we came to our first conclusion: in Crimea the problem of representation for Crimean Tatar people was solved exclusively in the first elected parliament, in which Crimean Tatars were elected, namely, by Crimean Tatars, Germans - by Germans, Bulgarians - by Bulgarians, Armenians - by Armenians, Greeks - by Greeks, and 82 deputies - by Russian majority of Crimea. In Crimean parliament of the present convocation a problem of not representation, but a problem of giving opportunity for Crimean Tatars to be elected in Verkhovna Rada and other councils as citizens of Ukraine. Thus, the nationality of a deputy has no relation to his representation. And really, there are 35 or 40 deputies-Ukrainians among present convocation of Verkhovna Rada of Crimea. But even a thought doesn’t come into anybody’s mind to say they represent the Ukrainian community of Crimea, because and so it is understandable that they represent Russian, or, as one should say the Russian-speaking majority of voters of Crimea. Theoretically, if there would exist national (for example, Crimean Tatar) constituencies, it is not obligatory that in which are to be elected Crimean Tatars, because at this moment already a concrete nationality of concrete deputy loses any sense. One says, that it is possible hypothetically to assume that a deputy in such constituency could be elected Russian (for example, writer Vosgrin, or even any unknown person for us), but in spite of it, that he was not Crimean Tatar, in any case he has no place to go - he was delegated, namely, by Crimean Tatars and he is to represent adequately their instructions and give an account to them, because, namely, they are his constituency. At least, 8 deputies-majoritarians, - this is already normal number. However, this is not a solution of the problem, which we talk about, if we already with you a priori agreed that a representation (namely, representation), but not an opportunity to be elected, necessary for Crimean Tatars. The fact is that it is not obligatory to raise a question, namely, by such way. One can say - and, I think, one day comes a time for it! - and about it that it is not necessary a separate representation for Crimean Tatars. Really, if a significant period passes, the name Crimean Tatar itself will lose any special definition in minds of one's people, and they will stop regarding them with special caution, Crimean Tatars will be equal among equals, will be restored their rights and status, and this means automatically that any elected deputy represents a whole Crimean society, and not only its certain national part, at that time, namely it - legally separate! - representation losses all sense. At that time, a professional business approach wins at elections, in this case, a nationality of deputy will be not taken into account by anybody - but we need to come to this moment, at that to live in peace and harmony. And there is no other way for it: or the Russians give voluntarily a half of constituencies for representation of other peoples, in particular, Crimean Tatars, or the Russians will be taken away by way of establishment of special electoral systems, which don’t give them an opportunity to ignore the needs of other peoples, providing for 100 per sent (or similar to it) victory at elections and close a way to bodies of government for representatives of other nationalities. If you think that it is possible first variant then you don’t know well the Russians, communists-Russians. Thus, there is no option… A life convinces that in traditional majoritarian system, particularly in Soviet under structure of majoritarian system, a problem of representation can be solved at practice only for that ethnical community, who is a majority of people either in the whole territory, or in separate constituencies, and namely, it receives practically a valuable legal representation in bodies of representative power. At the same time, for providing with rights for a representation of that or other minority necessary the special electoral schemes, or special electoral systems, which would differ from a general majority. There is such law in general, that national questions - or that is a legal representation in bodies of government, or national-cultural, and national-educational problems, which cannot be solved in system for adoption of decisions by general majority. For solution of these questions it is necessary to establish separate systems for adoption of decisions not by general majority, but a certain, national majority, or any national community. Instead of general democratic system are to be established partial systems for adoption of decisions, which would satisfy not the requirements and opinion of general majority, but the requirements and opinion of separate national majorities. The traditional majoritarian system doesn’t meet these requirements. It is necessary either to add it by quotas, or proportional system with giving right for nomination of candidates by national associations or other organizations. This is also a question, which is discussed a lot. And really, under tradition only political parties or blocs have a right in proportional system for nomination of candidates. In this connection, for example, theorists from SDPU (u) object to opportunity of adoption of such electoral law for Crimea, which would provide for participation, as subjects of electoral process, the national-cultural associations of Crimean Tatar people and national minorities - Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Germans if one speaks about deportees, including Karaites and Krimchaks if one speaks about indigenous peoples. For confirmation of one’s opinion they appeal to the example and experience of parliamentarism in France, Germany, and other states, which allow neither quotas, nor voluntary, national-cultural organizations as subjects of electoral process. And here it is necessary to look at that, what we have dealings with? We have dealings with only non-typical situation there are analogues practically nowhere in the world. So why, should we go to adopt an experience in France or Germany? It is understandable that we adopt some common principles of parliamentarianism, organization of electoral process as well, but really they have deported peoples, who are returning to Motherland, really they though sometimes solved a problem of representation of deported peoples in parliament? Can we ourselves in this question emulate anybody? Certainly, not. Thus, our non-typical problem can be solved only by non-typical methods. That is if for its solution it is necessary to allow the national-cultural associations or Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people to be subjects of electoral process, despite that it is not registered in accordance with the Ukrainian legislation, that it is necessary to do it despite whether there is this in France or Germany or not. It is only our experience, which is to gain only by our new methods. It is not necessary for it to copy exactly an experience of parliamentarianism of other states, for it necessary to bring in already known in the world the electoral systems own mechanisms, which would provide for a realization of appropriate task. However, in this case, certainly, for purity of experiment and full accordance with legislative legal norms one should consider as representatives only those persons, who were officially authorized by anybody and gave them instructions - to represent their interests and act in the their interests. Because we have an absurdity: the deputy of Verkhovna Rada of Crimea Lentun Bezaziyev votes from the position of communists in parliament of autonomy, who deported Crimean Tatar people from Crimea, and who soap people eyes by principle of non-nationality of electoral process and internationalism, and at the same time he says that he represents the Crimean Tatar people. The deputy of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, which was elected by list of Communist Party, Zarema Katusheva, says that all deputies are to be representatives of Soviet people, that nobody has a right to solve a problem of Crimean Tatars from the national positions and so on. Moreover - it requires quite seriously from other participants of discussion an attention to their point of view. Really, can one solve a problem of representation for Crimean Tatars in bodies of government, disengaging oneself from national approaches? Let’s remember how this problem appeared? Really was it caused by us? No, the problem was caused at least on May 18, 1944, when the Stalin’s regime namely by national identity realized a deportation of some peoples from their historical places of living. I stress - namely, on basis of national identity: if in your passport was written Russian - you were left alone and live further in Crimea, if in your passport was written Tatar - you were exiled with arms to Uzbek’s steppe, taken away house, all gained property and the main thing - land. Obviously, the parents (may be, grandfather and grandmother) of Zarema Katusheva, who also undoubtedly suffered a deportation, and one should in that period, on May 18, 1944, came to those Beria’s soldiers with submachine guns in hands and say them: what are you doing, you do us divide on basis of national sign, divide us in national flats, one shouldn’t do it in any case! And what would they say? Or if anybody in that period had the courage to write a letter to “Great Stalin”, who is now again praised by communists, and informed him about one’s opinions that one cannot deport people in general, and particularly, on basis of national sign, - then where was he in two days? One says that Solovki is not yet the most terrible place in the system of Stalin’s repressive camps. Zarema Katusheva says that there are a lot of communists among Crimean Tatars, and so its ideology is to be respected by the entire Crimean Tatar people. Is it so? Only, Crimean Tatars, as Ukrainians, as Russians and other peoples should remember that for totalitarian regimes a belonging even to one’s own party had never been a pardon from repressions. Let’s remember those honest communists, who by millions went to gallows, camps, execution, collectivization, exile, let’s remember Veli Ibraimov, another thousands loyal persons of Leninism, who didn’t understand the fascist’s core of communist’s doctrine, whose minds were fogged by tales concerning justice, equality, truth, struggle for happiness of destitute persons. Where were more destitute, executed, exhausted, deported persons, who were forced to slavery free work - in that part of the world, where ruled or though tried to rule communists, or where there was no it? So. Thus, one is to come to another important conclusion: the communists, in any form they would show their management, are not able to solve a national question in general, and problem for fair legal representation of peoples in bodies of representative power in particular. In this connection, would be very fair a slogan: to elections without communists, to elections without communist’s experience, don’t allow communists to deceive us! ON RESULTS OF ELECTIONS IN CRIMEA, WHICH WERE HELD IN MARCH 2002 Zarema Katusheva, As a whole, the results of recent parliamentary elections are very complicated and polysemantic. No one of the political forces brought in parliament a sufficient number of deputies for solution of the problems raised. The last elections showed, how imperfect is the law on elections to Verkhovna Rada of Crimea. In this connection, we as subjects of legislative initiative, using our own constitutional right, I and L. Hrach submitted in September 2002 for consideration by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine the draft law on elections to Verkhovna Rada of the ARC. The draft law on election on proportional basis was introduced on previous convocation by our party comrade Shtepa N.P. This draft law differs from ours in that to the opinion of Natalia Petrovna, one’s own candidates could be nominated by national-cultural associations or their blocs. Unfortunately, this draft law was not approved. The Verkhovna Rada of the ARC - this is the body of political and economical management of Crimea, which forms a policy and economy on the peninsula. The NGOs and national-cultural associations are not political parties, in this connection, their interest is narrowly specific. Each party, at least, has a goal to form a majority and come to power. At the same time, the NGOs and national-cultural associations have quite other tasks. Dear present persons, today here, “at round-table”, I express a position of Crimean Republican Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, that fully coincides with my vision of solution of this problem as communist, as Crimean Tatar. In my speech I dwell on moments, which explain why we are “for” proportional system of elections and “against” majoritarian. To opinions of experts of Ukrainian Independent for Political Researches, the proportional electoral system is optimal acceptable for Ukraine. I would like to remember present persons, that President of Ukraine reconsidered his private position concerning proportional system of election in favour of it. The proportional system of elections could not only provide for representation of the broad spectrum of political forces in processes of self-government, but also speed up a solution of the most sensitive problems of the region. The political restructuring of Crimean parliament could minimally reduce consequences of traditional opposition of both branches of power in Crimea. At the same time, a present electoral law, which defined a majoritarian system of elections, is one of the obstacles for specific “freezing” of present problems that in no way influence on harmonization of mutual relations between different political forces as in autonomy, as with official Kyiv. The basic, main and serious issue is inter-ethnic problems. Under proportional system of elections each people has a right to nominate their own representatives through political parties. The leading states of West prefer to hold elections under proportional elections. To date the proportional system of elections is recognized as most progressive form of elections. A majority of present persons here supports integration into Europe. Let’s be consistent in our own actions! Elections to majority of European parliaments and European Parliament are made in accordance with proportional system. Last elections showed a malignancy and putridity of majoritarian system of elections. There is no secret, that where the elections were held under majoritarian system, they were transformed into ring of money-bags. The law on majoritarian system of elections transformed into political swindle, robbing own people. That, who expended great money for receiving place in parliament, coming to power, doesn’t think on realization of well written election program, and press own people to return money, which he expended for buying of votes. All of present persons here understand that to legalize majoritarian system of elections - it means to legalize a buying of people’s mandate, it means to admit criminal in power, and to differentiate society in accordance with social, ethnical, political signs, and to finish off completely own impoverished and already disappointed people, who for last 11 years of life in period of capitalism felt itself all amenities of “independence”. Further, to not take a lot of your time, I would like to state “negative” of majoritarian system and “positive” of proportional one. - The majoritarian system of relative majority is effective only in conditions of formed two-party system. A process of establishment of two-party system lasts for centuries. In this connection, we have not the nearest prospect to form a democratic political system on basis of two-party system. So, for example, the two-party system in Great Britain has been formed during three centuries, the two-party system of USA forms over 100 years, in France, where there is multi-party system, the elections are held in two rounds, in Germany - mixed system of elections, Poland and Bulgaria hold elections under proportional system. - Under majoritarian system of relative majority, the constituency, as a rule, is represented by a deputy, who was elected not by majority of voters of constituency, but its small part. Nevertheless, he speaks on behalf of voters of his constituency; a majority of them is his political opponents. Under majoritarian system of elections one can more optimally realize a subornation of voters and falsification of elections. It is easier to manipulate by court decisions in favour of most powerful candidates in deputy that we saw at last elections. Thus, with assistance of shady teknologies from electoral distance, were removed such party fighters, as Zubarev V.L., Ivanov A.Ya., Reutska Ye. V., Yefanov V.A., Kornilov Yu.P., and lot of others. I don’t speak about that pressure, which was placed upon the leader of our party L.I. Hrach. By the highest standards, were lost not abovementioned candidates in deputy of VR ARC, but voters. Because, in face of these high-respectable, honest candidates they lost frank defenders of their own interests. However, in spite of all attempts of our opponents “to stifle” an idea of passing of communists in Crimean Parliament, somebody succeeded all the same to get deputy’s mandates. There are among them Bondar A.P., Ivanenko P.I., Degtyarov V.G., Bezaziyev L.R., Korotkih S.V., Kazarin V.P., Kolisnichenko N.P., and others. Understand that for the authority it is easier to use administrative resource in single-mandate constituency. It is easier to use election committees, to influence on them for their benefit. For holding elections under majoritarian system are expended much more money than under proportional one. Under majoritarian system the elections are transformed into permanent (constant). In the middle of parliament it is easier to buy so-called independent deputy either by way of administrative pressure, or by way of subornation. (Under party list - more complicated). At last elections was seen that a majoritarian system was transformed into anti-democratic. The upsurge of cases is a product of majoritarian system of elections. Under majoritarian system of elections the actions at law become mass event, and political forces try to politicize the courts. The West experience shows that a majoritarian system of elections was adopted at elections of regional, settlement and rural communities. Can you say what party is responsible now for budget, and who forms our government? Under majoritarian system of elections the votes, which were given for candidates, who lost, are lost, that overrides a picture of citizens’ opinion, and practice shows, this is up to 80% of electors. - Proportional system allows more exactly to reflect the interests of all social and ethnical groups of society and more fully to represent them in parliament. - Action of proportional system significantly to speed up a process of formation of real political parties. - This influences good on formation of civil society, its restructuring (for example, SDP (u)). - The proportional system of elections costs cheaper for national treasury. No repeated elections. In case of leaving of deputy, his seat is taken by next person in list, and thus, there is no necessity to hold repeated elections. - It is easier to organize a work of election committees. - It is easier to control election process and to avoid violations. - To realize maximally exactly tasks in representative power. Each party has clear ideology in area of social and economical policy. - Proportional system allows to reinforce the responsibility of party before voters. - To force party to make real political programs and tries maximally fully to realize them. - One allows to form a responsible government on party basis. - It is more complicated to deceive voters by unrealizable promises. - The party list is formed of representatives of competent persons under territory. - There is a tight control over activity of deputy. Under proportional system of elections there is a maximal registration of votes of voters. As I said before, the proportional system of elections concerning Crimea, allows the most fully to solve problems of ethnical representation in parliament through political parties and blocs. If anybody of you thinks that 4% barrier not shows a complete picture of electoral system, that one can revise it. On the other hand, under 4% barrier to form easier a government. History doesn’t know a creation of coalition government of more than 5 parties. I have no doubt that present persons have a certain interest to my attitude to quota for deportees. For me, as Crimean Tatar, the definition “quota” sounds as humiliation of my people, because only certain aborigines, the Papuans use a quota because of their restrictions. The Crimean Tatar people more then successfully forms a political elite. Crimean Tatar people has no problems, nominating own representatives through political parties. I am proud that my people has more percentage of specialists with higher education. If to establish quota that Crimean Tatar can more to lose, than to receive. It is enough to consider the draft law, which was proposed by Yu. Kluchkovskyi. In accordance with his project, Crimean Tatars take 7 seats in Crimean parliament. To date there are 8 Crimean Tatars in parliament. Really, the abovementioned draft law is not as usurpation of will of the Crimean Tatar people. There is no necessity to bring disharmony in political situation in Crimea. There are enough problems on peninsula. If one raises a question on quotas, it will violate a political balance. Everything is enough brittle without it. I call all of the present persons to give their own vote for proportional system of elections. I am convinced that those who don’t speak and worry about our own Crimean Motherland, its future, choose the most progressive system of elections - proportional. FOR CRIMEA IS MORE REAL THE MIXED SYSTEM OF ELECTIONS, Olexander Formanchuk, I wouldn’t like now to break into discussion, about whether quotas are necessary for formerly deported Crimean Tatars. However, I note that they are less critical than they were 5-6 years ago, and this is just an evidence of what was said by Refat Chubarov, that in principle our attitude already to the problem of representation of the Crimean Tatar people in bodies of government is more serene. I listen attentively, can R. Chubarov, prove his opinion that in one’s period (in that period I worked in Crimean Oblast Committee of Communist Party) we really developed a plan of settling of Crimean Tatar in such a way that in regions of Crimea they never constitute more than 25%. It means that there was a real communist approach to insure Communist Party retained the right for monopoly on power. I already expressed my opinion that stirred up the resentment of Natalya Gavrilova, and she remembered it on pages of the newspaper “Krimskoye vremya” (Crimean time). However, however we regard it - this really occurred. And the referendum on restoration of Crimean autonomy we also held practically without participation of Crimean Tatars. And we knowingly did it; we wanted to avoid Crimean Tatars so that they further could make less claims on an assertion of their right for national-territorial autonomy. And I can be absolutely open to say about it, because I was one of the initiators and active participant to hold a referendum in Crimea. I write about it in my book “the myths of Soviet epoch” extremely open and frankly. I say it now first of all that we need now to convince ourselves that on the eve of the collapse of the USSR we really unkindly met the return of Crimean Tatars after deportation. And we established the autonomy of the Soviet model. However, namely, it was contrary to those inertial processes, which appeared after the collapse of the USSR. That is the USSR collapsed in 1991, and Crimean ASSR existed and exists in certain measure up to now. It still exists, while we don’t find democratic approaches for solution of those problems, which were defined now. One of the most critical problems is, namely, a representation of Crimean Tatars in bodies of government. In the beginning of the 90's we adopted a law on elections with quotas for formerly deported people. Here is present Boris Vasilyev, he is one of those, who sensibly regarded this, being in the composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, and supported this idea. In my opinion, it was at that moment the single sound decision, though it is now criticized by political opponents, that I and Bagrov did it. I am convinced, and once again stress it, that at that moment this was a very sound decision and it was rightly understood by Crimean Tatars themselves. The faction “Kurultay” assisted significantly to keep a stability and balance in Verkhovna Rada, and gave certain steadiness in spite of what occurred there. But now I am speaking about quotas and express my opinion, that in principle “the train went”. Currently, neither Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, nor Verkhovna Rada of Crimea supports a quota principle. I am deeply convinced about this, because moods and situation have changed. Currently, the main argument of those, who opposed quotas - and for what it is necessary, if at recent elections in bodies of representative power - 14% Crimean Tatars, in Verkhovna Rada of the ARC - 8 Crimean Tatars. In this connection, it is necessary to be a realist. I understand the opinion of Leonid Pilunskyi, who said, that just try to explain in the variant of the draft law by Kluchkovskyi 9 national constituencies (7+2) should not be interpreted as quotas. I can, Mr. Leonid, to admit your arguments, but the fact is that I am convinced that you cannot explain it for a majority of deputies of Verkhovna Rada, most of them equally apprehend it as quota principle. The representation of Crimean Tatars in Verkhovna Rada of Crimea is a very sharp subject, which is very consecutively and emphatically, raised by Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people for the last years. The Mejlis today has an opportunity legally to defend this opinion in the network of the Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar people under President of Ukraine. I think there is certain progress in this question, though this subject remains sharp enough. When I worked as adviser to S. Kunitsin, we spoke a lot about it, and it is necessary to give him his due, he kept his word, that, one says, at level of deputies heads of regional state administrations Crimean Tatars today are represented practically everywhere. However, there may come that time, when and at the level of heads of regional state administrations could appear persons of Crimean Tatars, who could be trusted in such a high post. I understand that this process is gradual, may be, it is not necessary to speed up it. Currently, Crimean Tatars study in the Academy for State Management as well. That is an on-going process. And in spite of that an inertial approach from the hand of officials of executive power remains, but a level of distrust nevertheless is reduced. One should note that worthy Crimean Tatars more and more are represented in bodies of executive power. Now concerning deputy’s corps. I am a member of the Work Group, which is headed by V.O. Kyselev, which prepared its own conception, and variant for parliamentary hearings, on which I already spoke. I expressed my own opinion, it was fixed in protocols, but it didn’t become an opinion of the Work Group as a whole. As you know, the Work Group chose a majoritarian system. I also think that already there is no sense to remain a majoritarian system, because it discredited itself a lot because of different circumstances. Here Yefim Fix said a phrase that perhaps it is necessary to preserve it in Crimea. I do think that enough 3 mln. USD to buy “control packet” of shares at Verkhovna Rada of Crimea under such technology, which was successfully used by L.Myrimskyi and V.Khmelnitskyi. That is the technologies really worked, we have such people, who are, there are no other people. And this is, first of all, the consequences of communist education. Under this opinion, certainly, one should take any step forward. On the other hand, I as political scientist, as citizen, understand that there are no different steps from one extreme to another in society. I agree with opinion of O.Kislyi that one should to press towards it, it is necessary to take these steps. I think the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine hardly preserves or merely majoritarian system, or adopt the law on proportional system in autonomy. It seems to me that more compromise and real variant could be the variant on majoritarian-proportional system. As for me, the Verkhovna Rada hardly will be able to adopt this law before elections of president. I doubt deeply in it. Probably, this law could be adopted after elections of president, because very much depends on the present situation. And a question of elections of president is today as central for Ukraine; this is a question of struggle for power. I understand those parties, which propose and follow that or another rule. I react with understanding to the opinion of Z. Katusheva, she is frankly in this plan, and I necessarily regard it with respect. Communists received very easy 35% on March 31, and they hope to have approximately same percent under proportional system. At the same time, I doubt that Communist Party gives Crimean Tatars so much places that they could legally represent interests of all Crimean Tatars. Here I doubt deeply. Of course, Leonid Hrach understands well that Crimean Tatars are to be in list, and they will be represented, but they will have as many places, as th leader wants. This is political interests, here there is one’s logic, and it has a right for life. To my opinion, Refat Chubarov has a more objective approach. In Crimea for last 11 years appeared one phenomenon. I think often and say openly about it lately. In principle, Crimean Tatars in face of Mejlis frequently proposed drafts, which were real as a whole, objectively necessary, but in the beginning they were always given a hostile reception. And only in certain time they received any support. Perhaps, this phenomenon is explained by that Crimean Tatars in face of Mejlis more objectively approaches to estimation of political situation, searches any variant, which would maximally take into account different political moods in society. And this weighted approach, to my opinion, is observed in the variant of draft law, which was mentioned by R.Chubarov, but I think it also is unlikely to be supported in Verkhovna Rada. So, I think what will be next, possibly, will be a not quite successful compromise It will not be quite a proportional system in Crimea, as well as, I hope, not a quite majoritarian system, because already it is now really an anachronism. I welcome the aspiration of the Communist Party to take into account Western experience, which before for them was so hateful. It can only be welcome. I thank Volodimir Pritula that he raised this theme. This just testifies that there is still interest to influence somehow on deputies, from whom depend adoption of that decision, including in Crimea, to make them more soberly and objectively to estimate a situation and propose those variants, which adequately reflect a situation in society and level of social moods, and are more adequate to our movement on way in improvement of election system. It seems to me, and I want to believe, that the recommendations of present “round-table” will be useful and be heard by anybody. Not for a while yet the moods in Verkhovna Rada of autonomy among a majority of deputies are to retain the status quo. Obviously, that was dictated by some measure that Refat Chubarov said about: not suit today many people. However, may be, one cannot also to follow only such principles, it is necessary to think about tomorrow. I think that our “round-table” will be also useful in this plan. SDPU (U): PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM OF ELECTIONS SOLVES A PROBLEM Yefim FIX, I am very thankful for having the opportunity to express the opinion of the Crimean Republican Committee of Social-Democratic Party of Ukraine (united). When we looked through 8 drafts, which were submitted at parliamentary hearings we came to a conclusion that there is a necessity to prepare our own variant. This document already passed our approbation and was submitted to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Volodimir Voyush was charged as People’s Deputy of Ukraine to register it in Verkhovna Rada. Concerning the problem of representation of the Crimean Tatar people in bodies of government of autonomy, and in connection with it, connecting it with new election law, I am very glad that the position of R.Chubarov, and Z. Katusheva coincides in the plan that a representation of the Crimean Tatar people will be under proportional system. It can be complete, total-lot, or partial. We will not to talk - 90/10, or 50/50, we talk, as about fact of proportional system, concerning which now are coincided different opinions. This system really could represent fully the interests of the Crimean Tatar people in bodies of government of autonomy. This is very important question, and we consider it, really, as very serious question. Here was expressed the argument that the proportional system separates, remove deputy from his electors. It seems to me that those who spoke about it, didn’t believe themselves in it. It is enough for it to give two examples. When the government of the ARC has considered recently a question on rise in rent from 21 to 41 kopeck, - nowhere there was any rejoinder from deputies, who represent interests of their voters. In question concerning heating - also no one of 100 deputies advocated for their constituents. In this connection, this argument is not quite serious. In the draft, which we developed, we tried to answer on some questions, concerning how we understand this situation. Who can be a participant of election process - political party or bloc? Are the national-cultural associations able to take part in election process? Are the national constituencies necessary? What kind of procedure is needed for formation of election commission? And the main thing is - what kind of mechanism, all the same, for providing for the responsibility of a political party before its own voters? Here we have tried to answer some of these questions. First of all, concerning participation of the political parties or blocs in elections, in election process, we maintain that only a political party can be a participant in the election process. I gave an example at parliamentary hearings, and I repeat. Elections in 2002, March. The bloc “Nasha Ukraina” (Our Ukraine) received rather more than 9% of votes, and “Russian bloc” received rather more than 4% of votes. Does this reflect the realities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea? Certainly, no. It is other thing. The bloc “Za Yedinu Ukrainu” (For Common Ukraine), it is understandable - administrative resource and so on, but there were people, who frankly voted for this bloc, isn't it? And there is no such bloc. Whom to believe? Where to search truth and where tracks? So, participation in the election process by only political parties raises the responsibility of the political party itself before the voters. And at next elections nobody already votes for this party. We have a good example, when in 1994 the bloc “Russia” received over 50% of votes, and in 1998 not one representative of bloc “Russia” was elected to Verkhovna Rada. Another very important moment. We don’t exclude a variant that deputies can vote for participation of blocs of the political parties in election process. In this situation, to our opinion, it is necessary to raise a responsibility that is if a bloc of two parties takes part - that is to be not 4% for passing, but 7%, if of three parties - 10%, of 4 and more - 12-13%. Namely, then, this corresponds to democratic principles, and democratic approaches in election process. Concerning participation of national-cultural associations in election process. We say about national-cultural associations and refer to the Law “On associations of citizens”, where it is clearly defined that NGO doesn’t make political aims, that is it, already even proceeding from this reference, cannot be a participant of election process. But moreover, the article 12 of law “On NGOS” says that members of political parties can be only citizens of Ukraine and only who came of age of eighteen. That is it conforms to the election system, and election legislation as well. At the same time, the members of NGOs can be as citizens of Ukraine, as citizens of other states, including stateless persons, who came of age fourteen. It means this cannot be already as basis for participation of national-cultural associations in the election process. There are no objections. If Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine makes changes in law of Ukraine “On NGOs” (that is it brings into accord with election legislation), that one would consider a question on participation of national-cultural associations in this process. Concerning national constituencies. This is very serious, important and main issue. Our position - we are against national constituencies. Currently, one said that there were 14 persons; it is proposed to have 7 constituencies, it means 7 places. But really - whether there are 14 or 7 - does this solve a problem, when there are generally 100 deputies? Certainly, not. So, it is necessary to find another mechanism. Another mechanism - this is participation through political parties and blocs. If to say about equality of rights of peoples, that we put questions, which provide for conditions of formation of bodies of local self-government in places of compact living, in order there representatives of deported peoples really take part in questions of socioeconomic, cultural development of own region. Thus, here this question can be solved. Will Crimean Tatars be represented by the political parties in their electoral lists? There are over 1500 representatives of the Crimean Tatar people in our Crimean Republican Organization. And certainly, we even proposed Crimean Tatars as candidates at elections in 2002. I don’t speak about formation of election committee. Concerning the principle for providing for the responsibility of deputies. There are mechanisms, which are used in legislation of Germany - the responsibility of a deputy, who was elected under a party list. If a deputy doesn’t fulfill his obligations, switches from faction to faction, does not support the decisions of his faction - it is to be the decision of the party or that body, which included this representative into list, to recall this person and add to the deputy corps of this faction the next person in their list. To my opinion, one could also use this mechanism, to protect the interests of representatives of deported peoples, in particular, the Crimean Tatar people in bodies of government. Concerning executive bodies of government. Statements that in regional state administration is to be one deputy head of regional state administration - representative of Crimean Tatars or two representatives, who will be at the head of certain departments as well - this is a far-fetched thing. Why one? And why not 5? Why in Belohorskyi region under such percentage of representatives of the Crimean Tatar people is to be only one representative of the Crimean Tatar people - deputy head of regional state administration. And why not as head of state regional administration? And why not 3 persons? Because it is not necessary to create something piece. It is necessary normally humanly to come to this question, and not look at national signs as well. If this person is worthy, let him work for the welfare of the Crimea and Crimeans. It is our position. RESULTS OF ELECTIONS - 2002 AND CRIMEAN TATAR QUESTION Petro VOLVACH, The yard-keepers and charwomen didn’t even have time yet to clean as it is untidy Crimean places, settlements and villages from pre-election trash, and already the Central Election Committee of the autonomy by the mouth of its exhausted head only published the results of elections to Verkhovna Rada of Crimea and bodies of local self-government, when some Mass Media being not very loyal to Crimean Tatars, with team of their own leaders and oligarchic sponsors started emphatically to make the Crimean population change its mind about final the solution of one of the most sensitive issue for the region - a lack of representation of Crimean Tatars in bodies of government. But, and Communist Crimean authority, and very became impudent any “Russian associations”, “Slavic” and “Cossack’s unions”, which for show, and most of all for raise of own atonic rating constantly voted for the most democratic in the world local constitution, equality of rights of election legislation for all ethnic groups, who live in Crimea, nevertheless they understood well that namely a lack of Crimean Tatars as in Crimean parliament, as in bodies of local self-government and executive power is “Achilles' heel” of their policy and generator of political and social tension in this important region for Ukraine. So, an election of 7 deputies-representatives of the Crimean Tatar people to Verkhovna Rada of autonomy, under opinion of permanent opponents and implacable enemies of Mejlis, is a cogent argument of perfection as Crimean constitution, as laws on elections and solution of the Crimean Tatar issue. Thus, opposition-to-Mejlis newspapers “Krimskoye vremya” (Crimean time) and “Krimskaya pravda” (Crimean truth) have hurried to assure voters and Ukrainian legislators that the idea on quotas, which during 10 years has been proposed by Mejlis and is discussed by Crimean politicians, is not already a current topic. Thus, what is the situation on representation for Crimean Tatars in reality? In accordance with information of election headquarters of Mejlis, which is referred by “Ukrinform”, in local bodies of government (without Sevastopol) was elected 957 Crimean Tatars, that is about 13,9% of whole number of deputies, who were elected in local, rural, regional and settlement councils. If to take into account that Crimean Tatars according to their number constitute 12,3% of total number of Crimean voters - this as compared with elections in 1998 is a great achievement. It became possible for Crimean Tatars, first of all, due to consolidated activity of Mejlis, which authority among its people is very great. Crimean Tatars understand more and more that, namely, a representation of their representatives in state echelons and bodies of self-government allows them to solve quickly urgent economical and common problems. We are to stress that election headquarters of Mejlis, to our opinion, carried out skillfully enough agitation work among the population. So, at the level of bodies of local self-government in majority of settlements one succeeded to remove a competition between representatives of Crimean Tatars. One can assert that a destructive activity of Crimean communists and especially their leader and ex-speaker Leonid Hrach on separation of the Crimean Tatars was failed. It did not help that the adventurous communist “leader” of local importance and already ex-speaker established the council of obedient Crimean Tatar old men and cherished dubious deportee and also already ex-vice-premier. At elections in 2002 Crimean Tatars acted more offensively, consolidatedly and purposefully, which affected the final result. At the same time, an activity of Crimean Tatar voters significantly increased. For last 4 years due to positive changes in legislation of Ukraine on citizenship a number of Crimean Tatar voters, in 2002 in comparison with 1998, was increased by more than 60,000. Obviously, there is here and such factor, as significant rejuvenation of Crimean Tatar voters. Every time, the young generation is drawn into elections. Actually, voters already include those, who arrived in Ukraine as children. This generation of citizens of Ukraine was already formed in Crimea. In connection with higher number of young Crimean Tatar families a process of rejuvenation and increase of a number of Crimean Tatar voters will be diligently developed. A situation can be formed by such way that opponents of giving quotas for Crimean Tatars in representative bodies and governmental structures of the autonomy soon themselves will a demand quota for their own ethnic group. The analysis of last elections clearly testifies that a predominant majority of voters gave their votes for candidates of Crimean Tatars, who were recommended by the Mejlis. It is significant that in many regions they were able to attract multi-ethnic voters to their side. It happened, because in their pre-election programs Crimean Tatar candidates focused on nothing more than national problems, and proposed for voters a solution of a whole complex of social and economical questions important for all, which worry all inhabitants of that or another region. One can assert that the results of elections were positively influenced. And that the main opponents of Crimean Tatars and Mejlis - communists - in this yearly election race were forced to carry mainly defensive struggle against very strong and significantly younger under age requirement the bloc by Kunitsin. A year ago, the speaker without foresight deprived a premier place to Serhiy Kunitsin, who was authoritative among the pragmatic part of Crimean voters, and thus changed him into a winner-oppositionist. Thus, Leonid Hrach and Crimean communists by initiating a pre-election struggle against ex-premier S. Kunitsin, already had no time and forces against Mejlis and Crimean Tatars. And the fact that during the election of Leonid Hrach for post of head the Verkhovna Rada, he was supported only by 22 deputies cogently provides that communists lost the pre-election struggle at two fronts, which was imposed by them. The anti-communist majority in Crimean parliament and lack of most orthodox-adventurous Leonid Hrach among deputies gives grounds to predict with high probability further reduction of rating of the Communist Party in region. The de-communization of Crimea positively reflects on democratization of all areas, as in political, as in economical life, undoubtedly, positively will influence on solution of the Crimean Tatar issue. The election of deputy head of Verkhovna Rada the member of Mejlis and active figure of the Crimean Tatar people Ilmi Umerov and some ministers and heads of republican committees is significant evidence that a process of entering of Crimean Tatars in state corridors is started, and it is irrevocable. At elections in 2002, Crimean communists, who caught immortal “Russian idea” and “alliance with Russia” in former radically, disposed Meshkovts and present “Russian communities”, adroitly stole a march on them and not without a motive for themselves personally treaded path to “belokamenaya”. However, though this political turn and taken away a certain number of votes from “Russian bloc” (for it in Crimea was voted only 48% of electors against 10,7% in 1998), nevertheless in comparison with 1998 the communists lost in present election campaign 58215 voters (on 15,1% less than in 1998). In one's turn “Russian bloc” in elections to Verkhovna Rada of Crimea deprived Hrachits 5-6 deputy’s mandates that to a certain extent strengthened the position of bloc by Kunitsin. Thus, now in Crimean parliament the pro-Russian disposed deputies will be forced to balance between pragmatic majority of S.Kunitsin and communist fraction which lost its leader. Thus, in Crimea is observed a stable tendency of repulsion of voters from bearers of communist’s ideology. And even in this very complicated multi-ethnic region begin to win a pragmatism and strong intellect. An improvement of economical situation in autonomy, arrangement of production and overcoming of unemployment can significantly changes also a political orientation of those voters, who were exploited by communist’s ideologists during last ten years. An indicated thing positively influences also on solution of many problems, which are daily faced by Crimean Tatars in Crimea. An analysis of likening of voters at level of elections to municipal bodies of government testifies that in elections in 2002, it openly gives preference to candidates-pragmatics and professionals, and not tiresome political equilibrists and street demagogues. It is wholly natural that to local councils of Crimea, under information of Mejlis, was elected 7,2% of Crimean Tatars, in regional councils - 12,1%, rural councils - 16,1% and in settlement councils - 8,2%. The results of elections in 2002 cogently provide that under an effective election system only compact living of people can provide for Crimean Tatars a representation in bodies of government. Under such conditions the question on giving quotas for Crimean Tatars in bodies of government could not be political actual and expedient. It could be successfully provided also by legislation, which was effective in that period in Ukraine. A presence of Crimean Tatars in bodies of government of Crimea in first years of return to Motherland could change radically the political situation in the autonomy. The former communist leadership of Crimea realized this well. So, it relied on a lack of legislation in Ukraine, which could regulate a return of formerly deported persons, it did it's best to not allow their compact living in Crimea. Without taking into account the legal rights of Crimean Tatars the local communist orthodox persons made so-called land reform in next years. Namely, these political-social delayed-action mines today are the main reasons of tension and resource for instability on the peninsula. The elections in 2002 showed that the most numerous deputy corps of representatives of the Crimean Tatar people was in regions of their compact living. So, in Belohorskyi district in regional council were elected 38,8% Crimean Tatars, local council - 26,6% and 24,1% of Crimean Tatars became deputies of rural councils. Enough high rate of Crimean Tatar deputies is also in neighbour Kirovskyi district: regional council - 95,6%, local council - 24,13%, rural council - 26,7%, 24,7% of Crimean Tatars became deputies of rural councils in Pervomayskyi and 21,8% - in rural councils of Bakhchisarayskyi districts. In local council of Sudak among elected deputies the representatives of the Crimean Tatar people are 22,5%. At the same time, in places, in regional centers and villages, where proportion of Crimean Tatars is small, a number of candidates of their representatives in bodies of government remains still rather low. There is a small percent of Crimean Tatars also among heads of local, rural and settlement councils (13 of 288). Thus, a problem of representation of Crimean Tatars in bodies of local self-government in regions of their compact living is automatically solved by effective legislation. The question of their representation in Verkhovna Rada of Crimea and Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is more complicated. Today, the mixed election system for election of deputies in Verkhovna Rada allows Crimean Tatars to join any political bloc that will take some of their representatives. The representation of Crimean Tatars in Verkhovna Rada of autonomy is more problematic. As the elections in 2002 showed, Crimean Tatar can be elected as deputy in Crimean parliament only in district of compact living. Thus, the problem of quoting for Crimean Tatars remains topical. The representation of Crimean Tatars in Verkhovna Rada of Crimea and Ukraine can be provided only by change of effective election system. In our opinion this question could be solved by creation of national Crimean Tatar constituencies in Crimea. This would allow to elect the most authoritative representatives of the Crimean Tatar people as in Crimean, as Ukrainian parliaments proportionally to number of electors. One can go by way of giving quota in parliaments of Crimea and Ukraine proportionally to number of Crimean Tatar voters. In this case, the candidatures of future deputies are proposed by regions on alternative basis and are elected by Mejlis. The mentioned election system for Crimean Tatars was already tested and made a good showing in first Verkhovna Rada of the autonomy. The deputies, who were recommended by Mejlis were the most intellectual and constructive political force in Verkhovna Rada of Crimea. Besides, all of them took pro-Ukrainian state stand. At the same time, this reflected significantly on stabilization of social-political situation in Crimea and strengthened state positions of Ukraine in the autonomy. Thus, the problem of representation for Crimean Tatars in bodies of government of Crimea, especially in the Verkhovna Rada of the autonomy, was not finally solved and remains topical. Searches for optimal legal ways for its solution are to become the object of serene social discussion and legal solution by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The first legal step in this direction is to become the development and adoption of law on status of the Crimean Tatar ethnos as indigenous people in Ukraine. 1 Here Mrs. Katusheva asserts that “this project was not adopted”, this is mistake, because People’s Deputy of Ukraine of III convocation Shtepa N.P. took away her draft in Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, supported draft of People’s Deputy of Ukraine L. Myrymskyi, which provided for mixed electoral system - Ed. 2 We have failed to find from independent sources a confirmation of information of Mr. Fix concerning number of Crimean Tatars in composition of Crimean organization of SDPU (u) - Ed. 3 On April 15, 2002 as deputies of local councils in the ARC were elected 6614 persons, including 992 persons of Crimean Tatars (13,9%), among them: in cities of republican importance - 63 (4,9%), in rural regions - 839 (16%). More detailed information about elections in Crimea see “Krimski studii”, #3-4, 2002. - Ed. 4 The Council of aksakals (old men) of the Crimean Tatar people under head of Supreme Soviet of Crimea was established by initiative of L. Hrach. It was disbanded after defeat of Hrach in election of head of newly-elected Supreme Soviet of the ARC in May of 2002 - Ed. |