Hybrid status: who and why is allowing deputies to work in the government with their draft law

The idea of ​​allowing people’s deputies to combine a mandate with a position in the government returns Ukraine to the old habit of replacing the distribution of power with the convenience of political expediency. The parliament once again talked about changing the constitutional norm, which prohibits the combination of deputy activity with executive positions. Arguments in favor of the initiative look logistically convincing – in the conditions of war, it is difficult for the government to quickly form a team, you need “proven people” (that is, “your own”). But the main thing is lost in this convenience: the fundamental boundary between legislative and executive power, which, in fact, distinguishes democracy from political casteism. Under the slogan of efficiency, they are again trying to return the country to manual management, where the mandate is not control over the government, but a pass to it.

The essence of the legislative initiative and the figures of its initiators

In May, another “progressive” and “beneficial to society” legislative initiative was submitted to the Verkhovna Rada – draft law No. 13304, which provides for amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine to allow people’s deputies to combine their mandate with work in executive bodies. This project provides for amendments to the current legislation regarding the definition of types of activities that can be combined with the performance of deputy powers. Among the key provisions is a proposal to allow people’s deputies of Ukraine to hold a number of positions in the executive branch without termination of their mandate. In particular, this applies to the positions of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministers, their first deputies and deputies, provided that these positions do not belong to the civil service within the meaning of the law “On Civil Service”.

The explanatory note to the draft law states that, as of today, the first part of Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status of the People’s Deputy of Ukraine” provides for a general ban on paid activities by deputies, except for teaching, scientific, creative activities and medical practice. At the same time, these permitted activities do not have a clear legal definition, which creates, according to the authors of the initiative, serious legal uncertainty. This, in their opinion, makes it difficult to control compliance with restrictions, opens up opportunities for hidden business activity, and also creates risks of abuse and conflicts of interest.

The initiators of the new regulatory act also propose to amend Article 3 of the mentioned law, putting it in a new version. It is envisaged not only to clarify and detail the types of permitted activities (teaching, scientific, scientific and technical, creative, medical), but also to officially recognize the possibility of holding the mentioned political positions in the executive power, provided that they do not belong to the list of civil service positions. As an argument, the authors of the project refer to the current Law “On Civil Service”, according to which, since 2016, the positions of members of the Cabinet of Ministers have been removed from the civil service and assigned to the sphere of political activity. Therefore, according to the initiators, such activity does not violate the constitutional ban on concurrent mandate with public service.

The explanatory note also states that the legal position of the Constitutional Court from 2002, which recognized such a combination as incompatible with the principle of separation of powers, was formed in a different historical and legal context, and no longer reflects the realities of today. In view of this, the authors propose to implement the European practice, where in many parliamentary or mixed systems, such as Germany, Poland, Italy, Great Britain, Israel or France, it is allowed to hold a ministerial post and a member of the parliament at the same time.

The initiators of the draft law expect that its adoption will ensure clear legal regulation, reduce the risks of abuse, unify law enforcement and contribute to the formation of a more accountable and transparent model of the exercise of deputy powers. In addition to changes to the basic law on the status of a people’s deputy, the document also provides for amendments to the laws of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption” and “On Political Parties in Ukraine”. They should ensure consistency between the new provisions on co-operation and existing anti-corruption and institutional restrictions.

At the same time, as key goals, the authors of the initiative indicate: formalization of permitted types of activities, elimination of contradictions in law enforcement practice, increase of public trust in the status of people’s deputy, as well as approximation of Ukrainian legislation to the standards of European parliamentary systems. As a result, a model is proposed, according to which a person with the mandate of a people’s deputy can officially hold a position in the Cabinet of Ministers or be a deputy minister without losing legislative powers.

It is noteworthy that the initiators of the draft law were a group of deputies from the “Servant of the People” faction, who before being elected as people’s deputies had nothing to do with the law-making process and whose names regularly appear in journalistic investigations, ethical scandals and declaration manipulations. Halyna Tretyakova, one of the main authors of the initiative, headed a number of public organizations before being elected as a deputy, including the “Institute of Civil Liberties” and the Ukrainian Insurance Federation. She was an expert of the “Resuscitation Package of Reforms” and the head of the public council at the Pension Fund of Ukraine.

However, after being elected to the parliament, her public statements began to cause a wave of criticism not only from the opposition, but also among the entire Ukrainian society. The loudest scandal erupted after her statements about “children of low quality”, when Tretyakov actually supported the practice of sterilization of women with a low level of education, referring to the experience of Singapore. Later, she tried to justify it by referring to the economic research of Gary Becker, but the tone of her speech, permeated with elitism and social contempt, was already fixed in the public memory. Also, her statement that the relatives of the missing soldiers seem to be “profiting” from social benefits, not wanting to recognize the death of their loved ones, seemed less cynical. Despite the fact that it was she who was entrusted with the responsibility for social policy in the faction.

Another co-author of the project, Vitaliy Bezgin, worked in the field of communications, design and advertising before being elected as a deputy. He got into the media field after it became known that in 2020 he issued a power of attorney for his share of housing in Yevpatoria (occupied Crimea) in the name of his aunt, Galina Gerasimova, a deputy from the United Russia party. According to Bezgin himself, this step was legally determined by the need to renounce the inheritance in the conditions of the occupation, and consultations with the NAKC confirmed the legality of the actions. But the public reaction was unequivocal: a deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine transfers property in Crimea to a representative of the Russian pro-government party, which de facto legitimizes the presence of his inheritance in the Russian legal field.

Another signatory — Andrii Klochko — regularly becomes a figure in anti-corruption investigations. His name is associated with an impressive increase in family property after being elected to parliament. In 2019, almost immediately after the election, Klochka’s 70-year-old mother buys land in a closed cottage town near Kyiv for 2 million hryvnias. Then – another townhouse in a village near Kyiv, two apartments in the “Riviera” residential complex with a total area of ​​almost 270 square meters, and all this – again, it is not written on him. Tesla and Mercedes-Benz luxury cars are also designed for the mother and sister. In 2024, Klochka was officially charged with illegal enrichment of over 11 million hryvnias. And that’s not all: it was Klochko who was the author of the scandalous draft law No. 7654, which removed the apolitical requirement from the director of NABU. The document allowed the head of a key anti-corruption body to be a member of a political party. After public pressure and criticism from the expert environment, the project was withdrawn, but the intention was recorded.

Among the co-authors there are less media-visible, but no less characteristic figures. Ihor Vasiliev, who before the Verkhovna Rada worked in the field of IT business, rents communal premises in Sumy for a symbolic 24 hryvnias per year thanks to the decision of the local council, adopted after his election. Oleh Bondarenko, head of the Committee on Environmental Policy and Nature Management, which, according to the investigation “Our Money”, allowed the cutting of Carpathian forests under the guise of environmental changes.

Another co-author – People’s Deputy Maksym Pavlyuk, who before being elected as a People’s Deputy worked as a deputy military prosecutor of the Darnytskyi Garrison of the Central Region of Ukraine, appeared in a series of declarations in which he reported on million-dollar lottery winnings every year, while they grew every year. His name is often mentioned next to Ilya Pavlyuk, an influential businessman from Bukovyna who is called a smuggler with a long-term presence in the gray zone of Ukrainian politics.

A special mention should be made of Oleksandr Fedienko, who was a telecommunications specialist before being elected as a People’s Deputy. In 2022, he became a co-author of draft law No. 7351, which allowed the commanders of the Armed Forces to use lethal force on the spot against subordinates who do not follow orders — without a court decision and proven circumstances. The proposal was dubbed the “right to shoot bill” and was shelved after a wave of criticism. But the very fact of its initiation demonstrates the decision-making logic of a part of the current parliament.

So, these “servants of the people” today are promoting a rule that will allow them and their fellow party members not to choose between the parliament and the executive power, not to hand over a mandate, not to be subject to control, not to explain to voters what role they are in. The idea of ​​cooperation is presented as a “pragmatic solution in the conditions of war”. But the list of initiators clearly demonstrates: this decision is submitted by people who have something to hide and who benefit from blurring the boundaries of political responsibility. And it is from them that the answer to the question: “Why is this done?” begins.

The draft law on the simultaneous mandate and government position as a legalization of undermining the constitutional order

The idea of ​​combining positions in the executive and legislative powers is not new – even during Yanukovych’s presidency, deputies actively combined work in the government with a mandate. And even after the Revolution of Dignity, politicians did not stop trying to retain the opportunity to return to parliament unhindered after being dismissed from government positions. Now the attempt by the people’s deputies to once again legalize the combination of a mandate with a position in the government does not look like a step to increase the efficiency of the executive power, but an attempt to legitimize the systematic devaluation of the principle of separation of powers. The draft law, which actually allows one person to be both a legislator and an executive at the same time, is, first of all, unconstitutional. In addition, it demonstrates a deep crisis of political thinking, in which basic democratic safeguards give way to political fear of loss.

The authors of the initiative try to justify their position, referring to the fact that with the entry into force of the Law “On Civil Service”, the positions of ministers, their deputies and heads of regional administrations were removed from the list of civil service positions. Thus, according to the logic of the legislators, these roles have become political, and therefore do not contradict the Constitution. They also appeal to the practices of European countries, where, they say, coexistence of mandates and positions of government officials is a normal thing.

But this is only a half-truth, and it is very convenient, because the Constitution of Ukraine is the main law, which is higher than any current interpretation of the concepts of “public service” or “political position”. Article 78 leaves no room for maneuver: people’s deputies do not have the right to hold other paid positions, be in public service or engage in any other paid activity (with the exception of scientific, teaching and creative). And there is no exception for “political positions”. Moreover, even a temporary violation of these norms obliges the deputy within 20 days to either draw up a mandate or stop such activities. This norm is direct, without variability.

At the same time, Article 120 of the Constitution of Ukraine expressly prohibits members of the Cabinet of Ministers from combining their activities with any other, in particular, even unpaid ones. That is, the logic of the Basic Law is two-sided: a deputy cannot be a minister, and a minister cannot be a deputy. Everyone should act in their own branch of government. This is the foundation of the system of checks and balances, laid by Montesquieu and long accepted as an axiom of a democratic state. Not as a bureaucratic formality, but a mechanism to prevent the concentration of power.

However, Ukrainian realities are far from axioms. Our parliament has long been a technical appendage to the executive vertical controlled by the Bank, the Cabinet of Ministers is a weak administrative structure where ministers delegated by the parliament risk losing their positions if their actions are not “liked”. And this is the real motive of the draft law – guarantees of personal survival in a system where the parliament has become a personnel reserve for the executive branch, but without guarantees of return.

A People’s Deputy who received a ministerial seat automatically loses his mandate. And if he loses trust or is simply no longer satisfied with the representatives of the authorities, he “leaves” the government and remains outside the political field. However, the draft law proposes to get rid of this threat: to leave a seat in the Rada for the deputy as a “parachute” from which one can re-enter the game. That is, it is about institutional insurance of political players. However, the consequences of this will be large-scale. A deputy who is also a minister ceases to be independent in his voting. He will not be able to control the government, because he will be a representative of the government. And every vote on the budget, appointments, decisions of the executive power becomes a vote for oneself. In this case, the key function of the parliament — control — is lost. At the same time, responsibility dissolves, and conflict of interests becomes the norm.

It should also be noted that the arguments of the initiators of the draft law about “European precedents” do not withstand any criticism. In Great Britain, Germany, France – wherever there are permits for such combinations, there are additional deterrent mechanisms. In France, a deputy who enters the government transfers his mandate to a reserve candidate, who fulfills his duties. In Germany, the Bundestag can directly control the activities of the government through separate inspection mechanisms and committees. And the most important thing: in none of these countries is there a one-person vertical like the Ukrainian presidential administration, which informally appoints and dismisses ministers.

As you can see, the draft law, which allows people’s deputies to retain their mandate in case of appointment to the Cabinet of Ministers, is a structural intervention in the mechanics of the functioning of state power. The Ukrainian model is based on the formally declared, but still valid, principle of separation of powers, in which each branch has its own sphere of authority and means of control over others. The introduction of the element of cooperation destroys the functional barrier between the parliament and the government.

Systemically, this initiative means dismantling the logic of personal responsibility. According to the current model, the elected deputy is responsible to the voters for his law-making activities, and the appointed minister is responsible for the implementation of policies. In the case of merging functions, a person is no longer required to act within any single role, he has dual status, but no mechanism for evaluating performance separately in each role. This does not create transparency, on the contrary, it dilutes the obligations.

It is also important to pay attention to the issue of political competition. Provided the mandate and government position are simultaneously preserved, a member of the Cabinet of Ministers gains an advantage over others: an institutional resource, direct access to government decisions, preservation of inviolability, and the ability to influence the legislative process. This creates an imbalance within the parliament. The equality of deputies as subjects of the law-making process is leveled, since some of them actually acquire the status of representatives of the executive power in the parliament, but without a formal transfer of mandate.

Another aspect is legal immunization. A deputy who is a member of the government retains parliamentary immunity. As a result, the government official receives additional protection from investigative actions, which in a normal legal system should apply to everyone without exception. If the executive function is combined with immunity, this is not a strengthening of the political position – it is the creation of unequal conditions of responsibility.

In addition, the possibility of co-operation fixed by law automatically changes the internal logic of coalition formation. If MPs can retain their mandate when they enter the government, the coalition can use this mechanism as a tool to expand influence without losing faction numbers. This potentially destroys the system of parliamentary balance. The coalition ceases to be a flexible mechanism of inter-factional interaction and turns into a structure under the absolute control of a few persons who dispose of mandates as a tool of personnel rotations.

Therefore, in the event of the adoption of this draft law, Ukraine will receive a system in which the line between the legislative and executive powers will be completely erased. This means the end of political responsibility: deputies who vote for the government and government officials who have to report to the Council will be represented by the same persons. A class of officials will be created who simultaneously formulate policy, approve it, report on it, and control themselves. All this will take place against the background of the complete degradation of the independence of law enforcement agencies, the growth of executive influence on the courts, and manual management of parliamentary committees. In such a system, there is no need for usurpation of power, it takes place without conflict, due to legislative convenience. As a result, we will have a clearly designed step towards institutional autocracy.

The introduction of a combination of a mandate and a government position without proper procedures for suspending deputy powers, a transparent mechanism for restricting rights of access to legislative voting, as well as guarantees for the balance of institutions creates a structural anomaly. Such a model not only violates the Constitution, but also reformats the distribution of functions in public administration in favor of an undefined role “within the system” that operates without external restrictions. In the conditions of war, when emergency powers have become the norm and public attention is focused on the front, such bills creep in quietly, but their consequences will be loud.