Home Page  >  Focus on Ukraine  >   

THE OPPOSITION SHOULD NOT ONLY HAVE A PROGRAM “AGAINST”, BUT ALSO “FOR”

June 21, 2010
Focus on Ukraine

Tallying the results of the first 100 days of the new government together with an assessment of the first 100 days of the political opposition has become customary. In this article, we will try and analyze the latter.

Clearly, the first days of an alternative government looked natural. The agony of defeat was quite passive and was characterized by the disappearance of Yulia Tymoshenko and the total removal of Viktor Yushchenko from political processes.

At the same time, inspired by victory the new government actively began bringing to fruition its understanding of the country’s path of development. The most decisive step on this path was the reorientation of Ukraine’s foreign policy towards Russia and distancing itself from the EU and NATO. But together with this the Tax Code was adopted and the budget is close to approval. Even during the rule of Leonid Kuchma many years were frittered away on drafting the Budget Code…


Giants and Lilliputians living in the bosom of the opposition

Apparently, for many the defeat in the elections and the offensive of Viktor Yanukovych after them on all fronts, from humanitarian to economic, was unexpected. Scientific Director of the School of Political Analysis and professor of the National University of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Oleksiy Haran says that politicians and academicians did not anticipate such a move. Those that seriously discussed the possibility of Tymoshenko retaining her post as premier in the Yanukovych administration motivated by the fact that he did not have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada should have been surprised by this.   
Testing the defeat became intolerable for the systemic parliamentary opposition, which was considered a monolith. As long as the political spectrum has existed in Ukraine, members of the People’s Movement of Ukraine (Rukh) have disliked the Ukrainian Republican Party and the Democratic Party of Ukraine, the National Movement of Ukraine equally dislikes the Ukrainian National Republic/Ukrainian National Party, the UNP obliquely looks at the Reform and Order Party, different forms of the Christian Democrats fight with one another and dwarf parties loudly say “yeah” in favor of those that at one time were the strongest among the democrats. The country has been listening to such cacophony for nearly two decades.
Those parties that have been in the opposition and battling on the national-democratic field for nearly 20 years, have once again become the leaders of the opposition. It is good that at least somebody is working and assuming responsibility, but this is not enough to seriously counteract the current government.
Meanwhile, the blocking of democratic political forces continues. Valentyn Nalyvaichenko and politicians close to Petro Poroshenko recently started up their own political projects. Once again, this is easier than cutting a deal or uniting with existing parties.
Even Nalyvaichenko knows how to clear his political battlefield. You simply have to undertake a housecleaning in a patriotic environment. What is interesting is how should such housecleaning be done and who will be in the tribunal?
The idea of revamping the political spectrum is not new and very beneficial. From one election to the next in Ukraine, the elite do not change. Instead, we observe a simple and natural rotation of politicians. Even prior to the Orange Revolution and before he felt the taste of power, Mykola Tomenko proposed limiting the term of members of parliament to two convocations. At that time, he did not get the necessary support even from his colleagues in the opposition. But when did they ever support any proposal that limits their personal comfort? Hence, the notion of cleaning house of patriots will not work, even under the command of the former head of the SBU.
Who else is part of the opposition? Haran does not consider Tihipko and Yatsenyuk to be among the opposition. In Haran’s opinion, the aforementioned work by old principles, but are playing the same games. Anatoliy Hrytsenko is an interesting figure in the opposition, but he has no team or financial resources. While “For Ukraine” is an ideological party, there are major doubts that it will be able to go beyond the national-democratic niche.

Haran pointed out that the Svoboda party totally meets the interests of the Party of Regions. After all, it is convenient for the PoR to associate itself with such extreme views that Svoboda professes.

Further, in Haran’s opinion the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT) remains the most powerful opposition force, despite the fall in its ratings, which typically happens after a loss in elections that Yanukovych also experienced in his time.

And then there is former president Viktor Yushchenko. Was he disappointed with the results in the elections? Today, nobody among social scientists gives him more than a 0.5% rating as a president.
Not too long ago one could presume that some of the national-democrats may unite around Yushchenko under the slogan “trouble will teach you a lesson, but life will force it upon you!” Now, while discussions are being held as to who leads Our Ukraine – Yuriy Yekhanurov or Valentyn Nalyvaichenko – and who will faster tie the knot with the Party of Regions, such a prospect becomes even more ghostly.
 
What to do?
 

Yanukovych and his team are gradually monopolizing power. This process is not that gradual, but the teams of parliamentary forces are inevitably breaking up. Tymoshenko failed to revamp her political party prior to the elections and she did not even try to do so after her defeat. Now, defectors are doing the dirty work for Tymoshenko to bring order to the party’s staffing.

Despite this, things are not as bad as they may seem. After all, there was never a time when one fourth of parliamentarians adamantly stood for democracy. Social psychologist Oleh Pokalchuk says 20% of the critical mass of people or ideas is enough to influence public opinion.

Moreover, it has become a rule of thumb that when people give a vote of confidence in the government, half a year after the elections the leadership melts like snow.

Today, according to the results of public opinion polls conducted by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation and the Razumkov Centre for Economic and Political Studies, 54% of the population positively rated the activity of President Viktor Yanukovych. The same rating of the performance under President Viktor Yushchenko after his first 100 days in office in 2005 was 73%.

General Director of the Open Policy Foundation Ihor Zhdanov forecasts that this winter or even earlier Yanukovych’s ratings will begin to fall. Up until this time, the opposition forces should put forth their alternative proposal for the country’s development instead of simply criticizing the ruling government.

So, what must be done so that the opposition can revive itself and put the country back on the democratic and European path of development?

First of all, it should stop the in-fighting and finally unite.

Ihor Zhdanov accentuates that the opposition should finally begin working for the sake of national interests. It should also stop the mudslinging as there are precepts for changes in the powers that be in the foreseeable future.

Secondly, the opposition should be above the political spectrum.

Oleksiy Haran noted that more efforts should be made to achieving unifying the average citizen as the level of trust in them and journalists is higher than it is towards politicians.

Thirdly, the opposition must think about how to change its modus operandi.
In the first stages the new government, the opposition tried resolving issues by cavalier raids organizing massive acts of protest, though they did not have any socio-economic grounding to do so. Clearly, the first days of the activity of the new government did not elicit moods of protest among the majority of the population.

Deputy Director of the Sociological Service at the Razumkov Centre Mykhailo Mishechenko is convinced that the opposition must find that sphere of activity in which it can truly resolve issues that citizens are concerned about. Any other behavior will lead to a further drop in the ratings of the opposition and worsen people’s attitudes towards it. According to the results of the aforementioned public opinion poll, 50% of Ukrainians gave a negative assessment of the activity of the opposition forces.

Fourthly and in closing, the opposition should once and for all stop fooling itself and the people. This is likely the most important thing.
 

Either the current opposition force will outdo itself, or a new opposition force will emerge. On the surface of society there is a degree of stabilization, but dissatisfaction with the actions of the new government is building up among the active members of society. In conditions of an information society, the Internet and social networks of people with similar views of the world and political outlook find one another much faster. And it is virtually impossible to control this process. Stopping this is much more difficult than putting pressure on a publisher of a newspaper or an organization that spreads a television signal. Herein lies the main resource for re-energizing the development of democracy.

But in order for this resource to be opened and for it to work towards a common goal, a radical and at the same time democratic program of reforms that is believable and can be implemented must be proposed to the current political opposition.

Volodymyr Kukhar,
Analyst at the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation

 


Begin   Previous page   1   2   3   4   5   Next Page   End
^ Top