The collapse of the second Yatsenyuk government: roll call vote and dynamic network analysis

  • Natasha Kossovsky
  • Kathleen M. CarleyEmail author


This paper investigates the cause of the collapse of the Second Yatsenyuk Ukrainian government in 2016 and the factions formed throughout the process using a novel method that combines roll call vote analysis and dynamic network analysis. Our findings suggest that a major factor in the dissolution of the coalition government was the 2015 constitutional amendment .We also found that the coalition split into two factions following this event: the People’s Front and Petro Poroshenko Bloc as one faction, and the Union and Fatherland as the other. This split could have a large impact on the 2019 Ukrainian Election and give current President Petro Poroshenko an advantage over Yulia Tymoshenko, who is leading in the polls.


Roll call voting analysis Dynamic network analysis Community detection Coalition stability Ukrainian parliament 



This work is supported in part by the Office of Naval Research under the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiatives (MURI) Program award number N000141712675, Near Real Time Assessment of Emergent Complex Systems of Confederates, and by the center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the ONR or the U.S. government.


  1. Amelio A, Pizzuti C (2015) Mining and analyzing the Italian parliament: party structure and evolution. Lecture Notes in Social Networks.
  2. Blondel VD, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech 10:P10008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonenberger, A (2017, June 20) The war no one notices in Ukraine. The New York Times.
  4. Brady DW, Bullock CS (1985) Party and factions within legislatures. Handbook of Legislative Research. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p 864Google Scholar
  5. Brik T, Ostapchuk D (2015) Analyzing Ukrainian parliament networks through legislative co-authorship. DataVox.
  6. Browne EC, Fendreis JP, Gleiber DW (1984) An ‘events’ approach to the problem of cabinet stability. Comp Polit Stud 17(1):167–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Browne EC, Fendreis JP, Gleiber DW (1986) The process of cabinet dissolution: an exponential model of duration and stability in western democracies. Am J Polit Sci 30(3):628–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carley KM (2002) Smart agents and organizations of the future. In: Lievrouw LA, Livingstone S (eds) The Handbook of New Media. Sage, California, pp 206–220Google Scholar
  9. Cherepnalkoski D, Mozeti ̆c I (2016) Retweet networks of the European parliament: evaluation of the community structure. Appl Netw Sci 1(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coman, J (2017, November 12) On the frontline of Europe’s forgotten war in Ukraine. The Guardian.
  11. Davis GB, Olson J, Carley KM (2008) OraGIS and loom: spatial and temporal extensions to the ORA analysis platform (Technical Report No. CMU-ISR- 08-121). (I. of S. R. (ISR) School of Computer Science (SCS) Center for the Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS), Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
  12. De Leo V, Santoboni G, Cerina F, Mureddu M, Secchi L, Chessa A (2013) Community core detection in transportation networks. Phys Rev E 88(4):042810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drago ZAJC (2015) The cycle of increasing instability within the coalition government: the impact of the economic crisis in Slovenia in the period from 2008 to 2014. Teorija in Praska 52(1–2):175–195Google Scholar
  14. European Parliament (2015, July 16) Ukraine: follow-up of Minsk II: a fragile ceasefire. Briefing. 8th European Parliament.
  15. Good BH, de Montjoye YA, Clauset A (2010) Performance of modularity maximization in practical contexts. Phys Rev E 81(4):046106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanushchak Y, Sydorchuk O, Umland A (2017, April 13) Ukraine’s most underreported reform. New Eastern Europe.
  17. Herron ES (2002a) Causes and consequences of fluid faction membership in Ukraine. Europe-Asia Stud 54(4):625–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herron ES (2002b) Electoral influences on legislative behavior in mixed-member systems: evidence from Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada. Legis Stud Quart 27(3):361–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hix S, Noury A, Roland G (2005) Power to the parties: cohesion and competition in the European parliament, 1979–2001. Brit J Polit Sci 35:209–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King G, Alt J, Burns N, Laver M (1990) A unified model of cabinet dissolution in parliamentary democracies. Am J Polit Sci 34(3):846–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kovács A (2015) Social network analysis in the European parliament: comparative analysis of the legislative instruments of the 2013 common agricultural policy reform. KKI Studies: Series of the Institute for Foreign Affairs and TradeGoogle Scholar
  22. Laver M, Schofield N (1990) Multiparty government. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Laver M, Schofield N (1998) Multiparty government: the politics of coalition in Europe. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lupia A, Strom K (1995) Coalition termination and the strategic timing of parliamentary elections. Am Polit Sci Rev 89(September):648–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macon KT, Mucha PJ, Porter MA (2012) Community structure in the United Nations General Assembly. Phys A 391(1):343–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Magelinski T, Cruickshank I, Carley KM (2018) Comparison of faction detection methods in application to Ukrainian parliamentary data, 2018 International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling, and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Washington DC, 2018.
  27. Maso C, Pompa G, Puliga M, Riotta G, Chessa A (2014) Voting behavior, coalitions and government strength through a complex network analysis. PLoS ONE 9(12):e116046. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merrill JA, Sheehan B, Carley KM, Stetson (2015) Transition networks in a cohort of patients with congestive heart failure: a novel application of informatics methods to inform care coordination”. Appl Clin Inform 6(3):548–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moody J, Mucha PJ (2013) Portrait of political party polarization. Netw Sci 1(1):119–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. New Rada coalition being formed by Poroshenko Bloc, People’s Front, Batkivshchyna (2016, March 29) Unian.
  31. Newman ME, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69:026113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Niland P (2016, January 27) Making sense of Minsk: decentralization, special status, and federalism. Atlantic Council.
  33. Olszański TA (2015, September 2) Ukraine is divided over constitutional reform. OSW.
  34. Ostapchuk DO (2016a) Invisible connection: who owns the banking system of Ukraine. VoxUkraine.
  35. Ostapchuk DO (2016c) The power series, season 4: Verkhovna Rada under the microscope-2. VoxUkraine.
  36. Ozer M, Kim N, Davulcu H (2016) Community detection in political twitter networks using nonnegative matrix factorization methods. arXiv:1608.01771
  37. Porter MA, Mucha PJ, Newman MEJ, Warmbrand CM (2005) A network analysis of committees in the U.S. House of Representatives. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(20):7057–7062. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Protsyk O, Wilson A (2003) Centre politics in Russia and Ukraine patronage, power and virtuality. Party Polit 9(6):703–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rombach MP, Porter MA, Fowler JH, Mucha PJ (2014) Core–periphery structure in networks. SIAM J Appl Math 74(1):167–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sartori G (1976) Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Sasse G (2016, April 12) Constitution making in the Ukraine: refocusing the debate. Carnegie Europe.
  42. Strom K (1985) Party goals and government performance in parliamentary democracies. Am Polit Sci Rev 79(September):738–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Timofeev M (2015, March 6) Ukraine: once again at constitutional crossroads. ConstitutionNet.
  44. Ukraine poll: almost 40 percent of voters undecided; parties struggle to secure-double digit support (2018, January 30) International Republican Institute.
  45. Ukraine’s radical party quits government in protest over decentralization bill (2015, September 1) Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty.
  46. Ukrainian parliament passes constitutional amendments on decentralization at first reading (2015, August 31) Kyiv Post.
  47. Warwick P (1992) Rising hazards: an underlying dynamic of parliamentary government. Am J Polit Sci 36(4):857–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warwick P (1994) Government survival in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Warwick P, Easton TS (1992) The cabinet stability controversy: new perspectives on a classic problem. Am J Polit Sci 36(1):122–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waugh AS, Pei L, Fowler JH, Mucha PJ, Porter MA (2012) Party polarization in congress: a network science approach. arXiv:0907.3509v3
  51. Wei W, Carley KM (2015) Measuring temporal patterns in dynamic social networks. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 10(1):9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilson A, Birch S (1999) Voting stability, political gridlock: Ukraine’s 1998 parliamentary elections. Europe-Asia Stud 51(6):1039–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang Y, Friend A, Traud AL, Porter MA, Fowler JH et al (2008) Community structure in congressional cosponsorship networks. Phys A 387:1705–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS), Institute for Software ResearchCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations