ALI article for “Ukrainska Pravda”
When Nestor Shufrych, (still) MP, was accused of treason and subsequently lost the position as Chair of the Committee on Freedom of Speech, the matter arose within the parliament once again: what should be done with the committee, which was hardly distinguished by law-making activities throughout the entire IX convocation, and where only three deputies remained? Should it be liquidated? Or, reorganised and merged with another committee? Or, perhaps, it should stay as is?
Let’s review different political outcomes for the committee.
How did the committee perform during the IX convocation?
During this time, only three draft laws were elaborated by the Committee on Freedom of Speech. Of them, all were assigned after the beginning of the full-scale invasion. That is, it has the lowest workload of all the committees of the Verkhovna Rada of the ninth convocation. Its quantitative composition also appears reasonable – only three MPs, the smallest number among the other committees.
According to the transcripts, during the first four meetings of the committee in 2022 (i.e., all of the meetings before the full-scale invasion), each time one of the issues raised was the “illegal” restrictions on the media of pro-Russian politicians, “NASH” and “Ukraine Public News,” (owned by Muraiev and Medvedchuk, respectively) In fact, primarily due to Shufrych being the chair of this committee, it morphed into a mouthpiece for pro-Russian forces, which were able to express once again their remorse for the “persecutions” that had been afflicted upon them.
And how did it perform before?
Looking back, the situation during the eighth convocation is completely different. At that time, the committee was known as the Committee on Freedom of Speech and Information Policy and worked much more actively. The number of elaborated laws was much higher – 109. The committee’s composition was also distinct; at the commencement of the eighth convocation, it consisted of a total of 10 MPs.
Why was there such a drastic weakening of the committee? The issue is associated with modifications made at the start of the ninth convocation. The Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy (a similar committee was called the Committee on Culture and Spirituality in the eighth convocation) was given a broader scope of competence. This happened because of two other committees: the Committee on Freedom of Speech and Information Policy and the Committee on Family, Youth, Sports, and Tourism.
The Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy has the most members, just as the highest number of elaborated laws – 186.
Why did this re-distribution happen?
The reason for the redistribution of the committee’s scope of competence could be a purely political decision.Chairing committees has always been a subject of political agreements.
Consequently, during the ninth convocation, OPZZh, an apparently pro-Russian party, received the second-largest faction in the Rada. This faction also possesses a means of exerting influence, as they have also submitted applications for positions in committees. The reluctance to give such an important political resource as the chairmanship of committees to the most toxic faction makes it seem logical to redistribute the scope of competence and give the weaker committee to the OPZZh as part of the general desire of the Servant of the People party to concentrate as much influence as possible in its hands.
The current Committee on Youth and Sports suffered the same fate. No wonder that it is chaired by the MP from the minority faction – “Batkivshchyna.” The complete picture becomes apparent when one considers who was appointed as the Chair of the Committee for Humanitarian and Information Policy in 2019. And this is Oleksandr Tkachenko, a man from the ranks of the Servant of the People party who will later become the Minister of Culture and Information Policy.
It is important to improve the balance between committees and ministries. Such reorganisation of the scope of expertise resulted in the emergence of a further issue pertaining to the control mechanism. Aspreviously statedby the Agency, the distribution in the form of “one ministry – one committee” is the best approach for ensuring the highest level of quality performance of the oversight function. In this particular instance, it is evident to each ministry which committee to communicate with and to which to report. The decision to divide the committee duties, however, has led to a dispersion of its oversight function – the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy now has to be accountable to a certain extent to four committees. This has a detrimental impact on both the Ministry’s performance (as the burden increases and coordination deteriorates) and the efficacy of committee oversight.
So, what is next?
We now find ourselves at the cross roads: what should we do with such a committee? There are several options. There were suggestions to liquidate the committee altogether or to merge it with another committee. Despite theassertionsof opposition figures that this would be a “victory of censorship,” such “censorship” may not extend beyond mere assertions.The Committee on Freedom of Speech now has such a limited scope of powers that its nullification will have little impact on the actual situation. But this does not mean that the Committee on Freedom of Speech should be put out of commission.
Another option is to give the chairmanship to one of the other opposition factions. Each faction deserves to chair at least one of the committees, as we alreadyestimatedat the beginning of the ninth convocation using the D’Hondt method. There is only one faction that does not have this privilege, and that is the Voice faction. Nonetheless,such a modification will not address the primary issue, as the Committee on Freedom of Speech will continue to be constrained in its workload. Three laws were elaborated during the entire ninth convocation, which is a telling indicator.
Another way to address the problem is to go back to the scope of competence that was distributed during the eighth convocation. However, there is one caveat: Servant of the People party currently does not preside over three of the 23 committees. Two of them got fewer powers than in the previous convocation. So, will there be a political will to balance the capacity of various committees? This could have a negative impact on the coalition in power.
Political will or death (of the Committee)
The Committee on Freedom of Speech is one of the least effective in this convocation. Dismissing or changing its chair does not address the problem that arose during this convocation.In order to attain a genuine resolution,it is imperative to possess the political will to revert to the circ*mstances of the eighth convocation, when the coalition did not hold such a dominant influence in the committees of the Verkhovna Rada. Until this happens, the Committee on Freedom of Speech will remain one of the least busy committees of the Rada.
