I would accept any prime minister whose candidature is offered by the President and supported by Parliament. I hope the new head of government is a professional, and I hope we will have a coalition government. I stress: coalition, not factional.

Yushchenko is obviously facing a very difficult task: it’s not easy to satisfy the ambitions of all his allies, let alone the host of those “clingfish”, who are surely counting on some dividends as well.

Everybody knows about your good personal relations with Poroshenko. If two such experienced and cunning politicians cooperate, the new President may hardly have much real power in his hands…

Let me take the epithet “cunning” as a compliment, although many regard it almost as a diagnosis. I don’t think I’m a cunning politician. If I was, I’d probably have more political opportunities today.

Yes, I have a good relationship with Poroshenko, as with the other 448 members of parliament. The future prime minister is almost certainly one of them, so I think I’ll be able to establish a normal official contact with him.

And as to the narrowed presidential competence, we can discuss it only when the constitutional amendments take effect. And that will happen in mid May of 2006, at best, under a new parliament and a new government.

Time will show how effectively the President, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker can manage their resources. But I am sure that everyone will be up to their ears in work this year and next.

A new government is going to be formed within a few days. How long do you think it will last? Will it rely on a strong majority in Parliament?

The majority is sure to be situational. It can’t be otherwise when a parliament is not structured politically. I hope there is no longer the need to create an artificial parliamentary structure, to force members of parliament to subscribe to it and make a written pledge of allegiance. Hopefully, the method of material stimulation will be done away with.

During the next session, the government is very likely to enjoy strong support in Parliament. This period will be kind of a “honeymoon” for the new President and the new Cabinet. There are all the prerequisites for effective cooperation among the parliament, the central government, and the head of state. They have to make the most of these months, and take as many strategic steps as possible. It’s naive to expect the eighth session to be efficient, as it will precede a pre-election campaign. The pre-election period will be traditionally marked by criticism against the executive government and by attempts to pass bills on increased social security allowances. I don’t think the government will be happy.

Do you mean there is still a risk of the government’s resignation before the 2006 parliamentary election?

Quite the contrary: many factions will be interested in preserving it. Before and during election campaigns, it is politically profitable to criticize the government. But if the lawmakers sack the Cabinet, they will have to assume the responsibility for forming a new one. I think very few factions will be ready to take such a step before the election campaign.

The new government’s fate is in its own hands. If the Cabinet does its job well, it will be in place until the 2006 parliamentary election. But it will be confronted with many challenges. Formation of a new system of executive government is a complicated, long, and painful process. At some moment there might be temporary disorganization, and we have to be ready for such a period. Besides, the degree of popular expectations is high as never before, and it is simply impossible fully to live up to such expectations. The Cabinet will have to take unpopular steps, which will inevitably show in the people’s attitude to the President. A number of parliamentary factions will have pretexts for criticizing him. But that’s the sad lot of any government - to endure criticism and keep working according to plan.

You have just said that during the seventh session the President and the Cabinet will rely on the parliamentary majority. Do you think they will have much less support during the eighth session?

Let me say again that the majority is going to be situational. Firstly, many groupings will be criticizing some particular steps rather than opposing the general course pursued by the President and Government. Secondly, some factions will only be declaring their opposition, playing by the rules of the pre-election game.

Will the faction of the Popular Agrarian Party play by these rules?

The Agrarians’ position has been and will be constructive, pragmatic, and well-weighed. In these hard days, this faction has been demonstrating its firmness, consistency, and viability.

And it’s got a real chance to beef up its ranks. There are fifty non-partisan MPs. As far as we know, more than a dozen of them would like to join the PAP faction. What do you say to this possibility as the leader of the Popular Agrarian Party?

I am against a sharp increase in the faction’s numerical strength, because it may lead to unhealthy competition and a conflict of ambitions when the election race starts. I don’t expect this faction to number more than forty members. That’s an optimal number for a mobile and efficient faction.

Is it true that your party may change its name soon? Some say that only the word “Popular” will remain in the name. Others allege that Lytvyn and his team are planning to “acquire” the brand of the Popular Democratic Party…

The name must correspond to the party’s principles and reflect its national character. The name of our party does need to be corrected, and this issue is on the agenda of our next congress. I am convinced that the ideology of this party must be built on the ideology of land - in the broadest sense of the word.

The Razumkov Center has recently made a survey of public attitudes to Ukrainian political parties. The Popular Agrarian Party scored a mere 0.2 percent. But when the interviewers reminded the respondents who was its leader, its popularity rating grew up to 3.5 percent. However, Volodymyr Lytvyn’s personal rating is a lot higher. Is it possible to raise the authority of your party at the expense of your personal authority?

I think this party is authoritative enough. Maybe it’s not so widely advertised as other organizations. But I don’t think it’s a serious disadvantage. The people are just too tired of the same old politicians and slogans. They want to see new faces and new deeds. That’s why 2006 may become a year of disillusionment for some apparently self-sufficient parties and a year of ascent for some political forces that don’t seem to be anything special today.

Do you think it is necessary to raise the standard of requirements for these political forces and raise the “election threshold” for them from 3 percent to 5 percent?

There are such proposals, but I don’t think they are expedient. In my opinion, if the parliamentary elections were held now, even the three-percent threshold would be too high for most political forces and only five of them would make it to the parliament. We won’t achieve much by raising the “passing score”.

And if we should talk about changes, we need to modernize the election law, which turned out to be very imperfect. We have to correct all mistakes. We also need a principally new law on elections to local self-governments. The current one leaves much to be desired.

What would you change in the law on parliamentary elections, first of all?

I would change the approach to the procedure of drawing up the rating representation lists. Each political party should draw up a register of 450 persons and assign each of them to a particular constituency. It could ease tension within the parties: no one would elbow his way to the top section of the list. Besides, party structures would have an influx of authoritative regional leaders, there would be new names. Eventually, the Parliament would have an inflow of “fresh blood”. And finally, the links between voters and their elected representatives, between localities and the center would not be lost.

Some of our laws are far from perfect. But even the most perfect legal act is useless if it is broken grossly and deliberately. The Constitution and other laws were transgressed most brazenly during this presidential election campaign. Do the violators deserve a severe punishment as a show trial?

Those who grossly violated the law, abusing their authority, must answer for everything they did. That must be a warning to anyone else against the temptation to use the same methods. But this issue is very ticklish, and it needs a lot of caution. Otherwise, the triumph of law might become a prelude to mass reprisals.

“Lustration” is the word of the day. But if we start that mechanism, we risk leaving this country headless. We may simply have an uncontrolled witch hunt, which is a convenient way for certain people to square accounts and drown competitors.

Do you think a person who occupied a high position and deliberately broke the law has any moral right to stay in office?

No, I don’t think so.

A number of well-known politicians and influential officials are suspected of involvement in gross violations during the presidential campaign. Do you expect anyone of them to be jailed?

If you want my honest opinion, I expect to see most of those who are under fire today in high positions or very close to them tomorrow. They may not gain much, but I’m sure they won’t lose a thing. They’ll just find a way to get off easy.

Presidential elections always involve conflicts among elites. This conflict was aggravated by intrigues, in which our elites got bogged down too deeply. Apart from the official system of deterrence and counterweights, this country had a shadow one, which finally legalized itself. Today this system is breaking down, and this process is going to be very painful but, hopefully, irreversible.

Some people still want to use the old and far from noble methods for achieving new and noble goals. There is a temptation to remake laws in the interests of certain elite groups, a temptation to “arrange” the parliament up to the president’s or the government’s interests.

The most effective preventive means would be a strong influence on the leadership by the nascent civil society and real freedom of expression.

So do you support the idea of creating a public television and a public radio on the basis of the national TV and radio companies?

Yes, I do. I know that there are already very good projects, and they will be considered very soon. I am all for making this process maximally public and transparent. I am against any monopolization of the mass media. Besides, the national frequency resources have to be reviewed very thoroughly. For example, if the military don’t use some frequencies effectively, it is expedient to sell such frequencies by auction and so widen opportunities for creating new television and radio companies.

You say you are against “arranging” the parliament up to anyone’s interests. How persistently did the Presidential Administration try to “arrange” the Verkhovna Rada during the presidential race? How serious was the conflict between Volodymyr Lytvyn and Viktor Medvedchuk?

I wouldn’t describe the confrontation as a conflict between Lytvyn and Medvedchuk only. The President [Kuchma] wanted to boss the parliament around, and later the Prime Minister [Yanukovych] made the same attempts. I think I managed not to let them trample me down, though they tried very hard to suppress me, even with the help of the SBU [the Security Service of Ukraine].

Why do you insist so strongly on reforming the law enforcement structures?

If even the Speaker of Parliament doesn’t feel secure, how must a rank-and-file citizen feel?

These are nasty times. Every political-financial group has its own intelligence that shadows and eavesdrops on its opponents and competitors, using every permissible and impermissible means. During this election campaign, everyone eavesdropped on everyone. Laws were broken even by law enforcement organizations. We must put an end to this practice - immediately and resolutely.

Apropos the selective application of laws: why do some MPs who occupy executive positions being stripped of their MP mandates while others, ([Vice Prime Minister] Andrei Klyuyev, for example), enjoy their MP status, working in the government?

Cynics say that laws are written for fools and for smart ones there are supplementary notes. Many members of parliament, who combine their lawmaking work with executive positions, find ways to bypass the Constitution.

According to the regular procedure, the Rules Committee passes a relevant resolution and forwards the case to the Kyiv City Appellate Court. By the way, the case on stripping Andrei Klyuyev of his MP mandate is now in the court.

Many observers believe that his recent patron Viktor Yanukovych is looking for ways to obtain a mandate. Do you think Yanukovych has serious political prospects?

Yanukovych has not become a national leader; probably, he just fell short of time for a takeoff. He hasn’t been accepted by the Kyiv elite. Yanukovych comes from the region that shapes politicians of a definite psychological type. Such politicians normally look for simple ways and are not ready for compromise solutions. Did you notice that no Ukrainian leaders have ever came from the Donetsk region? I think it’s not accidental.

Yanukovych has to take a sober look at things and make certain conclusions. As the leader of the Party of Regions, he has good political prospects. But he may as well lose them someday. A lot depends on Yanukovych himself. If he sticks to the course of confrontation, one day he will find himself alone, without his allies. After all, they have too much to lose… A radical like Yanukovych, whose policy is affixed to a specific region, will have no big political future.

What about the future of the Social Democratic Party and its leader?

The SDPU(U) is a political reality now and in the near future. It’s hard to say anything concrete so far. In this country, political parties have been designed by “personality” patterns, so their future largely depends on the fates of their leaders.

What is Medvedchuk’s fate?

It depends on many circumstances, primarily on Medvedchuk’s own position. In any case, I wouldn’t say it’s all over with the Social Democrats.

So you don’t rule out that the Social Democrats will be represented in the future parliament?

What I can definitely forecast now is that some factions will break up into smaller ones. I expect that the Regions party will split in two. Possibly, the Our Ukraine bloc will transform into a group of factions.

What is the purpose of such transformations?

Supposing, five factions emerge from Our Ukraine. Then they will have five speakers instead of one during debates on issues that are important for the new president and government. So the chances to persuade the rest of the house will increase fivefold.

Besides, some political forces that are aligned in the Our Ukraine bloc may want to run for parliament separately. Then they ought to be interested in having their own factions.

You have said the parliament needs fresh blood. There is a widespread opinion that the abolition of MP immunity could make the supreme legislative body more professional, because professional politicians would take the place of the businessmen who use their MP mandates as bullet-proof vests.

I think it’s too early to raise the issue of abolition of MP immunity. It’s a matter for the distant future, I’m afraid. In the first place, we have to build a civilized state and a democratic society.

It’s really bad that energetic, enterprising people, who are proficient in practical economy, have to engage in parliamentary activities. It’s true that successful and influential businessmen very often regard an MP mandate as an instrument of protection against governmental arbitrariness. And we have to reckon with this reality. When the threat of the “state racket” is eliminated, then MP immunity can be lifted. And then businessmen might make way for jurists, economists, and political experts - the kind of specialists our parliament needs so badly today.

Up to twenty MPs are expected to assume posts in the central government soon. How seriously might this “migration” affect this parliament’s lawmaking capacity?

Yes, twenty or thirty MPs may leave the parliament very soon. But I don’t think these losses will affect on its viability, because its kernel will remain. However, there will be some difficulties. In a very short time the new MPs will have to integrate organically into the lawmaking process in a crucial period of the country’s history. It won’t be an easy job, even for those who have some previous parliamentary experience. And it will be two times more difficult for newcomers. On the other hand, the scale of the tasks the parliament is facing should be a good stimulus for them.

I can say without exaggeration that the parliament has played a colossal role. The decisions that were adopted on December 8 had great legal, political, and psychological effects. They pacified the public. It was the parliament that didn’t let the political confrontation grow into a systemic crisis. But I am convinced that this parliament has not completed its historic mission yet.

At present, the Verkhovna Rada is the only center of political influence in the state. The executive government is “semi-legitimate”, so to speak. Nevertheless, it is hurriedly selling and redistributing state property. Can the parliament check this process?

I don’t have detailed information on that score, but such rumors reach me. I think it’s time to put an end to these speculations as well as the temptation to get away with as much as hands can hold. I have issued a directive to draft a resolution banning any transfers of property and suspending all privatization processes until the new president takes office and the new Cabinet is formed. All deals and transactions carried out until then will be invalid.

At first we wanted to adopt a bill, but the procedure would have taken too long. And the parliament’s resolution has the force of a law and is equally binding. I’ve always said it.

You have also said many times that whatever the outcome of the election campaign, Leonid Kuchma as a political figure will retain a strong influence on many politicians. Has your point of view changed?

Yes, it has. My forecast was based on the fact that most leading politicians came from Kuchma’s team. But I imagined a civilized takeover procedure. What happened afterwards canceled out every positive thing connected with Kuchma’s name.

A lot of good things have been done during his presidency, and there have been as many problems. The recent events have added too much black …

I do regret that the Kuchma era ended the worst way it could.

Do you think there are grounds to accuse Kuchma of direct involvement in the falsifications during this presidential election?

I am deeply convinced that he was not involved. But he certainly must share the responsibility for what happened in this country. It wouldn’t have happened if his position during and after the [November 21] runoff had been more distinct and resolute. It was simply an outrage to have the Central Election Commission cordoned with iron fences, dump trucks with sand, armored vehicles, and riot police. Would they have guarded it so if there had been nothing to hide?

Someone must have thought that the war would write everything off. No, not everything, as it turned out…