Dmytro Makiyan
Lawyer ADER HABER
The Constitution of Ukraine directly and clearly stipulates that legislative decisions are made exclusively by people’s deputies of Ukraine by voting, which must be conducted in person. The importance of adhering to the principle of “personal voting” is emphasized by the fact that the results of voting for any legislative initiative can be revoked by proving the facts of “button-making” – because it is a direct violation of the Constitution of Ukraine. This is not only shameful, but also makes the entire legislative procedure unpredictable and vulnerable to manipulation.
So, any attempts of the people’s deputies to overcome such a shameful phenomenon are a positive signal.
Interestingly, a similar system (even more technically advanced) has been operating in the Kyiv City Council since 2015. How does it work? Very easy. When voting for a deputy, it is necessary to press the touch button on the left side of the system screen with the finger of one hand, and to press the corresponding button for selecting the voting option on the right side of the system screen with the finger of the other hand. Both buttons must be pressed continuously throughout the voting process for the relevant agenda item, starting a few seconds before the end of voting and completely during such completion. Otherwise, the vote will not be counted. Time, the example of the Kyiv City Council and the unsuccessful attempts of many to deceive the system (interestingly, it was the attempts to deceive the system that first came to the attention of so many) only confirmed the effectiveness of such a simple technical solution.
It is difficult to say who came up with such a simple and effective solution, but it is a fact that it was first proposed to use such a system in 2008. But its implementation was based on the principle “better late than never.”
Lawyers and many citizens will be interested to know: how is such an innovation envisaged by the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine? Answer: no changes have been made to the Regulation in this regard. Because the Rules of Procedure stipulate that voting should be conducted “in such a way that it is impossible for another person to vote instead of a People’s Deputy.” In this regard, amendments to the Regulations were simply not necessary. We can only hope that in the future the people’s deputies (perhaps the next convocation… or through one… and so on) will not think that the voting system has passed “and worked so well.” Such considerations are simply to the point that the establishment of a new way of voting within the Rules of Procedure would be quite appropriate and would guarantee the sustainability of the practice, which is positively assessed by society.
The probability of overcoming “button-pressing” with the help of the new system is high. Time will tell the exact answer. This is a positive signal that society welcomes. But it is worth recalling that during the eighth convocation of the parliament, the practice of submitting statements by people’s deputies about the “failure” of the voting system and changing the voting results was popular. The impact of such statements is political rather than legal, as there are no legal grounds to change the results of voting on such statements.
In my own opinion, if such statements appear, it will no longer indicate the “injustice” of the new system, but the desire to say “past and worked so well.”