"Checks and Balances" but it doesn't relate to money.

This is a statement from compare and contrast between unicameral representation in a state in the USA, Minnesota. The debate was in the year 1999.
 

Responsiveness to the majority. The founders adopted the bicameral structure deliberately to frustrate simple majority rule. Double representation in a bicameral legislature fosters the balanced representation of rival interests, a more just and inclusive goal than mere majority rule.

This was 6 days ago from the BBC, in regard to the rating of the Ukraine. And yes I believe the structure of the Ukraine legislature and the country's credit rating is related.

21 February 2014  
Last updated at 07:12 ET

Standard & Poor's said (click here) the downgrade reflected "our view that the political situation has deteriorated substantially". 

It downgraded the economy by one notch, from CCC+ to CCC.

Ukrainians are protesting about the government's plans to forge closer ties with Russia rather than with Europe.

S&P also put Ukraine on a "negative outlook", suggesting further downgrades could be possible.

"We believe [the current situation] raises uncertainty regarding the continued provision of Russian financial support over the course of 2014, and puts the government's capability to meet debt service at increasing risk," the agency said in a statement.

"We consider that the future of the current Ukrainian leadership is now more uncertain than at any time since the protests began in November 2013."...

If I may?

There are days in the USA one wishes there was only a decent President to lead the country and there are other days when some wish the US House was disbanded forever, but, the USA legislative system provides a vital component to the democracy. 

The Ukraine has maintained an old system from the time of the Soviet Union whereby the legislature decides the laws of the country by simple majority. There are 450 members to the Ukraine legislation. All any legislative action needs is 226 votes to pass. Passage is highly possible in such a unicameral system.

The unicameral system was initiated and over turned the presidency and is now forming a transitional government. It is all within the Ukraine constitution and completely legitimate. But, now that the Ukraine is moving to a democracy they have longer for and is seeking fiscal stability it may be time to change the methods of legislation.

This is not about the judiciary or the executive branch it is about the legislative branch and process. Keep in mind the USA is a much larger country as well.

In a two house legislature such as the USA it gives the people more representatives and therefore more opportunity to be represented. But, there is an additional character to the two house process which increases the fiscal stability of the country. It slows down CHANGE.

The financial markets don't like rapid changes, especially in government. The financial markets like stability and some degree of predictability. Basically, they are cowards, but, that is the way it is and has been; hence; the name "Bulls vs Bears."

When financial institutions witness rapid governmental change as occurred in the Ukraine it scares the livin' daylights out of them. Imagine having invested a half million dollars US in alternative energy in the Ukraine. A private investor. Of course, the investment is expecting a return for profit. That profit returns 'cash liquidity' to the investor so there can be future ventures. Now, imagine a rapid change in government and the presidency and legislature is over turned. The new government decides it is in the nation's best interest to nationalize all utilities for their own benefit. The investor will be abandoned and will lose their investment capital and any potential to profit. 

If a country's constitution has a two house legislative system the rapidity to change is slowed down. The legislation has to pass two houses. Now, it can move quickly, however, it divides the legislators into two autonomous bodies where minority members are not severely outnumbered. That process usually creates what the USA values as "checks and balances." It creates 'an environment' whereby a legislation can be examined by two separate houses of government from a point of view that is probably different. In other words, the legislation has more eyes at it. Sincerely, there are more people examining the issue. Legislation is not simply words on a paper. It is the life and breath of the people in representation by their elected officials. 

Legislation carries a great deal of brevity. So, to slow the process of change down and a chance for many to look at the issue including an awareness by the business and citizen community provides a better platform for a country to conduct a budget. A better focus. A long term view.

When the business and citizen community are aware of legislation and it may or may not please them there will be input to the final outcome. When a piece of legislation is finalized and signed by the Executive Branch the change it brings is now expected and anticipated and the people are ready to engage that change. These processes when they work well proves to potential investors they have a say in the processes where their investment exists as an interest of the people. 

The really neat thing about the USA legislature is that the two houses have different terms of service. One, the Senate, is a six year term which provides far more experience to exist within the legislator. The second, the USA House of Representatives, has only two year term. It allows the people a greater voice in that if their legislator is not carrying out their best interests. Only two years and if the representative is not doing a good job they are voted out. 

When the politics is good and benevolent in the USA to the people of the nation, the system works really well. Compromise between minority and majority parties often occurs and those with minority representation are not left out of the process. The USA is an old republic, so currently the politics are somewhat rhetorical and dysfunctional, but, the people are recognizing the problem and the legislative process is somewhat improving. 

I don't know if having two legislative houses is what the Ukraine needs, that is up to the people and their leadership. But, I do know they need to realize their fiscal responsibility has to get better. The Ukraine has to become respected as a reliable partner in fiscal matters. This was just an idea that I thought might be something to consider. I wish them well.