Рішення Конституційного Суду України у справі про заборону Компартії України у світлі концепції войовничої демократії

Abstract

У статті подано правовий аналіз рішення Конституційного Суду України 2001 р. у справі про укази Президії Верховної Ради України щодо Компартії України. Розглянуто концепцію войовничої демократії у розрізі цього рішення, а також проведено компаративне дослідження іноземного законодавства та аналогічних рішень, де розглядали питання про заборону політичних партій за подібних обставин. Метою статті також є визначення правових наслідків цього рішення у контексті ухвалення антикомуністичних законів та судового процесу, що нині триває, щодо заборони Комуністичної партії України.

In 2001 the Constitutional Court of Ukraine cancelled the ban on the Ukrainian Communist Party declaring that its political aims are not contrary to the Constitution. However, almost fifty years before the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany explicitly stated that the political ideology of communists foresees the establishment of a socialist-communist social order through a proletarian revolution, which is incompatible with a free democratic order. So, was the decision of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court a move in the right direction? Did the judges of the Constitutional Court miss a chance to strengthen Ukrainian transitional democracy? Did they properly scrutinize the concept of militant democracy, one of the buttresses of the German constitutional order, or simply ignored what was also the approach in this regard in many other countries? Implicitly, Ukraine’s only constitutional justice body was not convincing enough in its arguments regarding its jurisdiction, the irregularities connected with the banning of a political party, and the registration of a successor to the Communist Party in 1991. However, the most controversial conclusion was the one delivered by the Court concerning the compliance of the Communist Party’s activities and ideological aims with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court left aside the events and developments before the adoption of the ban on the Communist Party; this, in turn, led to a lack of objectivity and comprehensiveness during the consideration of the case. Now the history is being repeated because, as a result of a submission by the Ministry of Justice, administrative courts are again considering banning the Communist Party. On this occasion, legal collisions and contradictions may arise in connection with the newly adopted legislation on the prohibition of the communist regime. So, the discussion on amending the Constitution may be relevant. Apart from analyzing the decision to ban the Communist Party, we address a second issue in our article, namely the relevance of the concept of militant democracy, its core ideas and roots. Although the idea of militant democracy is much discussed in foreign academic discourse, – in Ukraine, as well as in the post-Soviet area, generally it is barely known. The concept which was developed as a response to the totalitarian regimes in pre-Second World War Europe is still evolving and has become a basis for the protection of the democratic order from terrorism, religious fundamentalism, and separatism. Last but not least, the issue of whether a government should take steps to protect democracy from anti-democratic parties is highly relevant in Ukraine’s case, and the discussion should be properly informed of the thinking and norms in this regard that have been acquired in the outside world.