mirror-weekly.com : Topic Of The Week

0 It came as a surprise to both Ukrainians themselves and to the world at large. While earlier the EU heard the Ukrainian authorities’ declarations of strategic partnership yet saw no specific steps towards rapprochement with Brussels on Kyiv’s part, now a lot of the European Parliament members wearing orange scarves seem to have realized that most Ukrainians share the values fostered by Europeans. These values form a framework for better cooperation. Maidan (Independence Square in Kyiv) has proven there is no conflict of civilizations when it comes to Ukraine’s relations with Europe. We hope Europe has understood it. We also hope it has understood that Ukrainian people are wiser, more decent and better organized than many of their leaders…

Prior to the presidential elections, until 20 November, numerous representatives of the EU member-countries voiced their skepticism about Ukrainians’ ability to put up any meaningful resistance to the authorities’ abuse of power. They never thought a “Georgian scenario” would work here, arguing that “in Ukraine people are poor, indeed, but not as poor as in Georgia. Your country has not fallen to the very bottom of poverty for your people to spring upwards from it.” In terms of Marxist theory and given the perception of Ukraine as part of Eurasia, the Western diplomats were, probably, right. Yet Ukraine is a part of Europe. It is logical, therefore, that the first people to appear on the Maidan were not from the poorest regions of the country. They were Kyiv residents whose living standards are, on average, much better than those of people in Donetsk or Luhansk. It means that the economically self-sustaining population is capable of adequately assessing the situation in the country and of advocating their rights, first of all, their right to a free choice. The capital residents’ civic stance testified that the emerging middle class requires that Ukraine choose a civilized way of development, whereas the needy people who feel vulnerable and insecure in their future, unfortunately, fall prey to the unscrupulous authorities’ manipulation. Thus, the new authorities will face a new challenge: economic reforms and raised standards of living are to finalize the population’s transformation into the nation. If the new government strives to lead Ukraine to the European Union, sensitive to its partners’ record of respecting human rights and democratic freedoms, it will have to create economic conditions contributing to a full realization of these rights and freedoms.

Not only millions of our fellow citizens but the Ukrainian authorities as well have proven that “Ukraine is not Russia”, which does them credit. Had anything like this happened in Moscow, Maidan might have been renamed “Tiananmen”. Of course, every family has its black sheep, and some officials did sign an order to riot police commanding them to disperse the crowds in Maidan and pickets near administrative buildings. Yet other officials in the same agencies refused to fulfill the order. Some officials who managed Viktor Yanukovych’s campaign felt that under the circumstances the incumbent President was losing interest in them, and designed urgent action plans for their own survival that exposed Ukraine’s economy to a potential collapse of the financial system (primarily in the South-East), paralysis of the transportation system and a simulated shortage in the consumer gas supply to the regions that support them most. The plan may be implemented, should the opposition let the authorities to procrastinate in the talks. At the same time, we should pay homage to the authorities for their role in ensuring the peaceful character of the mass rally. The Western ambassadors are known to have warned President Kuchma against the use of force, but the head of state’s entourage advised him conversely. Until now the latter have not had the upper hand, which saves Ukraine from the reputation of being a country attaching no value to human life.

There is another dimension to the victory of orange civilization over the civilization of “drugged oranges” [Yanukovych’s wife accused the opposition of feeding these fruit to protestors] - Viktor Yanukovych will not be Ukraine’s president. Many of those who voted for Viktor Yushchenko and who viewed Yanukovych as an aggressive epitome of outdated civilization were, in fact, trying to prevent the latter from coming to power. The authorities that nominated the “single candidate” do not seem to care about him now. He does not stand a chance in the re-voting of the run-off. The country, as President Kuchma said, differs entirely from what it used to be before the elections. Kyiv will hardly have him, and Donetsk where all key positions have been taken by Rinat Akhmetov’s men will hardly welcome him back.

Viktor Yanukovych’s future looks even bleaker after the last “on-the-run” meeting between Leonid Kuchma and Vladimir Putin in Vnukovo-2 airport. Yanukovych should be aware, better than anyone, that the meeting destroyed his presidential ambitions. According to a ZN source, two days (or, rather nights) ago, Viktor Yanukovych negotiated, with the Yushchenko team, his ceding victory to the “Our Ukraine” leader in exchange for his keeping the prime-ministerial position. At this juncture it is, evidently, out of the question. On the other hand, the new government should include representatives of the regions that voted for Viktor Yanukovych, and several key positions could be offered to the political forces that support him. Besides, cooperation with them is critical when it comes to appointing governors in pro-Yanukovych oblasts.

Another outcome of the latest developments is Vladimir Putin’s discrediting himself in the Ukrainian public eye. The Kremlin supported an odious candidate; its interference into Ukraine’s internal affairs was unparalleled, both before and after the elections; it aided and abetted separatism in the East and South. Moscow’s envoy at the round-table consultation in Kyiv [State Duma Speaker] Boris Gryzlov stated upon his return to Russia that the current Ukrainian crisis has two resolutions: a civil war or a split of the country. A strange position for an intermediary, isn’t it? Putin, with his repetitive greetings on Yanukovych’s victory, has become most unpopular with Ukrainians, particularly in the regions (at least 17 of them) where Yushchenko won. The major levers of Russia’s influence in Ukraine - Russian mass media and Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow patriarchy - have suffered the greatest loss. Their burly and ineffective behavior in and around Ukraine urged many members of Kyiv elite, loyal to Moscow, to revise their attitude.

I am not an idealist, but my impression is that the last two weeks have caused a drastic change in the mindset of Ukrainian elite: it will no longer follow the rules imposed by Kuchma, Medvedchuk or Yanukovych. It does not necessarily mean that from now on all its thoughts and deeds will be geared exclusively to safeguarding Ukraine’s interests. I am not that romantic. And yet I hope this elite will finally find the time and the way to do so.

It is hardly appropriate, however, to discuss the Ukrainian elite’s leading role in society. On the one hand, Leonid Kuchma’s inevitable resignation from office will allow them to feel freer and more confident. On the other hand, the elite’s life and activities, as well as the relations amongst its members were shaped, to a great extent, by the incumbent President. Due to the concentration of power in his hands and his arbitrary style of managing the main economic and political processes in the country, Leonid Kuchma’s personal preferences and inclinations have permeated the whole system of interrelations within the elite. His withdrawal from power will create a vacuum in the set of principles and approaches customary for the Ukrainian state and political elite. It is crunch time now for making a step towards the rule of law and Constitution, both in public life and public administration.

Another factor likely to affect the political elite in the near future is the change in the generation of leaders. Today, there are only two clear-cut political forces left in the country - “Our Ukraine” and “Regions of Ukraine” (a bearer of anti-Yushchenko sentiment focused in individual regions). The hierarchy of SDPU(o) built on the party leader’s exploitation of the administrative resource is falling apart. The Communists will be making noise in Parliament for some time, but the party is devoid of its former social support, which the presidential elections proved yet again. A lot has been said about the votes stolen from the Communists and Socialists in these elections. Most probably, a certain number of ballots cast for the two party leaders were counted in the governmental candidate’s favour. However, the theft must have been petty: all exit-poll data regarding Petro Symonenko and Olexandr Moroz differed from the CEC results by 1%-1.5% at the most. The Socialists still have a chance of retaining their parliamentary weight within the new majority being presently formed in the Rada, the Communists will lose their “golden share” for good.

Parliament has a unique opportunity to create an “ideologically’ natural majority without any external pressure. It may be the majority that failed to emerge in 2002, for which authorities and the OU members are both to blame. Lytvyn and Yushchenko may organize the harmonious work of 250-280 MPs. If this is the case, the “Regions of Ukraine”, SDPU(o) and Communist Party that have been collaborating fruitfully over the last few years, will be able to remain allies outside the parliamentary majority.

At the same time the political elite lacks new leaders. Who will replace Symonenko, Medvedchuk, Tyhypko, Yanukovych, Kravchuk and the like? Will these new people show up before the 2006 parliamentary elections or will the new generation be late for them? Will Yushchenko remain the strong leader he has become under the pressure of recent events? Of course, Yushchenko’s personal role and responsibility as a symbol of upcoming changes should not be underestimated. Not only must he do everything to win, but also to consolidate society. His supporters did their best to help him by voting for him, by arriving to the Maidan to protect their choice, by making encouraging statements in the media despite the immediate threat to their careers or businesses. The media did their best to break free from censorship and broadcast honestly and without prejudice. His chances for a post-election advancement were boosted by the police and security service officers, commanders of individual military units and leaders of the Ministry of Defence, Western democracies and their authorized intermediaries in the negotiations between the government and the opposition.

Viktor Yushchenko, though, has not always been up to the mark. He is extremely good on the Maidan, talking to people, and his rhetoric characterizes him as a strong leader. However, his team and the course of events require that more resolute steps be taken. Second, the leader is not consistent enough in his talks with the authorities. For instance, the opposition leader started the second stage of the round table consultations on Wednesday in a confident and energetic way, by listing his demands that included deeming the run-off invalid, forming a new CEC and re-run of the second tour. Alexander Kwasniewsky supported him heartily. Leonid Kuchma and Viktor Yanukovych had to back down a bit. Yet Leonid Kuchma, an experienced negotiator and skilled manipulator, managed to reverse the psychological tenor of the talks: a guard came up to him and whispered something in his ear; Kuchma excused himself and had a brief interview with his first aide Serhiy Liovochkin, after which he stated indignantly he was breaking off the negotiations as the opposition forces had blocked his residence.

Viktor Yushchenko should have said something like this: “You want out of the negotiations - do as you please! I have warned you that people have their own idea of what they need to do. I can neither control nor restrain them given that over the week you have not even tried to meet them halfway. You have not dismissed the CEC and have not proposed new candidates. You refuse to discharge the Prime Minister and do not let Parliament start forming a new Cabinet. You have not sacked a single governor who incites separatism. You have dallied arranging sporadic meetings instead of negotiations. Can you really expect the people who have been standing there in the cold and sleet for ten days to be quiet? You can break off the negotiations but you should be fully aware that in this case nothing will stop the people from fighting for their victory”. In reality, however, the OU leader started assuring the participants he had not authorize any blockade and promised to lift it… After this episode, the negotiations went astray and none of Yushchenko’s proposals was included in the final document.

Viktor Yushchenko did not inform the people on the Maidan about all the provisions of the signed agreement. He did not mention his commitment to “lift the blockade of administrative buildings”… We can only hope that when Yushchenko is elected president, he will negotiate with Putin and Bush more effectively, because he will be responsible for the whole country, rather than for its part, no matter how big. We can also hope that his official position will imbue him with more determination, and his love of this country will be complemented with care about every individual on every Ukrainian square.

A lot depends on the new leader of the nation. We should be reasoned optimists realizing that a number of changes presently observed in Ukraine are not irreversible. One can think that the civic activity manifested in practically all regions of Ukraine means that the people’s self-esteem will never be trampled on again. At the same time, the people on the Maidan and those who closely follow the events from the media coverage seem slightly at a loss, bewildered with the obvious lack of an effective and specific action plan on the opposition’s part, at least at the beginning of the rally.

For almost two weeks the Maidan has been full of people who are opinion leaders in their respective social environments. The opposition cannot afford to let them go frustrated and disillusioned from Kyiv’s central square, from the place where the nation’s protest and civil revival originated. The opposition should make sure they take back home a grain of their common victory, bright and desirable rather than backbreaking and dreary. It still can do so.

Nor is the progress achieved by the media, which have been under diktat and control too long. Today I admire the high professionalism of news journalists at “1+1” Channel. Changes in the “Inter” Channel policy make me happy. I can even watch the UT-1 news programmes without having to take heart pills. Yushchenko has to guarantee there will be no officials in his team who may want to force the Ukrainian mass media into producing biased, partisan information.

Yushchenko will also have a role to play in the rotation of Ukrainian political elite. Had his team waged a revolutionary Blitzkrieg very early in the process, the OU leader could have totally neglected the interests of the incumbent authorities. The truth is he could have paid for this liberty with human lives and an abysmal divide in the society. As matters stand, some sort of compromise should be sought and reached with the parliamentary forces likely to form the new majority. This majority can traditionally be qualified as “pro-presidential” until the 2006 elections. However, the majority’s members and their representatives in the Cabinet of Ministers should revise their attitude to their professional functions and responsibility to the people in the street who brought them to power.

It is still unclear how the new team is going to treat the most repulsive members of the old administration. What is to become of their property, prospects and freedoms? It is a tough question. The most severe punishment for the incumbent authority may be the loss of power. Anyway, until now Yushchenko has not had a reputation as a vindictive person. One crime, though, should be investigated and prosecuted. It is the ballot rigging. Those who inspire and organized it on a massive scale should be called to account. Otherwise nobody can guarantee that the new authorities will not be tempted to drag millions of citizens into illegal activities, as was the case at the last elections.

To put it differently, Yushchenko should grow into a true guarantor of the society’s right to free and fair elections, free access to information, personnel appointment at all levels based on the candidates’ professionalism, competence and honesty. I am positive that Viktor Yushchenko understands the need to reinforce the success of the Liberation movement. Viktor Yushchenko is one step away from victory. If the process is fair, the victory will be a springboard for a new life - hard, turbulent, full of enticements and traps. This life can lead the popular president either to a new victory or to a defeat.

Today nobody is thinking about defeat, which is already a victory, in and of itself. Is it an interim victory?