The decision by Ukraine’s parliament to repeal the country’s notorious anti-protest law is hopefully a step in the right direction. The vote came shortly after Prime Minister Mykola Azarov submitted his resignation “with the aim of creating extra means for finding a social-political compromise, for the sake of a peaceful settlement of the conflict”.
The situation in Ukraine has been cause for concern for some time. Indeed, the level of violence and polarisation in Kiev and other cities was not even so bad during the collapse of the Soviet Union or during the 2004 Orange Revolution.
Demonstrations have been going on since November when the government of President Viktor Yanukovych announced that Ukraine would not sign an association agreement with the European Union. The deal between Brussels and Kiev would have enhanced political and economic ties between the two sides, paved the way for trade liberalisation and promote democratic values in Ukraine. The police reacted to these anti-government protesters with a violent crackdown and many arrests but still the demonstrations continued.
In mid-December, Russia said it had agreed to buy $15 billion of Ukrainian government bonds and to reduce the price of gas it sells to the country. This proved that Moscow was instrumental in persuading Kiev not to sign the agreement with Brussels.
Earlier this month, events took a turn for the worse with the Ukrainian Parliament passing the law restricting the right to protest and raising prison terms for mass disorder. The new law curtailed the freedom of the press, banned the wearing of helmets by protesters and the placement of unauthorised tents.
This draconian move only encouraged more people to join the demonstrations, which, by now, had turned into a mass national protest against Mr Yanukovych with allegations of corruption in government circles.
The situation further deteriorated and four protesters were killed last week; two of them died from police gunshots, a third was found dead with torture marks in a forest near the capital and a fourth person was said to have died from injuries sustained in earlier violence.
The government was on the brink of declaring a state of emergency.
Mr Yanukovych, on Saturday, tried to diffuse the situation by offering senior jobs to the Opposition, including that of prime minister and deputy prime minister, while promising to curb his expanded powers and also to throw out the anti-protest law.
The offers were rejected outright. However, the retraction of the controversial law and the prime minister’s resignation could well become a basis for a compromise settlement between the government and the Opposition.
The most sensible outcome to this crisis would be the appointment of a caretaker government and the immediate holding of free and fair parliamentary elections in return for an end to the protests.
Mr Yanukovych could be allowed to remain in office until his term expires next year. However, he would have to give assurances about respecting the rule of law, allowing full freedom of expression and association and accepting the right of any new government to integrate Ukraine into the EU.
The EU, on its part, must make it clear that the door remains open to Kiev. It must also push for fresh parliamentary elections in Ukraine and for full respect of civil liberties and the rule of law and a crackdown on corruption.
Brussels should furthermore make it clear to Moscow that Ukraine has the right to seek closer relations with the EU and that it will not tolerate interference by Russia in Kiev’s affairs.