A chance for purification
Odesa – By commencing an action against his predecessor and the “father” of the entire current political system, President Yanukovych made more than a resolute step, the result of which cannot be predetermined. This case provoked a big wave in Ukrainian politics. First of all because it showed that there are no untouchables in the system anymore. It looks like one part of the system is ready to devour the other one to look cleaner and more legitimate in the eyes of its voters. Any of the motivations of the Kuchma case — from “dekulakization” of oligarchs connected to him, to the “Russian trace” and referring to the struggle for the Kremlin’s chair between Medvedev and Putin, may be true. Furthermore, most of these motivations complement each other and make up one picture: the show of demonstrative clean-up connected with the Ukrainian government since 2000 as a kind of “original sin.” So far it looked that the Gongadze case informally linked all the elite, even if it was not engaged in it directly. The closed corporation into which our political beau monde irresistibly transforms could and would be very willing to go without washing their dirty linen in public if it didn’t “itch” in the eyes of the society and the West, and didn’t cast a shadow of corruption and impunity on all governments and presidents regardless of their political “coloring.”
Representatives of the current government, not so much involved in the hidden struggle, decided to destroy and cancel the informal consensus inside the political elite, and start everything from a new leaf, if not from scratch. For this they opposed the “old” part of the elite, taking as a basis the most resonant case in Ukraine’s history. Having legalized “Melnychenko’s tapes,” they actually hinted explicitly that the discrediting evidence for the big part of representatives of the Kuchma’s time that is now in their possession.
If one looks at the version of the resolution on instituting proceedings against Kuchma which appeared in mass media, we will see that there are no other symbolic figures connected with the Gongadze case. First of all, there is no Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn. Thus, from the viewpoint of the judiciary, the entire story of the murder of Gongazde developed along the line Kuchma-Kravchenko-Fere-Pukach, though two persons involved in this chain are already dead. The prospect of a criminal process is even more doubtful. Lawyers of the second Ukrainian president will do everything possible to voice two statements. First, the proofs of Kuchma’s potential guilt were acquired in an illegal way, and second, the statute of limitation period has expired. Generally, the probable trial of Kuchma itself will become a test of the Ukrainian judicial system. As a result, the court found itself before a legal and political choice. For example, to answer the pernickety question: Does the status of the accused influence the period of limitation?
If the process ends in Kuchma’s acquittal or a conditional sentence, one can consider it to be a failure of the current government. There is no way back. But any other decision without maximally objective consideration of all conditions of getting “Melnychenko’s tapes” cannot be considered legally correct. Thus, no result can be regarded as just without involving new figures in the process.
The understanding of the obvious conjuncture of the initiated performance inevitably raises another question: can the country clean itself from “kuchmism,” from the system the second president built for ten years, the children of which represent a considerable part of the present political beau monde. Certainly, bringing such an action is a decisive and correct step. But the following steps are much more difficult. The organization of the very process, its course, and the character of the decision made — all will become a test of the government.
The current government, which is accused of spreading corruption and manipulating the judiciary, can answer the question “Who are the judges?” only by means of maximal resolve in searching and punishing all those involved not only in the Gongadze case but also in other crimes, the traces of which are recorded on “Melnychenko’s tapes.”
This is the only possible way. Otherwise it will be impossible to speak about any purification, renewal and change in the ruling leadership’s worldview. One can speak only about “discarding negative ballast” and “covering one’s tracks,” about momentary machinations and private motives, but not about a global tendency and frank change of political philosophy. In this sense the question of whether Kuchma will be jailed becomes private. The basic question is whether the current government is ready not to repeat the mistakes of his rule, and not to make new ones. Whether it is ready to bring actions against “fat cats” and prosecutors who run into people with their cars, ready to resolutely put raiding to an end, ready to stop adopting dubious codes and increasing an unbearable tax burden. Is it ready to stop manipulations with freedom of speech and stop pressing the mass media? Are the current authorities ready to reveal their cards regarding their property, at least that which is an open secret? Otherwise no purification from negative things will take place.
