Election-2010: Is any optimistic scenario possible?

How come we ended up like this? There is more than one reason. Among them is the insufficient influence of Ukrainian intellectuals on the authorities, the distorted reference framework of Ukrainian journalism, and the West, which has a dim idea of the twists and turns of political life in Ukraine.

The Day initiated a roundtable talk for its experts, the Ukrainian intellectuals whose names are well-known not only in this country, but also abroad, in order to set up beacons for the Ukrainian society. Our interlocutors today are Ivan DZIUBA, Yevhen HOLOVAKHA, and Yurii SHAPOVAL.

Larysa IVSHYNA: “This meeting of The Day’s experts was necessary to figure out what significance this year’s presidential election had for us. There will be many interpreters who will say things that are pure political technology, analyzing Yulia Tymoshenko’s campaign or that of Viktor Yanukovych (if I may call it a campaign — he even did not have to bother much and got the victory as a windfall, with all the turmoil in his rivals’ camp). Can we perceive this as an act of revenge?”

Yurii SHAPOVAL: “Someone passed around the words Aleksander Kwasniewski allegedly said at the reconciliation roundtable meeting in 2004. He is said to have come up to Yanukovych and said, ‘Just wait five years, and everything will be all right.’”

L. I.: “That’s right. Walesa also advised Yanukovych not to resort to force then, which the latter was inclined to do, by the way. Walensa said that Yanukovych had to go into opposition, because he had foreseen the development of the situation in this direction.

“It was not only the smart Poles who said those things. Let me remind you about a phrase which was published in our paper before the election: ‘In 1999 we had a pre­sident, but no nation; in 2004, we had the nation, but no president.’”

Yu. Sh.: “Any case of opposition coming to power — and the Party of Regions presented serious opposition — is an act of revenge.”

Ivan DZIUBA: “But let’s look at how it happens in this country. The opposition’s motto is ‘The worse, the better.’ Whatever the leadership may be doing, it is necessary to overthrow it and take over. They just swapped places, but the principles remain the same. Now we will see the same old story, the worse, the better.”

Yu. Sh.: “This is a sign of democracy. Tymoshenko will do just the same. The opposition unmasks and criticizes –”

I. D.: “– and puts a spoke in the rival’s wheel. Criticism must be constructive. Also, the confrontation of power and opposition has to be reasonable.”

L. I.: “I think Tymoshenko’s supporters had to live through some very unpleasant moments when she lost. I read a post on the Internet that now we can have a taste of what the Regionals had experienced when they suffered this crushing defeat, and to such an emotional accompaniment at that.”

Yu. Sh.: “The best recipe for this kind of sentiment was given by Yanukovych in 2004. Feeling victorious, after being congratulated by Putin, he said in the public debate with Yushchenko, ‘Everybody, do not feel defeated please. We have all won.’ I would appreciate if someone would remind these words to him. They hold an entire conception.”

Yevhen HOLOVAKHA: “In my opinion, it would be worthwhile to assess both candidates’ pluses and minuses on the premises of which of them will cede power, or even give up this power; should the national interests require it — give up voluntarily.

“One of the aspirants to presidency, namely Yanukovych, did this very thing twice, in 2005 and 2007. He gave up power, though he still had some chances, especially in 2007. As to Tymoshenko, she is a politician of a totally different mentality. She will never leave of her own accord; she naturally lacks such a ‘reflex’, lacks ‘brakes.’ In my opinion, this is a threat.”

L. I.: “During a conversation on the BBC I heard a curious idea that Ukraine in fact had a choice between a car without a brake, or a brake without the car.”

Olena YAKHNO: “Isn’t it typical, moreover, even normal for any politician?”

Ye. H.: “No. I think a politician is bound to be able to win — but to lose as well. Lose with a good grace. If they can only win, in my honest opinion, they are not politicians. Why put up a show of agony, let me ask you? It’s necessary to admit the evident thing, the result of the election.”

I. D.: “I can’t quite agree about Yanukovych giving up his post and his powers really voluntarily back in 2005. Let us just remember who brought people from southern and eastern Ukraine to Kyiv during the days of the Maidan, and what their goal was. How voluntary was Yanukovych’s resignation?”

Ye. H.: “Yes, people indeed were brought to Kyiv. But later they were dismissed, as the defeat was accepted. This was no simple matter. However, dear colleagues from The Day, I want to emphasize another point. Take my word for it, all the journalists in Ukraine (both in printed and electronic media) would have much more trouble with freedom of speech, should Tymoshenko win. The journalists would have to praise her to the skies like one man, and she would be our Goddess and Queen. Meanwhile, in the case of Yanukovych there will be, within a month, you’ll see, targeted criticism directed at him from all sides. This is my forecast, and I take responsibility for it. ”

O. Ya.: “Yet how can this result of the elections be explained? Maybe the only reason is that ‘like takes pleasure in the like’?”

Ye. H.: “In my opinion, the conservatism of our electorate played a role here. No one stopped them from voting for, say, Hrytsenko or Tihipko, thus taking them to the runoff. It would be a passable pair: one of them would represent eastern Ukraine, the other one western Ukraine, to a degree. They would interact and cooperate on acceptable terms.

“But our average voter is just like this. This is exactly the result that they wanted. Why our voter is like this, is a separate question. I have been studying our electorate for 20 years already and know fairly well why it is this way.

“However, this is not the point. What really matters is that it is impossible to build a democracy without respecting the voter and his opinion. Nothing good will come out of it. Any time when voters are abused, it results either in a chaos, or in authoritarianism.

“Many are disappointed by the outcome of the elections, and I am no exception. I would like the country to have a different president, and a better educated one, by the way. Yet one has to accept the choice of the people — if it was made in an honest and democratic way.

“I will explain my position using Poland as an example. You know how the future president Kwasniewski was treated by the Polish democrats before the election of 1995 (You will remember it very well, Mr. Dziuba, won’t you?) They were constantly reproaching him for his ‘commie’ past and waged a campaign against him. Yet in the election of 1995, Walesa lost to this ‘commie’ (and, by the way, his behavior after the defeat was not quite dignified, which cost him his further career). Kwasniewski, however, eventually led Poland to the NATO. This is a fairly good lesson.

“Let us consider now how they do it in the U.S. After the heated electioneering, on the night after the polling day when the results are announced, the runner-up congratulates the winner and shakes hands with him: like, now it is your chance to work in power — and that’s it.”

O. Ya.: “Yet you have to admit that for the USA, it doesn’t really matter who will win, a Republican or a Democrat. The nation’s strategic course does not change anyway.”

Ye. H.: “In this country, mind you, all presidents assume the role of scapegoats and leave office (like Kravchuk, Kuchma, and Yushchenko) with a burden of bitter disappointment. I will suggest a paradoxical idea: this might be exactly what we need them for!

“What can happen in the opposite case was very aptly described by Emile Durkheim, an outstanding 20th century sociologist. He put forward the following paradoxical theory: it would be unwise and even detrimental to eradicate all crime, because if this is done, all the hatred in the society, all its aggression and violence will be aimed in another direction, that of the state institutions.

“In other words, let crime exist, but on a limited scale. By the way, this is exactly the way Durkheim treated corruption. He believed that a certain proportion of corruption must exist, but it is important that the society eventually learn about the culprits and know who exactly is the enemy of the nation. In the opposite case this famous sociologist envisaged a total war, ‘all against all.’ I will reiterate that this is Durkheim’s opinion, and not mine.”

I. D.: “Yevhen, I would like to return to your description of Ukrainian presidents as scapegoats. At a certain time The Day published a series of materials by an author known as Khoma Skeptic [careful readers will perhaps remember that the true author of those publications was Dziuba — Ed.]. What puzzled him was the fact that ours was such a complicated country, with such a bunch of problems that even God Almighty would hardly be able to put it right. But paradoxically, as an election campaign was launched, scores of candidates would spring up, and something made them certain that they were the right ones to run this state...

“So it suggested a thought: How brave and sacrificial these people are! They knew that if they won, in a short while they would be showered with curses!”

Ye. H.: “That’s exactly what’s going to happen, and it is also true of their successors. I have to admit that I am against presidential rule whatsoever. In my opinion, a purely parliamentary republican system might serve the interests of Ukraine in a much better way, because presidential rule is an atavism of the old Soviet legacy. It also creates another problem: it makes society more hierarchic (again, after the old Soviet model), while it is something we should break down.

“We ought to strengthen effective connections, while the Soviet legacy of vertical connections still remains very rigid. As a result, anyone who has power can impose his or her will on the nation.

“However, the epic absurdity, in my view, can be found in the so-called ‘parliamentary-presidential republic,’ because this mechanism will not work at all. If we really need president’s office, it would be enough to give him powers similar to those of the president of Poland: give him the right to veto (which in the Polish Sejm can be overrun by considerably fewer votes than in Ukraine). That would be enough.”

I. D.: “And also leave the right to confer awards.” [laughter]

Ye. H.: “What should the president be deprived of is exactly the right to confer awards! I do not know who should be entitled to it, but it definitely has got to be someone else rather than the highest official of the state. With the president having the only right to confer awards, soon we won’t have a single unawarded person.

“You know what celebrated Russian Prince Golitsyn, who did so much for the development of viticulture in the Crimea, would say of himself? ‘I am not disgraced by ranks or orders!’ How many fake, ‘secret’ Chornobyl liquidators do we have? Having spent hardly a day at the site, they received all the highest possible honorary certificates!

“And what about those awarded the title of ‘Honored (followed by profession) of Ukraine?’ For what merits, may I ask? For the abyss they helped create? Why this host of awards? And look at the list of Heroes of Ukraine. It inspires a feeling of shame and horror... In fact, it is the old Soviet paternalistic scheme: giving a man a privilege to depend on and remain manipulable. That is how they created the nomenclature.”

Ihor SIUNDIUKOV: “Mr. Holovakha, don’t you as a sociologist see a paradox in the recent opinion poll, held in all the regions of Ukraine, when a considerable majority of residents (nearly 60 percent) agreed that there is no way the PR candidate, with his past record, can be the president of Ukraine — and then they formally elect this very candidate to head the state. How can you account for this?”

Ye. H.: “This certainly is a paradox. What was decisive here? It’s impossible to vote for such a candidate (this was the sentiment among a considerable proportion of the constituency). However, it is impossible to go on living like we did, either. And one had to choose between these two ideas, these two theses.

“There always is this phenomenon: when a country is struggling in a grave economic crisis, the incumbent authorities have difficulties winning an election. Why do you think Tymoshenko lost? Do you think because her technologists had done something wrong, or she herself had done something wrong, or Yanukovych had had a brainwave? Nothing of the kind. The matter is that the prime minister said: ‘I (i.e. She!) work, while the others prevent me from working!’

“So, what does the average voter infer? If you work, so you should bear responsibility for it all. For the crisis, for all the difficulties, for everything. That is to say, if a man began to live worse during someone’s time in office, and if he is not overly indoctrinated, it is quite clear who he will shift the blame on. It was especially vividly and rigidly manifested by the voting in the center of Ukraine (rather than in western or eastern Ukraine) — the people made a pragmatic choice in favor of changes in the economic policies.”

O. Ya.: “By the way, before the elections there was a lot of talk of a possible ‘electoral diffusion,’ the washout of the votes in western or eastern Ukraine. Did this forecast come true?”

Ye. H.: “No, there are no signs of that. Such predictions were absolutely groundless. The old axiom was proven: Yanukovych isn’t accepted by western Ukraine and the bigger (though not overwhelming) part of central Ukraine. Instead, Tymoshenko is rejected by southern and eastern Ukraine. Look at the polling results; it is all reflected there.”

I. S.: “There is another circumstance that suggests itself. The regions which back Yanukovych, and those which support Tymoshenko, are the exact replica of the picture we saw back in 2004, in the epic struggle between Yushchenko and Yanukovych. Do you think such electoral split will last long?”

Ye. H.: “I will not ascertain that it is forever, but the situation will persist for a long while. Such distinct division along the oblast borders is, in my view, the only security against autocracy. There is no way a leader of one region can impose his or her will on the entire country.

“Moreover, what did those who chose to vote against all do? They prevented either of the two candidates from becoming an absolute winner. If either of them had garnered more than 50 percent of votes (had no one voted against all, it would have been unavoidable), he or she would feel absolutely victorious now. In my honest opinion, Tymoshenko might well have won, too — if the crisis hadn’t hit the country so badly. No other European nation (even Latvia, which was very severely affected by the crisis) has witnessed such rates of economic slump as Ukraine. Our country has lost 18 percent of its gross domestic product! This is nothing else but a collapse.”

Maria TOMAK: “What are the mechanisms of defense, or the social ‘flak vest’, against the curtailing of freedom of speech and for the development of civil society in conditions of power transfer?”

Ye. H.: “The most important thing is the dignity of the people responsible for the freedom of speech. There is a big problem of the differentiation of economic processes. Should there be an attempt to build a single-clan society, the media will simply be purchased and, consequently, will be working for their master.

“The powers are constantly tempted to stop the others from speaking the truth. The first guarantee against it is the dignity of journalists themselves. The second is our nation’s pro-Western orientation. And finally, the third one is civil resistance, appeal to the citizens, and the ability, should the need arise, to stand up for our interests as we once did in the Maidan.”

I. D.: “Personally, I tend to be very skeptical when it comes to the talk about our democracy and freedom of speech being so mature that they can hardly be influenced. The media will have to endure pressure, and we will see it pretty soon. In societies which have had democracy and freedom of speech for centuries, it is really hard to alter something. However, in Ukraine it is only skin-deep.

“In fact, there is no true democracy or true freedom of speech in this country. The freedom of speech is only active when a word, launched into the information space, gets some sort of feedback, some social reflection. Now no one pays any special attention to the press or TV. All the crime goes on just as it used to. As you see, this is nothing like the effective freedom of speech.

“The same is true of our democracy. Ukraine is the only country where no one is afraid of the president; instead, everyone fears the local police, director of public utilities, and all those apparently unimportant people who, however, are able to influence the life of a rank-and-file Ukrainian.

“Our democracy dwells in such lofty spheres that people have nothing to do with it, because it has not yet reached them. This situation will not change until the effective institutions of local government are created. Those who strive for power do not hesitate to promise such changes; however, once in office, they just forget about reform and act differently.

“I do wish we had some selfless people in power who would be able to understand that this is not done in one day, and definitely not by means of one election campaign. Deep-rooted changes may take a lifetime, beginning from grassroots movements and ending on the top state level.

“The rhetoric and presentation of the electioneering slogans might have been transformed, but nothing has essentially changed, and everyone pursues the same goals they used to pursue before.”

Yu. Sh.: “In this case, we are faced with two problems, that of the society and of the elite. Like society, like its elite. Here is just one example. Everyone knows that streets in Kyiv are terribly slippery now. An elderly lady toddles along an icy path and curses the municipal authorities. A young man suggests, ‘Ma’m, you’d better sprinkle some buckwheat on the road!’ [The incumbent mayor Chernovetsky is notorious for having secured a victory in the election by bribing the elderly voters with food rations, which typically included a packet of buckwheat. — Ed.] This is the situation our whole nation is now facing: everyone sprinkles the path with buckwheat to keep balance and struggle ahead.”

Ivan KAPSAMUN: “Since we are on the subject, how much do you thing Yanukovych and his entourage have changed in these five years?”

Ye. H.: “I think time has changed him. Kuchma, for example, ran a huge state enterprise; consequently, he ruled the nation in the way he knew. Yushchenko was a banker, so the system he created resembled to him his usual environment. But unlike his predecessor, he managed to build a more flexible system of power, less rigid and archaic.

“In general, each of our presidents pitifully lacked adequate political experience and knowledge. That is why it will be extremely difficult for Yanukovych to reverse the present political system. There is yet another question: Has he changed his mentality? Yes, there were things he said during his campaign that might look threatening, but time alone will show if it will be transferred into actions and concrete decisions.”

Yu. Sh.: “I think Yanukovych hasn’t changed in the least over this period. The style of his public and, significantly, backroom campaign testifies to this fact. There is an old truth: the escort plays the king. Today we can only hope that the entourage will change, that Tabachnyk will not become vice prime minister, and Herman will work in parliament rather than in the government.

“However, the fact that Yanukovych is backed by people like Yurii Shukhevych [son of a prominent Ukrainian insurgent leader, former political prisoner, and one of the outstanding representatives of national-democratic forces in Ukraine. — Ed.] is also very significant. Yushchenko’s career was essentially ruined by his entourage and his reluctance to tolerate people who might bring bad news. He made a typical leader’s mistake by losing touch with ­rea­lity. If it were different, he would not have run for president in this election. However, a similar situation is brewing in Tymoshenko’s camp.”

I. D.: “I believe Yanukovych might have changed in the meantime. At a certain point, I had a talk with him on various subjects. I got an impression that this person can listen and is capable of learning.

“But even if he had changed, the entourage he depends on remains the same. Of course, there are exceptions, but the vast majority of them are just horrible people. If Yanukovych wants to become the leader of the entire nation, he must get rid of those people in his suite who hate Ukraine vehemently, although they might conceal it.”

O. Ya.: “Mr. Shapoval, do you think the nation that has elected Yanukovych today has changed?”

Yu. Sh.: “All my friends from abroad, and they mostly come from an academic background, are very sympathetic. They say, ‘We all have had our bad moments, but the things that are going on in your country, they beat everything. We are so sorry for you.’

“The nearly five percent, who voted against all, suggest a diagnosis. Otherwise, we might have had a different outcome. I think this is where our problem lies, rather than in petty falsifications. For me, Yanukovych’s victory indicates the degradation of our country. This is for one thing; and for the other, Ukraine cuts a rather unattractive figure as it is, so what will come next?

“As a historian, I’m now at my wits’ end as to how I should go about writing the biography of Yanukovych. We had a lot of problems with Yushchenko, but anyway, during his presidency we still felt comparable to the rest of the world. Now the situation is going to change to the opposite. The question is whether the world will allow us to compare to anyone.”

Ye. H.: “I think this is an exaggeration. The world is looking at us with a pragmatic eye. Over the five years of our freedom, it has become much more difficult to obtain a visa to Europe. Why? Because they are humiliating us! Even during the times of ‘Kuchma’s criminal regime’ no one did that.”

O. Ya.: “Now look who Tymoshenko has lost to. First, to Chernovetsky, in the vote for the mayor of Kyiv, and now to Yanukovych. What condition is our society in, judging from these facts?”

Ye. H.: “It shows that people cannot make an adequate choice.”

I. K.: “Let’s not blame everything on society. The orange team may done nothing over these five years, or they may have done more for the victory of Yanukovych than he himself did.”

Yu. Sh.: “You are absolutely right here. Unfortunately, the events proved the rule: it’s not the regime’s fault, but rather some ‘well-wishers’.’ When we discussed this problem in our circle, I would say, ‘The problem is not with Tymoshenko or Yanukovych, it is only with Yushchenko.’ They would rebuke me, ‘You are prejudiced against him.’ How can I be prejudiced against him if I voted for him?”

Ye. H.: “Five years ago, The Day published my interview under the headline ‘Medicine for euphoria’ (Den, No. 240 of Dec. 30, 2004), after which everyone looked at me as if I were insane.”

Yu. Sh.: “No Yevhen, I didn’t treat you as if you were insane [laughs]. On Feb. 23, 2005, Den carried my article entitled ‘Happy Birthday, Mr. President...,’ where I wrote that Yushchenko had become a politician only through luck, and the fact that there was no love lost between him and his enemies.”

O. Ya.: “Mr. Holovakha, you are known for your accurate forecasts. What will be Yanukovych doing in five years?”

Ye. H.: “I’m sure that in five years he well leave the office with the same rating as Yushchenko has today. It’s our karma, but in my opinion, things are not that bad.”

Yu. Sh.: “Yevhen, he has already made a statement in which he said that it takes more than five years to launch serious reforms [laughter]. And people from his entourage always mention Doctor Goebbels. When he came to power, his entourage said, ‘We will only leave these offices when dead.’”