The coalition system will work much more effectively if the Rada’s term were reduced to two years. From my point of view, this very project could become the first—and possibly the largest—coalition.
Usually, when someone proposes reducing the Rada’s term, the response is “this won’t give us anything.” The correct question is: “for whom won’t it give us anything?” Surprisingly, those making this argument typically go on to discuss how effectively term reduction will help the deputies. In reality, the point is that reducing the term helps, first and foremost, the voters. If I were a democrat, I would draw an analogy with training. Who will improve faster—the one who trains every day or once a week? The question, of course, concerns the voter’s “training.” It is in the voters’ interest that every politician remains on the brink of elections and never gets comfortable.
Ukrainians are accustomed to hysterical elections, and their distrust of term reduction is partly connected to this, since they don’t want constant hysteria. However, the longer the term, the sooner future elections become a hysterical “final battle of good and evil.” Here one can recall democracy’s argument in favor of itself: that it creates a peaceful transfer of power. Dictatorships end in coups and civil wars. Of course, democracy has other problems that make it unacceptable, but taken on its own, this argument is correct. More frequent elections mean more pragmatic, businesslike elections.
The argument about the high cost of elections is completely ridiculous, especially given the possibilities of electronic voting, which could make elections practically free.
If voter coalitions operate in a system with elections every two years, the power of the reputational mechanism will be quite significant. A person who made a promise and then didn’t vote sharply reduces the chances of re-election if the elections are tomorrow. Accordingly, one who made a promise and voted gets the opportunity to build a career on being a person of his word. In exactly the same way, the chances for idiotic laws having a long life are reduced. The prospect of such a law being repealed in two years, while the memory is still fresh, is significantly higher than in five years, when other problems will certainly have emerged.