What are we electing?

As hard as it is to believe, the election campaign of the 2006 parliamentary elections officially kicked off only last Saturday. But who, or rather what, are we electing? Representatives of the people or big capital owners? The parliament or prime minister? Leaders or party agendas? The Day posed these questions to its experts.

Ihor BALYNSKY, political analyst, editor of the Lviv-based Western Informational Corporation:

“I think that on March 26 we will for the last time elect leaders, hoping yet again that they will change something in Ukraine. These will be the last personified elections, in which people vote not for an agenda or idea, but for a bright charismatic personality at the helm of a certain party or bloc. Thus, these elections are expected to draw a dividing line between subjective and emotional voting, and lead us toward rational voting decisions based on the agenda of one party or other. This is typical of a post-colonial society’s transition toward democracy. Each society passes through developmental stages during which it entrusts the resolution of its problems to a certain leader and not a political force. This is proof of the absence of even the fundamentals of a civil society at the electoral system level. Meanwhile, what happened in 2004 in Independence Square and what is happening in individual aspects now is evidence that a civil society is finally beginning to form. I think that no major attempts will be made to stifle this development. I therefore expect that after these elections society will see a growing realization of its responsibility for its choices. Society will understand that it can not only delegate its representatives, but it can also make demands on those whom it delegated.”

Iryna ROZHKOVA, head of the political sociology department at the European Institute of Integration and Development:

“In my view, several choice algorithms will be at work. Each of the leading politicians will propose an algorithm that better serves his or her interests. Speaking of the presidential team, in the current unstable situation it is crucial for it to consolidate its power, stabilize the situation, and minimize infighting and conflicts over appointments. This scenario can be called ‘self- preservation in power.’

“The scenario of their former partner in the orange coalition — the camp headed by Tymoshenko — will see attempts to reformat these elections into the election of a prime minister. Representatives of this camp have repeatedly articulated this motif. Such a format of elections serves the interests of this team, and they will attempt to impose it on the voters and other participants of the parliamentary elections race.

“The most advantageous format of choice for the voters is the one that would enable them to establish a new relationship with the government regardless of the personalities representing it. In my view, this relationship has now again degraded to the level where representatives of the two dimensions — the elite and grassroots — live according to their own logic. And these logics have little in common. Meanwhile, electoral success awaits those who will manage to create at least an illusion of the fact that these two dimensions can intersect, enabling people to effectively hold politicians to account. However, the political force that will do so cannot expect that it will suffice to only build and show such a virtual scheme to society. People no longer buy virtual things as eagerly as before. The current level of disillusionment in society suggests that beautiful PR schemes are no longer relevant; only solid proofs are.”