Today, we will speak about the spirits dominating Ukrainian society. Who are people choosing as “their” candidates? Do they trust those whom they are going to vote for? Do they see any alternative, or may one say that the forthcoming elections will be an election without a choice? If so, why? And the main question – is there light at the end of the tunnel?

 In September – October, Ukraine’s sociological services carried out a measurement of the presidential race.

  Table 1 «Whom would you vote for, if elections were held in the near future?»

 If Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko go into the second round, votes would be divided as follows:

  Table 2 «Whom would you vote for if Yu.Tymoshenko and V.Yanukovych go into the second round of elections?»

 If Viktor Yanukovych and Arneniy Yatseniuk go into the second round, votes would be divided as follows:

Table 3 «Whom would you vote for if А.Yatseniuk and V.Yanukovych go into the second round of elections?»

 According to the Law on Elections of the President of Ukraine (Art. 71 point 4) the voting bulletin will contain an option “Do not support any of the candidates for the position of the President of Ukraine”. How likely people would use this option? In October 2009 Razumkov Centre held public opinion polls about trust in bodies of power and leaders who now personify the establishment and the opposition, that is, in fact – trust in the people running for the president.

 Table 4 «Do you support the activity of….?»

 Table 5 «Do you support the activity of….?»

 Comparing the ratings of presidential candidates and ratings of trust (or, rather, mistrust), one comes to the conclusion that the high level of mistrust is not transformed into a strong protest feeling against candidates. On one hand, this testifies to the strong feeling of civic duty of Ukrainians who are ready to elect their president in spite of all. But at the same time, it also illustrates the paradox and, to be frank, the tragedy of the situation: not trusting existing politicians, people nevertheless are going to vote for them. Why?

 Here are a few suggestions:

 - The tough and continuous information campaign of the key candidates insisting that the choice leaves no alternative – “Vote for me. No one is better. Others are even worse.”

 -  The imaginary lack of alternative at the elections finds its proof in the weakness of so-called “alternative” candidates. The main ones – Yatseniuk and Grytsenko – not only failed to win new supporters but continue to rapidly lose support among seemingly firm adherents.

 -  Intention to vote for “the lesser evil”. When none of the candidates meets people’s expectations they choose to vote for the candidate whom they dislike less.

 -   The high level of mistrust is related not only to politicians but also to people’s own powers, in their ability to oppose today’s politics and politicians. A society disappointed in the Orange Revolution can hardly come together to manage the new situation.

 -  The low level of morality in the political sphere affects the entire society. Erosion of moral targets in society is a danger in itself. And in association with the elections, this has the effect of people having passed the “threshold of sensitivity” – no matter what terrible things are told about “their” candidate or his party (even if based on firm evidence), people are no longer touched by it and, with few exceptions, are not going to change their vote.

-  Effect of the paradigm of the ««friend» against «foe»». Ukrainian political scientist  Dmytro Vydrin aptly formulated it: “Society has turned into people who thoughtlessly, uncritically and blindly love their idols, deify them, are ready to forgive any flaws and shout ‘Yes’ to them under any circumstances. At the same time, they similarly thoughtlessly, uncritically and blindly hate opponents of their idols and shout ‘Down with them,’ without even listening to their arguments and position.”

 The present situation of “elections without a choice” has deeper roots. The root of the evil is that the established political system pursues preservation and self-reproduction, not letting in new blood. Why did this happen? Here are again a few suggestions:

 -  The introduction of the proportional election system with closed lists in 2005 is a factor. This kills competition within a party (one needs to be not more professional but more loyal and devoted to the leader who decides one’s presence in the list) and makes party members dependent on the party leader. A lot has been said about this in Ukraine, but the system has not been changed, the lists have not been opened.

 -  The majority election system was cancelled at the regional level. This brought about even greater “cementing” of the existing parties and spread of their influence at all levels. The main problem is that this bars an alternative way of nomination and entry of people into power.

 - Corruption in the system of formation of political forces and the prevalence of the principle of loyalty over that of professionalism play a major role. Payment for entry on party lists has become the talk of the whole country. Parties are made up of people devoted to the leader (with few exceptions). Their professional qualities (or absence thereof) recede into the background. On the other hand, self-respecting professionals refuse to join the political process, are unwilling to “play by the rules of the game.” By and large, the nation is on the losing side, since people who could bring morality into politics cannot break through.

 - The geographic and, to some extent, psychological divisions of Ukraine are another factor. Such divisions, on the one hand, are good for the country since they curb the authoritarian ambitions of leaders, but on the other hand, they prevent the consolidation of society. They prevent the appearance of a leader who could unite society on the basis of values shared by the entire nation. 

 This is why, the current leaders fight each other for power but they know they cannot survive without each other. They march forward for power together to extend their dream to rule again, what raises a terrible sense of déjà vu in people of Ukraine. The people have had enough of this and know the end in advance but are compelled to watch it unfold.

 But do they have to acquiesce, really? After all, it is sufficient to look at the situation soberly and to rationally assess the candidates striving for election. Apply to them analysis, rather than creed, questions, rather than requests, head up, not shoulders down: “the greatest threat for the authorities is posed, strangely, by the usual ‘homo sapient,’ that is, thinking human”.

 If all the people in Ukraine think at least for a moment, the ghosts of the past would not prevent them from building their future now …

***

The next post will be about the external factors at the forthcoming elections.