Reform of the Institute of Local Referendum: Participation of Citizens in Governance. Report on the results of regional focus groups conducted

Within the framework of the project “Reform of the Institute of Local Referendum: Participation of Citizens in Governance”, the implementation of which in the Chernihiv region is carried out by the Polissya Fund of International and Regional Research, focus-group studies took place. The survey was attended by about 180 experts from 8 regions of Ukraine. For discussion in groups, a draft comments and recommendations of experts of the laboratory of legislative initiatives (LZI) to the Bill on Local Referendum No. 7082 were prepared. Among the main thematic blocks that LZi experts chose for public discussion were:

· Types of local referendums and their legal consequences;

· The role of the authorities in the process of initiating a local referendum;

· The presence or absence of a quorum to recognize the results of the referendum;

· The rules governing the supervision of the referendum;

· Information support and agitation;

· Availability of an effective mechanism of appeal;

· Financing.

During the focus groups, representatives of public organizations, political parties, experts, local deputies and representatives of the executive bodies were able to speak about one or another problematic aspect of the bill and the relevant recommendation, as well as to provide their proposals. Thus, on many issues of focus groups, the participants of the focus groups had dramatically opposite views (both in each particular group and compared to regions). However, there were also aspects for which the discussion was almost unheard of discussion.

In almost all groups, most participants agreed with the thesis that the results of the local referendum do not require additional approval of the local government body of the appropriate level. Also, “Refereed Referendum”, almost all participants suggested not put in no “imperative” and “advisory”, but in a separate article to prescribe an appropriate procedure in case of recognition of a local referendum invalid.

The rule on the availability and advisory referendum was evaluated quite ambiguously, since its results may not be taken into account when deciding the council of the appropriate level. In addition, the bill does not provide for the demarcation of an imperative and advisory referendum on the subject. Thus, this type of referendum, under modern conditions, becomes a “expensive” miracle of the survey. “

Also, the position of the draft law on the higher decision/regulatory act adopted in a local referendum was not unanimously supported. The problem is that this provision significantly complicates the hierarchy of normative legal acts, and can generally block the work of the council of the appropriate level. On the other hand, this provision logically follows from the norm of the Constitution: “The bearer of sovereignty and the sole source of power in Ukraine is the people. The people exercise power directly and through public authorities and local self -government bodies. “

As a compromise, LZi experts have proposed a compromise option that is practiced in some European countries. Thus, the decisions of the imperative local referendum have the same legal force as the normative legal acts of local self-government bodies of the appropriate level, but the authorities cannot cancel or amend the relevant act/decision of the imperative local referendum for a certain period (eg 4-5 years). In this case, the decisions of the local referendum do not require approval by local self -government bodies, and automatically acquire force from the moment of announcement of the results of the referendum (unless otherwise provided in the decision itself).

The most positive participants of the focus of groups evaluated the novella of the bill, according to which the initiative group is registered not in the local government body of the appropriate level (as prescribed in the de jure law), but in the territorial commission. This attitude is due to the fact that in the practice of participants who had experience in this procedure, the registration itself became the biggest obstacle.

Another discussion was how the initiative group should be created and registered. The bill provides for the same “two -level model” as the Law “On All -Ukrainian and Local Referendums”. Initially, a general meeting of citizens (in accordance with the norms specified in the Law) must be held, and in the second stage, on the basis of the submitted documents, the group is registered by the territorial election commission.

In the Ukrainian realities, this model causes the most problems, since on the basis of the inconsistency of the submitted documents the subject of registration (in the current law – the Council of the appropriate level) may refuse to register the initiative group. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the procedure of general meetings of citizens (in accordance with the Law on Local Self -Government in Ukraine) should be prescribed in the statutes of territorial communities. However, not all communities (cities) have statutes, and if they are, they do not necessarily contain appropriate prescriptions.

In addition, working in focus groups reflected the overall atmosphere of distrust of implementation of local referendums. On the one hand, public figures are seen in the excessive regulation of the initiation procedure additional additional obstacles and the reluctance of the authorities to listen to the opinion of citizens; On the other hand, experts and policies have some reservations about the excessively simplified registration of the initiative group: under such conditions, the political process can turn into a continuous procedure for the preparation and conduct of a local referendum, or the referendum will use opposition forces to destabilize the situation.

Thus, given all the opinions and remarks, LZi experts consider it necessary to simplify the mechanism of formation of the initiative group. However, it is necessary to maintain the norm for the involvement of local self -government bodies in the process of organization and holding a local referendum, in parallel by regulating the issues of responsibility of officials responsible for the organization and conduct of local referendums, for unlawful actions or omissions in the process of registration of an initiative group and organization of a local referendum.

Also, focus groups supported the proposal to anticipate the mechanism of consultation of initiative groups so that the issues made to the referendum meet the requirements of this Law.

The issue of the quorum of voter turnout for recognition of a local referendum was equally debatable. Part of the participants arranged the proposed bill and now the period five -percent quorum. The doubt has raised that the low turnout of voters can lead to complete incidence of this law. On the other hand, with a low barrier, there is a risk of losing the necessary legitimation of decisions made in local referendums.

The participants of the focus of groups and the idea of ​​informing the territorial community in minority languages ​​were quite ambiguous. For example, in Chernihiv, Lutsk and Rivne, this issue is not relevant – all participants are against such a norm. However, in Kherson and Donetsk it is believed that this rule should be present in the new law on local referendums.

Almost all participants agreed with the draft financial load proposed in the bill: the collection of signatures and agitation comes from the account of the initiative group, and from the local budget the funds go to cover the costs related to the organization of work of district commissions, information and other organizational issues.

With all this, we can also distinguish what all the participants of the focus groups conducted. It is about codification of the electoral norm and the maximum approximation of similar provisions of the bill on a local referendum (observer status, procedure of appeal, etc.).

It is worth the idea that arose during the discussion in Rivne. It was suggested to provide planned 2 (3.4…) times a year to spend the days of “direct democracy”. That is, to clearly define the days when local referendums will take place, and the financing of these referendums will be laid in the local budget. Do not limit the number of questions and should be informed separately on each of the issues. Despite the fact that this idea has gained considerable support for both focus groups and experts during the survey, this norm can hardly be implemented within the framework of this bill. Moreover, this practice in general question the foundations of representative democracy, since in fact it will be possible to dissolve the city council and divide the powers between the referendum and the executive committee.

The most relevant proposals will be submitted to the Committee on State Construction and Local Self -Government in the form of a comparative table for further consideration in the preparation of the bill for the second reading.