Archive for November, 2009

‘Funny’ times came, brother,

a new future gives us a day,

but why is there so little sun in the sky?

Why am I writing sad songs?

‘Funny’ times came, brother,

we’re approaching the destination,

but why am I looking for another road?

why I don’t want to walk alongside them anymore?

‘Funny’ times came, brother,

a sign of glory shines on our chest.

They tenderly closed our eyes,

put honey on our lips,

threw away our soul.

The soul woke up and asks itself:

Why am I alone?

No one to ask: gold instead of father,

blind wall instead of mother.

It’s become so quiet all around,

all the voices have gone somewhere.

‘Funny’ times came, so few of us left.

Damn these times, brother.

Yet we have things to do,

open our eyes and keep walking,

set teeth on edge and love our mother tenderly.

Who else if not us, brothers?

‘Funny’ times came, brother, by Vyacheslav Vakarchuk, Okean Elzy, 2006
(translation from Ukrainian)

On October 19, 2009, the 2010 presidential election campaign officially started in Ukraine. One should probably be happy and hope for renewal. But there is sorrow and fear instead. For some reason, this song written by Vakarchuk back in 2006 comes to mind – maybe because then, in 2006, he as a man of arts and talent asked himself questions that most Ukrainians ask now – do we want to walk alongside them anymore, what are we expecting from them, is there any alternative to them?

I continue my articles devoted to the forthcoming elections in Ukraine with the elaboration of the first thesis: elections will focus on one main dilemma:

Freedom vs. security

I will try to find answers to the following questions:
What is understood under the notions of “freedom” and “stability;”
who of the main contenders is a “candidate for freedom,” and who is a “candidate for stability;”
what are the role and expectations of the international community, and why is the slogan of “stabilisation at any price” unacceptable;
is there a chance for the “candidate for freedom?”

Contenders

Among numerous contenders let’s focus upon those who represent a significant electoral segment and have at least a slight ideology and programme. So, we will consider:

Acting President and leader of the Our Ukraine party, Viktor Yushchenko;
acting Prime Minister and leader of the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc, Yuliya Tymoshenko;
the leader of the opposition Party of the Regions and the main rival of Viktor Yushchenko in the presidential elections of 2004-2005, Viktor Yanukovych;
the Chairman of the Parliament’s National Security and Defence Committee, former Defence Minister Anatoliy Grytsenko;
the Former speaker of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine and former Foreign Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

Freedom vs. stability

Let me start by reminding that the latest Nations in Transit rating classifies Ukraine among “hybrid regimes,” i.e. those with an unclear future. Such a country can both move forward to democracy, and step back into authoritarianism.

As we know, political developments in a country are not predetermined. States become democratic not because of some specific conditions on the territory of a given country but because the people living in that country spare no effort to maintain and promote democracy continuously. Once established, democracy is not guaranteed – democratic processes are reversible. They are especially susceptible to regression into authoritarianism if this is the will of the current ruler. Ukraine may find itself in this situation after the elections, if the segment “candidates for stability” comes to power.

What do we understand as “freedom” and “stability” in present-day Ukraine? We mean “freedom” or “freedoms,” in their classic definition of the OSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975: “human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion …civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development.”

“Stability” can be defined as stabilisation of the political system with the purpose of removal of the current collapse in decision-making, observed in today’s Ukraine. The current state of affairs is a result of the uncompleted constitutional reform that did not ultimately and clearly distribute the powers of different branches and separate officials of the same branch, and the personal rivalry of individual national leaders.

Stabilisation at any price?

Stabilisation in itself is not objectionable. It is the right thing to aim for, and a nation should accomplish constitutional transformations, preferably, to establish parliamentary rule.

Nevertheless, several factors raise fears:

The character of the persons abiding by the motto of “stability,” insisting on the appearance of “a powerful arm that can impose order;”
immaturity of the institutions of democracy in the country;
the high level of corruption and dependence of officials on the will of their superiors;
the vivid example of Russia which in the mid-2000s saw a “successful” course of stabilisation of the system that led that country to become a “consolidated authoritarian regime,” according to the Nations in Transit rating.

Exactly these factors let us assert that in the present Ukrainian conditions, “stabilisation” of the political system will lead not to a harmonious parliamentary democracy but to liquidation of political pluralism and potential subsequent authoritarianism. In the conditions of the current impoverishment of a great part of the population and the decline of morality and education, this may happen quite soon. The role of individuals in politics is still very important. In circumstances when institutions are weak, the future of the state in the main part depends on who becomes leader. Besides, democracy can hardly survive in poor societies – in such societies, the pendulum can turn from the “chaos of democracy” into authoritarian regimes.

Unfortunately, we should admit that “candidates for stability” outnumber “candidates for freedom.” In fact, there is only one “candidate for freedom” – the current President, Viktor Yushchenko. In his disastrous rule, the absence of attempts of oppression of political and other freedoms may be his best achievement. Under his leadership, Ukraine was recognised as “a free country” and free and democratic parliamentary elections were held.

By contrast, the “candidates for stability” are represented by a whole range of more or less gifted politicians. Unfortunately, in the given situation, their political talents can easily be used to play a trick on the country. Virtue can turn evil.

Proceeding from the political programmes of the candidates’ parties, their speeches and statements, their executive experience and their established image, the “candidates for stability” are represented by (in descending order of their “ambitions of stability”):

Yuliya Tymoshenko (on the Shuster.Live TV programme, Ukrayina TV channel, 25 September 2009:  “Who told you that people do not want dictatorship?”);
Viktor Yanukovych (at the Chernivtsi Machine-Building Plant LLC, October 2009: “People are already tired of this government. People want stability, calm and prosperity”);
Anatoliy Grytsenko ( interview to Dzerkalo Tyzhnya newspaper, 24 October 2009: “Are you sure that the country is ready to accept such authoritarian changes? …We have no other way out. The country and the economy need management …Promoters of liberal economy …would better hide from the people today.”).

Arseniy Yatsenyuk, positioned as a hopeful alternative in spring, has still not revealed his position on any of the questions critical for the country. This makes him hard to categorise. Most probably, he will maintain his indefinite status until the end of the campaign.

Therefore, the list of “candidates for stability” is long enough. Most probably, exactly they will compete for the presidential seat, unless something extraordinary happens. People may be put in a position of choosing the “lesser evil.”

Viktor Yushchenko, being the only “candidate for freedom,” has lost support over the past five years of his rule. And even those who choose freedom are not certain to vote for him, although he has still has the necessary means to turn the tide of events.

What does the international community expect?

What are the expectations of the international community? Unfortunately, they coincide with the stand of the majority of presidential candidates. The slogan of the need for “stability in Ukraine” is heard ever more frequently. Few think about the potential price of such stability. The position of the EU can be understood – having suffered from the gas crisis last winter, it naturally wants to avoid a repeat. Stabilisation of government is seen as one of its tools. But if stability is secured at the expense of freedom, the EU may then face an even greater problem – Ukraine’s reversal on the path of democratic transformation. Then, the Eastern Partnership, intended to promote European values in Ukraine, may no longer be relevant, as it will fall too short of the needs and wishes of the next president, who gives stability but takes freedom. It is highly important that the EU is not guided by the slogan of “stability at any price.” Its implementation would bring much worse consequences than the gas crisis. A clear signal of the indispensability of further democratic transformations should be given to all candidates.

Unfortunately, the USA will hardly be instrumental in the promotion of democracy in Ukraine this time aound. There is an impression that the USA, having lost interest in the democratisation of this region and the wider world, places no particular importance on the forthcoming presidential elections. Its presence will be greatly limited, compared to the previous elections.

Does freedom have a chance to win this election? It should have a chance – after all, hope springs eternal.

Maybe an examination of the results of the latest public opinion polls, which we will carry out in the next article, will help to answer this question.