Yesterday, the Verkhovna Rada approved the presidential law on restoring the powers of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. During the vote, the MPs demonstrated an unprecedented unanimity and even exceeded the constitutional majority of 300 votes – the bill received the support of 330 parliamentarians. However, as UNN managed to find out by talking to several representatives of the "Servant of the People" faction, somewhat different processes were and continue to take place behind the scenes, which may indicate both an intensification of the parliamentary crisis and cast doubt on the unanimous support of the head of state from among the "servants."
Even the day before, a figure of 70 "disagreeing" MPs from the pro-presidential faction appeared, who allegedly did not plan to support the presidential bill on restoring the institutional integrity of anti-corruption bodies. This information was published by The Financial Times. As the vote showed, this figure was clearly exaggerated. At the same time, another position appeared in the media, voiced by people's deputies in informal conversations – "we will vote for this presidential bill, but after that – without us."
In addition, as RBC-Ukraine writes, some MPs considered themselves victims and put forward conditions.
In particular, a number of "servants" wanted to receive some "guarantees" that NABU and SAP, which regained their powers, would not "catch up" with them later. (...) Among other voiced wishes were: coordination with majoritarians on appointments and dismissals of heads of local administrations, constant meetings of the president with the faction, personal presentation of important bills, etc.
From wishes to action
Yesterday, before the plenary session, the "Servants of the People" held a faction meeting. As one of UNN's interlocutors said, after the faction meeting, it became clear that the wishes or even demands of the MPs had not disappeared. On the contrary, they had crystallized.
Currently, clear steps and bills are already being discussed, which MPs want to put to a vote in the near future to strengthen the role of parliament.
One of the main initiatives that MPs plan to implement is interpellation, which is a form of control over the activities of the executive branch. In a general sense, it is an MP's appeal to the government or its representative with a specific question, after the discussion of which a corresponding resolution is adopted. In practice, this can be implemented as follows: MPs invite government representatives to parliament so that officials or one specific official can explain their policy, certain documents, or actions. Members of parliament can ask questions to officials or hold debates based on the results of a government member's speech. Sometimes, as a result of such debates, parliament can express a vote of no confidence, which may be followed by dismissal from office.
Currently, MPs have such a tool as a deputy's request and the procedure for considering the response to it. However, interpellation can provide MPs with broader opportunities to influence government officials.
It is noteworthy that back in 2020, a bill on interpellation was submitted to parliament, but it was withdrawn from consideration.
Another issue that MPs are discussing is the disregard by representatives of the executive branch for meetings of parliament, committees, and temporary investigative commissions. Parliamentarians propose to strengthen responsibility for non-appearance at them.
It is expected that such initiatives by MPs may face opposition from other branches of government. And here the question arises - how far can the deputies go?