Bezuglaya offers two solutions - mobilization or confiscation of property

The pro-government deputy proposes to introduce measures to deprive citizenship and confiscate assets for foreign “evaders.”

The tireless “servant of the people” Maryana Bezuglaya, who generates resonant messages on social networks on a daily basis, recently launched another scandalous initiative. The politician conducted a poll on her social network about how to deal with citizens who are subject to conscription but have gone abroad. In case of their failure to return within the prescribed period, the deputy offered her subscribers to choose from two options, both “draconian” - to deprive such persons of citizenship or to seize assets (plus other restrictions on the choice).

Bezuglaya is the first deputy head of the parliamentary defense committee, and it is precisely this status that does not allow any of her initiatives related to mobilization to fall on deaf ears.

Over the course of 24 hours, out of two thousand emoji reactions to this post on Facebook, almost half were indignant, more than 400 were ironic, and the rest were thumbs up.

That is, such drastic measures were supported by only a quarter of the people’s deputy’s subscribers.

Most of the comments (if you weed out the numerous personal attacks against Mrs. Maryana herself) were, to put it mildly, skeptical.

Bezugla’s extravagant idea could be attributed to her personal initiative, but attempts to do something with “foreign” Ukrainians have long haunted the authorities. Thus, at the very beginning of the great war, Bezugla’s colleague on the Committee on Security and National Defense Fyodor Venislavsky registered a bill according to which persons subject to conscription for military service upon mobilization were proposed to be punished with imprisonment for a term of 5 to 10 years for failure to return to Ukraine. And at the end of the summer of this year, the head of the mono-majority, David Arakhamia, said that people who illegally fled abroad during the war will be held accountable for giving bribes, falsifying documents and evading mobilization. It was proposed to bring them to justice through extradition from the countries where they are now located.

But it quickly became clear that there was no clear and quick mechanism for the forced return of thousands of draft dodgers to their homeland, as well as lists of those liable for military service who had gone outside the state. “When the appropriate legislative framework for the return of Ukrainians from abroad appears, then it will be possible to talk more substantively about this,” Glavkom’s interlocutors at one of the European embassies shrug their shoulders. Lawyers from the Office of the President also explained to Arakhamia the futility of such an idea, and this issue hung at the project level.

Now, for Ukrainian men who fled the war abroad (according to Eurostat, there are 650 thousand refugees of military age in the EU countries, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway), it is proposed to take on the other side.

Following Russian tracks?

It is obvious that the very mention of deprivation of citizenship does not stand up to criticism and such an approach cannot be justified even by the realities of wartime. Article 25 of the Constitution clearly states that “a citizen of Ukraine cannot be deprived of citizenship and the right to change citizenship,” and Article 22 adds that “when adopting new laws or making changes to existing laws, narrowing the content and scope of existing rights and freedoms is not allowed.”

Ownership of assets is protected by Article 41 of the Basic Law: “No one may be unlawfully deprived of the right to property. The right of private property is inviolable." Although there are nuances here. Forced alienation of objects of private property rights can be applied as an exception based on social necessity, on the basis and in the manner established by law, but subject to preliminary and full compensation for their value. And in conditions of martial law or a state of emergency, the forced alienation of such objects is allowed with their compensation after the fact (for example, after the end of the martial law). The Constitution also establishes the concept of “confiscation of property,” which is widespread in criminal proceedings; this measure can be applied exclusively by court decision in cases, scope and procedure established by law.

True, in Russia, where they have long since wiped their feet on the Constitution, a law was passed stating that it is still possible to deprive one of citizenship, despite the prohibition in the Constitution, in special cases. And there have even been the first precedents for the application of the new norm. But this is hardly a role model worth emulating, especially in light of our new European prospects. In addition, the Constitution itself prohibits making changes to the Ukrainian Constitution during martial law.

“Unfortunately, the two-week courses at the Truskavets School of Law did not give the deputies from the Servant of the People the opportunity to understand the norm of the Constitution that a person cannot be held accountable twice for the same violation,” says Rostislav, senior partner of the law firm Kravets and Partners. Kravets, — For example, if a person illegally crossed the border outside the checkpoints, administrative liability is provided for this and the introduction of some additional sanctions would be a violation of the Constitution and international norms. The same applies to avoiding mobilization.”

In addition, lawyer Kravets believes that, having immersed themselves in the search for foreign draft dodgers, deputies can come out on their own: “In March 2022, after the start of a large-scale war, deputies adopted changes to the law that prohibited their mobilization. By the way, this law was about the exemption from military service of persons caring for sick children. Does this vote amount to shirking from an outside observer's point of view? I believe it is. And the restrictive norms that deputies can use to limit someone’s rights can affect them themselves.”

It is quite possible to introduce more lenient restrictions than the clearly unconstitutional deprivation of citizenship for persons who are currently abroad and thus avoid mobilization. For example, we may be talking about a ban on holding public office for a certain period of time, as was already the case with the “victims” of the lustration law. However, then such subjective selectivity caused harsh criticism from Western partners, and now that Ukraine has entered into negotiations on accession to the EU, playing with such norms will not be at all comme il faut.

Political technology or excessive talkativeness?

Under Bezugla’s resonant post, her colleague from the monomajority, Yulia Yatsyk, entered the discussion and ironically asked: “What other raider methods of seizing property can the National Security Committee offer?” The People's Deputy believes that such stories will continue to pit society against each other.

“But all these deprivations of citizenship, forced confiscation of property, forced relocation back to Ukraine are unconstitutional things that legally simply cannot be voted on by the Rada,” Yatsyk is sure. “Of course, not a single people’s deputy is limited by the right to register some nonsense, but her I'm sure it won't be brought into the hall. I think Maryana acts more as a mouthpiece for the Office of the President, which is trying to somehow reduce the degree of public discontent. Who is indignant that “we work here, volunteer, and someone is vacationing somewhere abroad.” And all this will definitely continue to be made public, in the media, on social networks, so that people can speak out and then somehow manipulate their opinion. Perhaps some bill will even be registered, which the hall will never see. At least to me it looks like such flirting.”

Political expert Andrei Zolotarev also sees a political technology version in Bezugla’s “social research.” However, from a slightly different perspective. The political strategist reminds me of an old joke about a rabbi who advised a Jew to buy a goat, and then evict him and compare how his life has become easier. “That is, to frighten as much as possible with the horrors of mobilization, so that later, when you have to go to some kind of “treacherous” peace negotiations, they are not considered absolutely unacceptable and unpleasant and are a “lesser evil,” Zolotarev suggests, “Otherwise, another reality will come: “all mobilized”, “imports will be blocked”, “iPhones” will cost $5 thousand”... But it is clear that Bezuglaya’s statements destroy the motivation to defend the Motherland more powerfully than any Russian propaganda."

It is worth remembering that a large bill on mobilization is currently being discussed in the Verkhovna Rada. And the more such exotic proposals appear during the preparation, the more compromising and soft the final version can be presented to the world, from where they will all be thrown out.

However, political scientist Vladimir Fesenko does not believe in cunning combinations and believes that the problems of the government are, in particular, due to the excessive independent talkativeness of its speakers, which it cannot calm down. And Bezuglaya is No. 1 in this hit parade.

“Every new statement by Bezugla is a new record of harm for the country,” says Fesenko emotionally. “Now the problem is not the draft dodgers, but how to carry out effective mobilization. And such statements not only do not solve this problem, but also create additional social tension and increase distrust in the authorities.”

The political scientist advises the authorities to temporarily isolate Bezuglaya from the Internet and the media; this, in his opinion, would benefit everyone. “I don’t at all share the version that Bankovaya is doing this on purpose: there are a lot of mistakes there, but they are not their own enemies to do things that directly hit the authorities and only reduce the president’s ratings,” Fesenko is sure. “Of course, if this is not deliberate sabotage. I suppose that in the case of criticism of Zaluzhny, Maryan, who loves to lecture everyone, even generals, simply sensed the mood in the President’s Office and decided to put on a laurel wreath for removing Zaluzhny himself. But in the case of mobilization initiatives and draft dodgers, I think this is purely her initiative. With her harmful statements about the mobilization of women, Maryana only creates a chain reaction of negative emotions, including in relation to the president.”

Meanwhile, the restless Maryana Bezuglaya arranged a new poll on her page. Now she was interested in whether men were ready to independently renounce Ukrainian citizenship in order to avoid mobilization...