When this material was being prepared the Central Election Commission had not yet announced the official results of the elections and the 30-day countdown of Yushchenko’s presidency stipulated by the Constitution had not yet begun. Despite this, employees of the Presidential Administration were ready to pack their bags.
There are posts that should be occupied based on the commonality of world outlook and personal dedication to the country’s first person.
We are sitting in the half empty office of the President’s Assistant Chief-of-staff, Yushchenko’s plenipotentiary in the Constitutional Court and the Central Election Commission and de jure the chief attorney of the Presidential Secretariat (with the departure of the Baloha-Pukshin team all legal departments of the Presidential Secretariat were subordinate to this person), while holding this position during the Kuchma Administration meant being the country’s de facto chief attorney – namely Maryna Stavniychuk.
 |
| Photo: A. Gudzenko |
Experts pointed out that when she took office there was much less legal claptrap in the Presidential Secretariat. During her tenure in the CEC Stavniychuk toed Yushchenko’s line and worked closely with Andriy Klyuyev, a representative of the Party of Regions. She was nominated for the post of CEC chair, but was never elected. The author and co-author of more than 50 academic dissertations, including the books Ukrainian Parliamentarianism: Past and Present, Legislation on the Elections of Members of Parliament of Ukraine: Relevant Problems in Theory and Practice, The Constitution of Independent Ukraine and Electoral Law of Ukraine.
She has been conferred titles and awards, recognized as an expert in electoral law and is a favorite on intelligent political talk shows. She as a lawyer is predestined to leave the team of her main client in President Yushchenko, whose legal initiatives remain either unfulfilled or not understood by Ukrainian society.
Who was she for the president all that time of never ending battles with the parliament and agonistic attempts to reform the Constitution, the time of hidden and overt conflicts between the Cabinet of Ministers and latent political unions and the time of categorical legal assessments of events and personalities of the good old days?
Who does lawyer and public figure Maryna Stavniychuk see herself as in the future? About this and more in an exclusive Weekly.ua interview
Mrs. Stavniychuk, for you is jurisprudence an exact science or a subject in the humanities?
M. S. Jurisprudence is an exact science. The fact that lawyers always have room for creativity when adopting and enforcing a law is a different matter altogether. But there are bounds that a true lawyer cannot overstep. Just as doctors should not inflict damage to patients, lawyers always set a boundary they should not overstep or at the very least there should be such a boundary.
 |
| Photo: A. Gudzenko |
But in Ukrainian courts “the law is like a shaft”…
M. S. The work of a competent lawyer is very subtle thing. Lawyers must know how to construe the letter of the law in a crisp and concise manner. But again I return to the issue of legal limitations that cannot be trespassed under any circumstance. Every professional lawyer always sets those bounds that should not be trespassed, be they a judge or an attorney . Unfortunately, today the judicial and legal systems in the country work in such a way that lawyers often lose their professional skills. I dream of the times when a juridical mind and professionalism of lawyers will be the basis of their litigation victories.
Do you seriously believe that this will happen in our lifetime?
M. S. I do. I know that for sure. The country can be lifted up and put in order and the necessary pace of reforms can be coordinated in half a year if there is consolidated political will of all those involved at all levels of power. The last half year in the the legal service in the Presidential Secretariat and handled issues related to the body representing the positions of the president in the Constitutional Court and courts of general jurisdiction. I can tell you that the judicial system is being suffocated. Indeed. What is today happening inside the judicial system is proof that it has reached its bounds. Nobody is happy about this, including the judges.
 |
| Photo: A. Gudzenko |
Do you have a realistic road map on this issue?
M. S. Judicial reform is a fairly serious component of constitutional reform. For me this is obvious. There are several things the state must do to lay the foundation for changes in the quality of the judicial system. We must move along the path of creating an independent judicial authority. First and foremost, this is simplified access of citizens to justice. On the other hand, this is guaranteeing access to the profession of a judge, as well as fortifying the formal legal and financial-economic components of the activity of judicial bodies. Access to the profession of a judge must be only through an open competition and hinge upon a transparent assessment of professional knowledge and the independence of a future judge not from anything but their own personal knowledge and sense of justice and legal culture. Justice should start with the formation of a judicial corps strictly on the
basis of a tender among professional lawyers. On the other hand, professional judges must earn a decent salary, have the necessary working conditions and a guarantee of their activity.
A judge must have social security and his or her personal safety must be guaranteed. At the same time, the issue of the accountability of a judge for the decisions made is no less important. In connection with this, the issue of fighting corruption becomes particularly relevant.
The time has come to understand that no reforms or restructuring in the country are possible without a fair system of justice.
 |
| Photo: A. Gudzenko |
Does the state legal system in its present state have sufficient potential to legally resolve a conflict around the results of the presidential elections? I mean the doubtful legitimacy of the leadership of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine (SACU), the Ministry of Interior Affairs (MIA) and the intentions of the Party of Regions to sack the head of the Supreme Court V. Onopenko, etc.?
M. S. Although we have progressed quite far ahead on the issue of freedom of choice, both in comparison to post-Soviet countries and our country five years ago, we go through serious judicial proceedings based on the results of practically every election. And today the result will to a great extent depend on the quality of judicial jurisdiction. We had two candidates the difference between their votes being only 3.48%. This is seriously scrupulous legal work. I truly want to believe that there will be no “maidan”, rallies or opposition movements, but instead serious legal work in establishing the results of the elections. The main thing here is those that establish the results and those that resolve in-court disputes follow the letter of the law to a tee.
In your opinion, will President Yanukovych conduct effective judicial reforms?
M. S. For me it is glaringly obvious that for any president that comes to power the main priorities will be to deal with the challenges associated with the financial and economic state in the country. On the other hand, if there is not a viable healthy legal system in place, Ukraine will not see any investments and normal financial operations will not be conducted.
The practice of adopting bills to suit one’s own needs must be eradicated. In the process of drafting laws we must strictly conform to the positions of experts and then professionalism will not fail you in any turn of events. Admittedly, professionalism and specialization these days are unfortunately not determinant criteria in the hiring process.
Besides that, another dangerous phenomenon has reared its ugly head infecting the entire sphere of jurisprudence. Specifically, certain lawyers that hold positions on the teams of the top political forces are practicing a so-called unfriendly acquisition style of work. This has a negative impact on the functioning of the judicial system and the work of parliament and other bodies of power.
Do you think the new president will put an end to this?
M. S. People that held a professional government position have temporarily receded into the shadows. This was connected to the implacable political struggle - win at all costs. But I think the situation is so critical today that if the future president sets a goal of the country’s development, he absolutely must have on his team state-oriented people. There is no other way. A scheme whereby today we pass a law by lobbying your interests, tomorrow we adopt a law lobbying my interests, then together we adopt a law on elections allowing you and me to devise a technology of victory of at all costs and then jointly conduct constitutional reform that earns us the right to revoke the licenses of uncontrollable media outlets and so on is highly explosive. Today all these phenomena in the economy, public administration, politics and jurisprudence have reached their maximum limit according to which the state and society co-exist or we are doomed.
The future president has the task of leaning honest professionals in the civil service. Otherwise, we might realistically lose our statehood. God gave us such a chance to resurrect Ukraine.
And yet, why Yushchenko failed to use this God given chance during these five years?
M. S. The problem President Viktor Yushchenko faced was that he did not have enough constitutional powers to keep the situation in the country under his personal control and have influence on it to the fullest extent. Deregulation of power in 2004 had a decisive impact on the execution of Yushchenko’s authority. The next president will inevitably run up against these very same problems. He has made a lot. Take my professional sphere - jurisprudence. Almost immediately being elected into the office he approved the concept of judicial development in Ukraine. I believe this was a professional and quality job. It was used as a basis for two new bills – on judicial system and on the status of judges, both are crucial for the judicial reform. These bills, merged and amended, have been gathering dust in the Rada for more than two years now. In addition to the political opposition there is a struggle in our legislature of personal influence on the judicial branch of power. As I observe the behaviour of some decision-making subjects, I cannot but wonder about their lack of mutual understanding, their unwillingness to look for a consensus where public affairs are concerned. Unfortunately, too many of those having a role in the quality of legislation and organization of justice fight for a personal influence on the process. There are people in the state that spare no efforts during the formation of legislation, then they actively participate in the shaping the courts and political bodies, thus trying of setting control over the entire judiciary. It shouldn’t go on like this, and I think there are enough people in the country that share similar concerns in order to stem the tide.
 |
|
Photo: PHL |
Maryna, you are a professional lawyer, right? How come you have not lost you heart understanding that your life is spent on bills with no chance to pass the parliamentary hall destined to gather dust forever?
M. S. No! Of course not. Me and my colleagues did a good job for the benefit of the country. Many bills of Yushchenko, despite the resistance, have been supported and adopted and now work for the benefit of the nation. My colleagues and I have done important work for the president and the country. As for the constitutional process, as practice shows, Ukraine is not an exception, as there have not been cases when this process has been finished in a month. And every time it means new amendments, analysis and re-elaboration of ideas and experience ... And in the end it will still come to the final goal. We have no other options. It is obvious that the need for the constitutional reform has long been coming. That imbalance of powers and its fragmentation are the results of amendments to the Constitution adopted in 2004, so the constitutional reform is inescapable. And, if so, then our achievements and in this issue are certainly will be in demand in the future.
So, you believe that reforms should be expected from the new parliament rather than the new president?
M. S. I think that the real reforms in the state will occur after substantial changes in the parliament and after the political elite suffers a serious change. I should think politicians must enter the scene who understand how to reach a consensus and who realize the necessity of the reforms in all sectors, including governance is already taking shape. Those will be the politicians who already have enough experience both professional and personal. But then most importantly they must possess the qualities of new leadership.
Do you see yourself as a part of Viktor Yushchenko’s team in the future?
M. S. I hope that in one way or another I will stay in politics. I would like to consider a political future for myself. At least, working with Yushchenko I felt myself in harmony and have acquired a wealth of experience. The system of values that underpins his work is absolutely close to mine. I want to make it clear that I see Ukraine as an independent and autonomous state. The goals of Yushchenko are clear to me in many aspects. He wants to learn and to restore historical justice, to give Ukraine the European direction of development. At the same time despite they have tried to label Yushechenko as an anti-Russian politician, this is not true. He advocates equal and fair relations with all nations and among our neighbors a priority, of course, belongs to Russia.
 |
|
Photo: PHL |
Tell me why then in the delicate questions of international diplomacy president Yushchenko behaved as a bull in a China shop? For example, the first "Orange" head of Naftogaz Ukraine, the company obligated under the statute to deal with Putin, Yushchenko appointed none but the leader of Ukrainian nationalists. Yushchenko was one of the first to condemn the situation in Georgia, although basically the official Kyiv would never be late on this issue. What about the decisions made during his last days on ranking heroes titles and testing the constitutionality of foreign military bases in Ukraine? All this makes an impression on clear commitments in the escalation of relations between Kyiv and Kremlin.
M. S. OK, one thing at a time. You have mentioned the historical aspects like glorification of Ukrainian historical figures. I totally understand Yushchenko here. He was in a hurry to do good for Ukraine and the nation, to give us heroes, to raise the national spirit. I understand why he was in a hurry in these matters. I watched him when he was working on the Holodomor thing. You have seen how difficult it was to raise these issues. I think Yushchenko saw the democratic team cannot agree on that. And, if so, then obviously, he could take into account that there will not be a president for a second term. I understand him as a true Ukrainian. He needed to return the memory about the great national grief. Now, many countries have recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide against Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian nation got a day when people light candles to commemorate the tragedy that has touched many Ukrainian families. Yushchenko has not just brought back the memory about the victims, he raise it so it never happened again in any form, to make Ukrainians treasure our freedom for each individual and for all people that we never get enslaved again, get our rights and freedoms trampled again. Because everything begins with small things: today they close a newspaper, tomorrow this can lead to the massive loss of human rights, freedoms and even lives. The "important" or "not" categories do not exist in these issues. Obviously, is that out of the top Ukrainian politicians only Yushchenko was able to make such decisions today.
Probably there was no time to rehabilitate Bandera and Shushkevych, too, in the minds of Ukrainian citizens, who know of them just what the Soviet propaganda used to say. It look like Yushchenko was not scared to be misunderstood even by his own fellow citizens. Does he live on his own wavelength?
M. S. Maybe this is where his grandeur lies in? People often say he should have become president in the future, because he was seriously ahead of his time and Ukrainian society in many of his approaches.
What in your opinion is Yushchenko’s main achievement?
M. S. President Yushchenko has done a lot to make Ukraine a more European country. Another thing is that building up the state is not only up to the president, but both the government and parliament should play their roles. Unfortunately, Yushchenko did not have a majority in that parliament and as a consequence did not have a likeminded person as head of the government. The main thing is that Yushchenko returned the national spirit to Ukraine, which is crucial for the nation. He returned Ukrainian nation the sense of self-esteem, originality, identity, equality with other nations. It would be recognized to the full, only later. And the fact that Viktor Yanukovych wore Ukrainian embroidered shirts and the fact that Yulia Tymoshenko was wearing Ukrainian-style attire is an accomplishment of Yushchenko. By the way it was not Tymoshenko that made Ukrainian fashion internationally popular, as is commonly believed, but Kateryna Yushchenko. And I am proud that modern Ukrainian fashion looks pretty elegant. Take a look at the fashion collections by Kenzo, Dior, Chanel and others beginning with 2005, they all use the elements of Ukrainian embroidery and other our motifs. Actually, we have remembered that we originally a European nation with our own traditions. Perhaps, Ukraine is one of the oldest nations in the world. All of this was raised to a higher level during the presidency of Victor Yushchenko. We should keep what we have already purchased.
We have a third of the country below the poverty line and a handful of oligarchs at the top. Others are forced to break their backs just to feel like decent human beings. This is the economic impact of the national president and professional finance expert, isn’t it?
M. S. Well, one can not say that the economic situation has worsened only in Ukraine. There is a global crisis. Unfortunately, our branches of government did not want to work jointly to overcome it. We had all understood that the economic crisis is a challenge that allows politicians to unite. There was plenty of work for everybody. This was discussed by both presidential candidates in the run-off debates.
Unfortunately, the situation with President Yushchenko´s team and its management got complicated. In order such president as Yushchenko, who thinks in global categories, to be a success, there should be prepared and pragmatic team that knows the direction and knows how to move along that path. Because in fact the task of the president is to set the direction of development and the realization of a goal, while its achievement is the task of his team. It seems to me that Yushchenko has a problem with it and I think he desperately tried to tackle it. Initially, he sincerely tried to unite everyone. After all, the President´s team is not only the members of his secretariat, but the lawmakers, the premier, the government members and the leaders at the local level. When they say that these 5 years are lost to Ukraine, this is not true. During these 5 years the country has acquired indispensable experience. It is from these positions should we consider 5 years of Yushchenko´s presidency. In fact, there has been done a lot. I am not in any way try to detract things made by the two previous presidents. At the time of Leonid Kravchuk Ukrainian state has been established, while Leonid Kuchma resolved issues to overcome the gravest crisis of 1994, it was he who led the country then. Viktor Yushchenko has breathed the spirit into Ukrainian nation and set the agenda of Ukraine’s European future.
Printable version
