Ukraine has taken its next step towards democracy.

Instances of succession and surrender of power in pursuance of the popular will are unusual for the former USSR. That is why Ukrainian elections are of that importance. What matters the most is not the figure that gets the power but the mode of its transfer. Democratic procedures, in this case, are all important. The main task for the state today is to preserve these democratic institutions and procedures to be able to change power regularly at all levels in future.

Yuliya Tymoshenko has not officially recognised the election results. Being aware what a shock she must have received, we hope that she will find the strength to accept defeat and continue her political career.

What are results of the vote?

-  For the first time in the history of independent Ukraine, the president failed to win at least half of the votes of those who came to the polls. This is both, a good and a bad sign. Bad because it is difficult to run a country which doesn’t support you. Good, because it is a safety valve against the usurpation of power by the presidential office. It means a strong opposition. It means the need for Yanukovych to consider the stand and the opinion of his opponents. It is an imperative for coming to terms.

-   High percentage of those who voted “against all.” The results of voting in Kyiv especially strike the eye – 8 percent of people used this form of protest. This protest is a clear sign of a need for changes, which hopefully will come during the forthcoming local and possible early parliamentary elections.

-   The elections reaffirmed the geographic split of the country.  Residents of the eastern and western regions voted mirror-like, with few exceptions. Many see it as a danger, many – as a safeguard against the usurpation of power by one political force across Ukraine. In any case this an indispensable feature of the modern Ukraine.

-   Presidential elections are only the beginning. Now, focus will be on the regional elections next May and probably on the early parliamentary elections that may be held in the fall. The struggle and, consequently, the process of the succession of power will go on. Exactly this infuses hopes for the future.

The main thing: Ukraine is to continue its difficult democratic transformation. Many reproach Ukraine for chaos, political fight, absence of reforms and so on. To say a word in its defence: Ukraine is learning by democracy almost by itself with much lesser support than the Central and Eastern European countries had, when they were preparing to become the EU members. Mistakes are inevitable. But the nation is moving on, with moans and groans.

Of course, EU support makes it easier. We hope that the Eastern Partnership will help, and sooner or later, the door to the prospects of membership will be opened. In the short run, the opening of borders with Ukraine would give an invaluable signal of support.

Democracy cannot be ultimately established in the country without reforms. The lack of reforms today presents the main hindrance on Ukraine’s road to progress and prosperity. Reforms in this country are a very hard task to do until all ownership issues are resolved, and there are still “tasty” morsels of property lying around to be “appropriated” by whoever is in power. Current priorities for reforms, therefore, include: compilation of land registers, cancellation of a ban on sale of farm land, establishment of order in the tax and regulatory sectors, and fighting against corruption above all. They should go simultaneously with reforms of the law-enforcement and judicial systems.

Sooner or later, the country must come to that. Step by step, Ukrainian people will pave the way into the future.

Ukraine is highly important for the post-Soviet space. If democracy survives in Ukraine, it will have a chance in the post-Soviet space. Beyond doubt, people in the capitals of those countries breathlessly watched the presidential race. Some with disdain, some with hope.

It is important that the number of those who pin hopes on that difficult struggle waged by Ukrainians goes up…

Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko won the first round of the Ukrainian presidential elections on 17 January, as predicted.

According to the Central Election Committee, 66.72% of the voters took part in the elections. As of today, 15.46 (CET) results are:

Viktor Yanukovych – 35.36%
Yulia Tymoshenko – 25%

Sergij Tigipko – 13.01%
Arsenij Yatsenyuk – 6.97%
Viktor Yushchenko – 5.51%

Results of the National exit poll are as follows (as of 17 January 2009, 22.00 (CET)):

Viktor Yanukovych – 31.3%
Yulia Tymoshenko – 27.1%

Sergij Tigipko – 13.4%
Arsenij Yatsenyuk – 7.8%
Viktor Yushchenko – 6.0%

It’s too soon to make final conclusions. One may only say that history is closing a circle: Ukraine has taken the first step to elect the man it ejected five years ago.

No matter which of the two wins the 7 February run-off, we will see another Ukraine.

Will it still be a country based on democratic principles?

In the recent weeks, Brussels housed several events dedicated to the forthcoming elections in Ukraine set for January 17, 2010. The interest in them is certain to grow with their approach. And this is good. The more attention is paid to Ukraine at this difficult point of its history, the stronger the hope is that the country will win this race.

With this article, I would like to begin a series of publications devoted to the future elections. Here I present only the theses, to be addressed in more detail in the following articles in my blog.

So, a few introductory remarks:

1. The forthcoming presidential elections in Ukraine will be decisive for the country’s future. The choice will be not among the candidates, it will be much wider and much more important:

Freedom vs. Stability

These two notions, never conflicting in developed societies, now run into a contradiction in Ukraine, as they do in transitional societies where continuous transformation deprives people of the possibility to look into the future with confidence or at least with hope.

Over the years the passed after the Orange Revolution, the country indeed saw erosion of the notion of democracy. Unfortunately, the high ideas of freedom and democracy were shattered by poor performance. But this does not mean devaluation of those ideas as such, as those who call for stability and a strong arm want Ukrainians to believe.

That is why people will face an uneasy choice – either devotion to the dim but free way of development, or “stabilisation” at the expense of the acquired freedom. The choice is tough, unnatural, but real. At that, one should be well aware that so called stability in a country as complex, varied and plural as Ukraine can be guaranteed only by forcible methods.

2. The country will witness “elections without a choice”. This meant not only the absence of new personalities but discredit on the actual and would-be top officials. In the result of ablation of all signs of morality from the conduct of the strong and mighty in Ukraine over the past five years, even the highest ideas pronounced from dishonest lips are distrusted.

Thus, distrust and disbelief are a key factor of the forthcoming elections.

3. Ukraine would not have appeared in the current political chaos, if in 2005 it had been given a clear signal of future EU membership. Not having said its weighty word in support for the European future for Ukraine, the EU partly bears responsibility for the present chaos and uncertainty of the country’s future. What is certain is that the country would have already implemented reforms and overcome many obstacles, and the most important – avoided the present swamp of chaos and disbelief, because people would have had the main thing – hope and “light at the end of the tunnel”.

That is why it is so important for the EU not to commit that mistake and to take the lead by offering weighty “incentives” to choose freedom.

4. The result of the future elections is uncertain. On one hand, this witness the democratic nature of the political system, on the other – is threatening. The Ukrainian policy is not a policy of compromise. The present political pluralism is maintained not at the expense of the high political culture of the actors and their ability to agree but rather due to impracticability of controlling the whole country, because of its natural geographic and value-based division.

This makes subsequent transformation of the political system inevitable. The figure of the president will be critical for the way and, the main thing, methods of that transformation.

5. In such complex situation, the role and position of the EU are highly important. In fact, the EU remains the only international actor seriously supporting democratic transformations in Ukraine and the whole region.

Russia, not truly supporting any of the candidates, seeks general destabilisation of Ukraine. On one hand, it needs this for “domestic consumption”, to present Ukraine as an example of the “chaos of democracy” for its own population. On the other, it is much easier to make business transactions with the split political establishment of the country that may be unable to keep its promises but is ready for covert arrangements and corruption.

The USA, with its new ideology of the foreign policy, seems to have lost interest in Ukraine and the whole region, admitting its right to a “specific way of development”, on a par with the other regions of the world.

That is why the conduct and results of the elections will largely depend on what the EU will say, to whom, and how.

6. Nevertheless, the choice will be made by Ukrainians, not imposed from outside. The effect of external factors of the Ukrainian politics has always been exaggerated. Foreign influence, no matter how strong it is, cannot decisively influence the choice of the almost 50-million strong nation.

7. Ukraine’s choice between freedom and stability will determine the subsequent choice of the other post-Soviet countries. According to the latest Nations in Transit report, the level of democracy in the region has deteriorated last year. Most post-Soviet countries are semi-authoritarian regimes. The stroke of the pendulum of their development will depend, among other things, on the choice of Ukraine in the forthcoming elections. If after the elections Ukraine continues its hard but indispensable drive for freedom, those countries will sooner or later follow it. But if Ukraine does not endure the burden of freedom, and the next president begins to turn the country from democracy – democracy will continue its decline in the whole region.

More details of these and other factors of the elections in Ukraine – in the next posts…