Kiev — Capping a frenetic period of heightened political tension in Ukraine, President Viktor Yushchenko late Monday evening announced that he was dissolving parliament and scheduling new elections to be held on May 27. In a televised address to the nation, the president explained that he was required to act in order “to save the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

In the two years since the Orange Revolution, Yushchenko has tended to refrain from decisive action, preferring to remain above the fray of party politics. But as a result, he left key questions about the nature of Ukraine’s political system unsettled.

Monday’s unprecedented decision, which occurred after seven hours of fruitless negotiations between the president and parliamentary leaders, immediately attracted an impassioned response from both parties. Representatives of the governing pro-Russian “Coalition of National Unity” — led by Yushchenko’s 2004 election rival, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych — labeled the decision a “coup d’état,” and vowed to withhold financing for an election. On the opposition side, some 200 supporters of the parliamentary opposition quickly gathered in the capital’s Independence Square to celebrate, led by former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who dubbed the president’s move a “courageous decision.”

This unusually bold action of President Yushchenko followed an extended period of constitutional and political stalemate between the country’s two main political forces, which each control one branch of government — the presidency and parliament.

For Yushchenko, the final straw was the unexpected defection of eleven deputies from Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT) and Our Ukraine (OU) to the Yanukovych-led coalition at the end of March. A majority of these parliamentarians were members of the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, enticed to defect by the appointment of that faction’s leader, Anatoliy Kinakh, to the lucrative economic-minister post. If the current coalition remains in power, Kinakh will be in an excellent position to make sweetheart deals on the pending privatizations of state-held companies in Ukraine — deals that will no doubt prove beneficial to everyone except the Ukrainian taxpayer.

It would be one thing if these deputies changed parties out of a perceived desire to better meet the needs of their constituents. Under the Ukrainian political system, however, members of parliament do not have a constituency. Ukrainians select the party, not he individual, when they go to the ballot box. Accordingly, if members of parliament elected solely on the basis of their party membership change parties, then the will of the voters is thwarted — and the rule of law is ignored in a country that so desperately needs it.

If the governing “Coalition of National Unity” is able to increase its majority in parliament from 260 to 300 seats out of a total of 450 — a possibility, considering that in the past pro-Moscow forces have resorted to simple bribery to entice deputies to change parties — then it will be able to override presidential vetoes. More importantly, the coalition will be able to unilaterally dictate changes to the country’s constitution — thus potentially cementing their hold on power.

Yushchenko’s announcement came two days after a twin set of rallies attracting tens of thousands from all over Ukraine to downtown Kiev — events that were separated only by a thin line of police officers in bulletproof vests. Some are already calling the event’s “Ukraine’s second revolution,” and it seems clear that the president’s decision represents only the beginning of yet another contest for the future of Ukrainian democracy.

Cognizant of the need to remain in power long enough to change the rules of Ukraine’s political game, the pro-Russian governing coalition transported over 10,000 unemployed mine workers and students to the capital by chartered bus and train from party strongholds in the East and South of the country.

Just as in 2004, however, it seems that the pro-Russian forces in Ukraine are not fully aware that they are operating in a democratic political system. In conversations, demonstrators freely admitted that they had traveled to Kiev because they were being paid handsomely to wave blue flags and chant “spontaneous” slogans.

Yet even in traditionally pro-Russia areas of Ukraine, distaste for the present government is growing, not least because of its failure to keep its promises to alleviate the burden of growing energy prices on working people. A recent poll indicates that the party would obtain only 18 percent of the votes in a new election, leaving a combined “Orange bloc” of ByuT and OU several points ahead.

Just a few hundred meters south on the Khreshchatyk main boulevard from the theatrical “demonstration” of the Party of Regions (the largest party in the pro-Russian coalition), the pro-Orange crowds expressed weariness and frustration at the prospect of yet another disruptive battle in a country eager get on with the task of political reform.

Yet, as frustrated as they may be, the pro-Western parties are aware of the risks of continued inaction: by doing nothing, they may allow the other side — through smoke-and-mirrors tactics and rented crowds — to engineer a rigged election.

Thanks to the decisive action of President Yushchenko, Ukrainians — together with their friends and supporters abroad — have a chance to ensure that his decision represents not only a beginning of a new election campaign, but to a new beginning for Ukrainian society.

– Emmet C. Tuohy is assistant director of Hudson Institute’s Center for Eurasian Policy and is currently a 2006-2007 Fulbright research fellow based in Kiev.