Parliament rejects vote on Zelenskiy election amendments

Ukraine’s parliament didn’t muster enough votes to
include in its agenda a bill submitted by President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to
amend the election code. The most important amendment arranged for electing
parliament entirely based on closed party lists, replacing the current system
in which half the seats are determined by single-mandate districts, and the
other half by closed lists (in which voters select parties, but not individual
candidates). Another amendment arranged for reducing the qualifying threshold
to 3% from 5%. The motion to review the bill drew only 92 MPs in support (out
of 226 needed). A second legislative item, a bill on public procurement, drew
only 127 MPs in support, which would have arranged for printing election
ballots without a time-consuming tender.

In his response posted on Facebook, Zelenskiy implied
that the parliamentary elections would be held based on the current system
(half of MPs elected by single-mandate districts, half by closed party lists).
“The old politicians have chosen the old system because only it can give them a
chance to extend their political life,” Zelenskiy wrote. “They are counting on
money and buckwheat to climb back to the Verkhovna Rada again. But I am
convinced that they are mistaken and even in single-mandate districts, you will
choose new politicians capable of changing the country not with words, but with
actions.”

Zenon Zawada: Zelenskiy
proposed the election system that suits him best, so it’s no surprise that it
found resistance in parliament. Lowering the threshold was intended to entice
some parties to support the bill. Yet it was not enough incentive since they
are well aware that Zelenskiy not only will form the parliamentary coalition,
but his party’s result could be so strong that he won’t need any other faction
to form the next government.

The failed vote is no tragedy for Zelenskiy, whose party
will get strong results regardless of the election system employed. (See the
poll figures published in today’s Daily). If single-mandate districts are in
place, he could have less control of his MPs but gain just as many, if not
more. The better outcome, though, is if they are eliminated, in which case he
will gain more control over his MPs and still have powerful local businessmen –
who would have otherwise competing in single-mandate districts – eager to have
some say in the new coalition government as part of his party.