Talk:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

metadiscussion

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Formation of the ruling Coalition

Format of ruling coalition

Title is wrongly phrased and does not reflect the content of published this section most certainly need review ad citations added or statement removed (see NPOV policy).

Suggested modification

Parliament 2007 following the announcement of preliminary election results, winning parties who received over 3% of the vote expressed their position on forming a coalition.

The Party of Regions as the highest polling party and indicated that it started negotiations on forming a ruling coalition. [citation needed] The party did not express the desire to be in opposition. Yulia Tymoshenko's Bloc proposed a coalition with Our Ukraine and possibly Lytvyn's Bloc.[citation needed] Yulia Tymoshenko expressed opposition against forming a coalition with the Party of Regions or the Communists.[citation needed] Yulia Tymoshenko indicted that her Bloc would be in opposition should a coalition between Our Ukraine ad Party of Regions is formed.[citation needed] Ukraine's President, Victor Yushchenko, called for a better relationship between coalition and opposition.[citation needed] "This should be achieved by providing the opposition with posts in the parliament and the government." [citation needed] Vladimir Lytvyn's Bloc had received proposals from all top parties on forming a coalition.[citation needed] but has to date decided to remain unaligned and independent Leaders of the Bloc have stated that their decision will be made at the party's assembly.

Yulia Tymoshenko, following the formation of a coalition between the Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko and Our Ukraine–People's Self-Defense Bloc was subsequently elected prime-minster in December 2007. [3].

By law, the parliament requires two thirds of deputies to be elected active. If 151 or more members of parliament resign their mandate and the associated party faction cancels its electoral list the parliament would become incompetent and unable to function. (Article 82 Ukraine's Constitution)

Oleksandr Moroz leader of the Socialist Party of Ukraine, whose party fell 0.14% short of the 3% representation threshold in the September poll, indicated his support for Tymoshenko's bid to be appointed prime-minster.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

[edit] Political crisis

Associated main article: 2007 Ukrainian political crisis

There was an eight-month power struggle between the president and the parliament leading up to the dissolution of parliament.[1] Clashes between the governing Coalition of National Unity and the opposition represtig Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko and Our Ukraine with the support of the President Viktor Yushchenko resulted in the opposition frequently blocking of the parliaments tribune, boycotting the parliament's plenary sessions and their eventual mass resignation of their representative mandate and registered electoral lists.

In the lead-up to the crisis several members of the Opposition parties supported the ruling coalition. Victor Yushenko expressed concern that if a sufficient number of members of the opposition defected, the governing coalition could have secured a two-thirds constitutional majority' that could override The President's right of veto and provide limited opportunity to modify provisons of Ukraine's Constitution. On April 2, 2007, Vickor Yushchenko decreed the dissolution of the Verkhovna Rada. The crisis that followed included the dismissal and reinstatement of Constitutional Court Justices and the Prosecutor General. Elections were postponed from May 27, 2007, and again June 24, 2007.

The main political forces eventually settled on the holding of fresh parliamentary elections September 30, 2007.

The authority and legality of the president to dismiss Ukraine's previous parliament has been challenged in Ukraine's Constitutional Court..[2] [3] The Constitutional Court, following the intervention by the president and his illegal dismissal of three Constitutional Court Judges in May 2007, has not ruled on the constitutionality and authority of the president's actions[4][5][6][7][8][9]

[edit] Court rules Yushenko's dismissel and interfernec in the Consitutional Court illegal

News reported to day is that Ukraine's supreame court has ruled illegal the Presidnets dismissle of Ukraione's Consitutional Court Judge. I would not be surprised if there are calls for |Yushenko tto resign as his actions and interfernace in the Court is a direct breach his responsibility and oath as his actions are also unconsitutional. Rulke of Law p[revials in Ukraine (be it some what late). http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/112528.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdaydo (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 graphs

Maybe you should remove the 2006 graphs as they also use a different scale for each of the major and minor parties. we could if you like scale the major parties 1:100 and the minor parties 1:1000 ad show the percentage of the total vote for each regions. That would remove the regional percentage distortion. But there is no way around the having the same scale for both major and minor parties whilst still retaining readability.

[edit] Elections in Ukraine

Is it a good idea to dump the folowing chapters too Elections in Ukraine?
Exit polls
Election time line
Registered parties and blocs
Also the same chapters of the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2006 move to there? There is no mentioning of exit polls in the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004.... If there was something wrong with it (I can't tell) it shouldn't be there... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should leave them. We could only dump the registered parties if you add the number of candidates in the template and make an appropriate comment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm for keeping those too. Elections in Ukraine suppose to provide more general information, while the details should be kept here. --Greggerr (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early Parliamentary Elections expected soon as members of President's party resign on mass to start new party

Members of the president's political party Our Ukraine have resigned their mandate i order to set up a new political party. the mass resignation indicates serious rift in the new governing coalition and a loss of confidence in Yulia Tymoshchenko's and Yushchenko's leadership. the members that have recently withdrawn from our Ukraine are the same members who were the cause for the collapse of the orange coalition in 2006. It is expected that the President may soon call for early Presidential elections ad once they are out of the way ad Ukraine has undertaken further constitutional reform and Ukraine reverts back to a Presidential Autocracy Yulia Tymoshenko;s government will be dismissed once again by the president. Fresh elections are expected to be held later this year. Ukraine is now more political unstable then it was prior to the president's unconstitutional dismissal of the parliament last year.

2008 Ukrainian political crisis would be the place for this. PS 6 people is a "the mass resignation"[1]? PS 2 How's the weather in Donesk? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Todate 7 have resigned (10%)with more expected. Maybe you have not read the various informed commentary on events unfolding. Try the Jamestown. A US think tanks organistaion desinged to destabelise this region, YUSHCHENKO LOOKS TO GRAND COALITION TO REPLACE TYMOSHENKO By Taras Kuzio. http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372866 ad foriegnotes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdaydo (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Providing a NPOV and factual information

This section .. Early in 2007, several members of the opposition defected to the ruling coalition.[10] If more defected, the Coalition of National Unity might have built a two-thirds majority, empowering the parliament to override the president's right of veto and enabling the parliament to initiate limited constitutional changes should read.

Early in 2007, several members of the opposition indicated their support of the ruling coalition. If sufficient numbers of members of parliament supported the government, the Coalition of National Unity could have secured a two-thirds majority, empowering the parliament to override the president's right of veto and enabling the parliament to initiate limited constitutional changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdaydo (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Be reasonable. It's groundless to claim that your interpretation is NPOV and "some media" like BBC News provide POV. Did several members of the opposition "indicate their support of the ruling coalition", or did they actually join the coalition? Please cite reliable sources.
BBC News writes: Mr Yushchenko dissolved parliament on 2 April on the grounds that the ruling coalition was trying to boost its power by accepting defectors from the opposition and forces which backed the president. --Greggerr (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am very much trying to be reasonable. The April ad May decrees were revoked. Te allegation of Yushchenko are just that allegations. There was no defection. No one changed parties/factions ad remained a member of parliament. NOT ONE There is nothing in the constitution that prevents members of the opposition from supporting the government or opposition. It happens all the time and it happened on last Friday. All as your doing is promoting a partisan allegation, that is not factual, based on a decree that was revoked ad did not come into force Again it was an allegation (That was what the court challenge was about (Another line you have removed i your partisan attack of vandalism).. Just because Yushchenko claimed wrongly in his first decree (Which again I reminded he revoked) that the allegation is correct does not make it fact. Maybe you did not follow closely the events of 2007. This was the whole basis of the final decree ad the agreements. The parliament could only be dissolved o teh basis of Article 82 and required the formal resignation of the opposition and the cancellation of their electoral list. Sorry you are falsely pushing a partition no NPOV.
  • Please do not alter the leading statement above the regional table the one you installed is not good/correct English.

Kurtdaydo (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please become familiar with Alliance of National Unity. Since it's formation - it [was some members of Our Ukraine and BYuT who took obligations support Yanukovich. Read here. Alliance was formed in violation of Constitution and they continued to expand it but latter admitted it was wrong on April 6, 2007. --TAG (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am very much familiar with the various parties and the specious claims being made by both sides, thank you. Yes there was a undertaking of support BUT that is not a defection. They never resigned or were expelled from the faction that elected them. Had they resigned or been expelled they would have lost their mandate (The Imperative mandate rule). The basis of the election held in 2007 was the resignation of 150+ members of parliament as per the agreement signed on May 27. In short Yushenko stuffed up big time and then was forced to have to strike a compromise. Yulia Tymoshenko first prosed they force early elections by members of the opposition tendering their resignation BUT Our Ukraine was under the belief that they could force the election on other grounds, grounds that proved to have no foundation. Thus the agreement on May 27 reverting back to Yulia's first proposal. The resignations did not take place until August. First came the agreement, the the resignations then the final decree. There is no ground to dismiss Ukraine's parliament on the ba one members of the opposition supporting the government. Yushchenko and the media used the word defection as an emotive partisan allegation, an allegation that was never verified or sanctioned as being true. WP:NPOV demands that we stick to the facts and not portray partisan allegations as being facts when they are not. I repeat there was on defection, that was not the basis of the final decree of the election held on September 30. I provided a link to the context of the final agreement, signed on May 27, which was the basis of the 2007 parliamentary election held on September 30 (In English)... please read it. http://en.for-ua.com/news/2007/05/29/101029.html Kurtdaydo (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2008 sis of(UTC)
Yushchenko's 3rd degree was a compromise done in order to deny Alliance argumentation on validity of initial degree. By basing it on "150 deputies resigned" instead of "attempts to usurp powers" - it discard all Alliance arguments. As by-product Yushchenko got right to dissolve parliament again without waiting 1 year. You are welcome to edit article as you see best. --TAG (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Politics is the art of compromise. Wikipeadia is not here to rewrite history or be a partisan propaganda publication. I know what I think happened. Yushchenko was looking for any excuse he could to call fresh elections to once again put his party back in the drivers seat. He basically stuffed up. Yulia had the right idea and that was to do it constitutionally - thus the resignations. The previous excuses of defection by Yushchenko would not have held water as it was most certainly was going to be thrown out by the Constitutional Court as being illegal. To avoid that he interfered in the operation of the courts in order to prevent the courts from ruling against him. Facts are facts. Whilst Yushchenko made an allegation in the media of usurping power (It was also alleged that Yushchenko was usurping power from the parliament) and also claimed defection the fact reamins that not one member of the opposition deputies resigned or changed parties. A vote and indication of support for government initiatives does not constitute defection and as such is not a breach of Ukraine's constitution (It happens in a democracy all the time - members vote for and against - and not always as a solid block, on various motions and initiatives). Ukraine's constitution is clear in that a member can not change membership of the party banner in which that they were elected. Again no member resigned or changed parties and maintained their mandates. There was no defection as such. You can mention the allegation but you must also then mention the fact that no-one defected. I think the current version is correct and brief. The article is about the election. The election was held in accordance with negotiated agreement and the final decree. (I think it was his fourth or fifth to be more precise) previous decrees were superceeded (And as such were also withdrawn from the Constitutional court, although that is not fully clear as the judgement made was in part only).