“Ukrainian politics is like a communal apartment where the tenants are constantly arguing over a frying pan”

Despite Ukraine’s many political problems, Myroslav Popovych, director of the Hryhorii Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy and member of the National Academy of Sciences, is confident that Ukraine is slowly but surely moving toward democracy. He may be right, but what price will Ukrainians have to pay for this democracy? What pluses and minuses can this Ukrainian philosopher see in the process of our nation’s evolution?

Dr. Popovych, what are the causes of the disorder in Ukraine?

It is the result of Ukraine’s chaotic political world. For example, how were our so-called political parties formed? At election time each party must champion a certain idea and have a package of well-thought-out solutions to certain problems. Our parties emerged from the chaos following the collapse of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, as corporations of people who desired political success.

Often such parties emerged on the basis of a territorial factor or something else. But a political program, the face of the party, would begin to be formed only once a certain electoral niche was chosen. They could have done without such niches, except that they needed a reliable electorate. Eventually, Ukrainian society developed a system of sympathies and antipathies, which was later manifested during elections; a system that has nothing to do with politics.

Today Ukraine is split into two large groups. One gravitates toward the center and the western regions, and the other, toward the south and east. Here I should mention the economic preconditions, such as the fact that the southeastern part of Ukraine is more industrialized. What is surprising, however, is that parties’ pre-election packages include slogans that have no relation to this economic division, e.g., NATO or no NATO, Russian as a second official language, etc. These are questions with which people are absolutely unfamiliar. These are professional matters, including cultural issues that should not be central among all the other problems. A mature approach to a number of problems is demanded of politicians, not ordinary Ukrainian citizens.

I recall a Ukrainian MP who declared that, while defending his political force, he occasionally found himself considering the possibility that his opponents had taken a correct stand. In other words, you keep fighting because you are surrounded by “your people,” because they have helped you with your career, because you owe your rank and position to them. So you seldom find yourself considering the possibility that your political opponents have chosen the correct stand. This muddled political structure is the reason behind Ukraine’s dangerously unbalanced condition. It’s anyone’s guess what our politicians will tell us tomorrow.

What do you expect from the next early parliamentary elections?

It is a thankless job to make predictions in the current political situation because Ukraine is not a desolate island; it is at the epicenter of world politics and economics. Ukraine has always been a bridge between Eurasian Russia and the West. The West is coping with problems the solutions to which call for a considerable degree of boldness on the part of its politicians, considering that most countries in Western Europe are ruled by right-wing politicians. This is primarily caused by rising immigration from the Third World. Today we are seeing liberal politicians in these Western countries adopting decisions about the state’s interference in the economy, because if they don’t do this, there will be decades of recession ahead of us.

Not so long ago they were criticizing President Roosevelt for poking his nose into the economy, while those same critics were employing his methods. Generally speaking, in the West there are great shifts taking place in the sphere of political philosophy, particularly where political actions are concerned. Our country is not prepared for such changes. Ukrainian politicians are only concerned about how to set up their electoral niches, not about any strategic plans for Ukraine. Therefore, all we can do is hope that they have some common sense.

But in terms of specifics, after the elections I think we’ll see a coalition with the Party of Regions as its nucleus, although today this political force is unpredictable because of various currents within the party. Proceeding from Viktor Yanukovych’s statements recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, his party will follow a pro-Russian political course. Such radical statements have been made only by the most antagonistic movements, like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yanukovych’s statement indicates that Ukraine must enter the sphere of Russia’s state interests. At the same time, we shouldn’t rule out the possibility of the Party of Regions pulling off a campaign stunt. This party has a stable electorate, but only because voters do not have any alternative. In this kind of situation it is a good thing when there is a party that champions the interests of ordinary people, but there is no such party in our country. Apart from nationalization, the communists have nothing else to propose, and I won’t even comment on the socialists. Therefore, this niche will once again be occupied by the BYuT.

The joint BYuT-PR vote on Sept. 2, 2008, was more on the left than right side. It limits the president’s appetites. The approved law concerns not only Viktor Yushchenko but all future presidents of Ukraine. Personally, I am very much in favor of restricting the president’s powers. If this vote looked like the BYuT’s political line, it would place them on the left wing, but they never ultimately showed their true face.

Perhaps this was a tactical move, but it doesn’t allow the voter to get a clear picture of whom to vote for. It’s possible that after the elections two political forces will be left to come to an understanding: the BYuT and the PR. The BYuT’s position on Russia is still unclear. Its reaction to the events in Georgia was European, while the reaction of Our Ukraine and National Self-Defense (NU-NS) was American.

Do you think the coming elections will be part of the presidential campaign?

Yes, but we’ll have to pay a very high price. I think that these early parliamentary elections are a very bad mistake that was made above all by the president. He wasn’t supported by the international community, not even by those who had always supported him in the past. He’s obviously counting on a PR-NU coalition to be formed after the elections. Then he will be able to run his country somehow. But this alliance will not give the president any political dividends.

In view of the political situation that has developed in Ukraine in recent years, will there be any new people coming to power?

It is necessary for new people to come into power, but this is highly unlikely. It is very difficult to establish a new party in our country, let alone allow it to spread its wings. Once a new political figure emerging in Ukrainian politics manages to spend some time in all the political parties, s/he becomes uninteresting. Given the situation, I’m not sure that our young politicians will make it into the limelight. They are being used eagerly as a “side dish,” only to be dumped afterwards. Today people like Arsenii Yatseniuk, Anatolii Hrytsenko, Yurii Lutsenko, et al., are very popular, but they lack the desire to see the big strategic picture.

No matter what our attitude is to Western politicians, their small political steps are thought out from the standpoint of big politics. No such well-thought-out steps are being made in Ukrainian politics. That’s why people have the impression that politics is like a communal apartment where the tenants are constantly arguing over a frying pan. Concealed behind the ambitions of our politicians are political passions triggered by the question of how to climb up another rung in the hierarchy of power.

Does the general public have an opportunity to influence political events in Ukraine?

Our politicians may not notice it, but the public has an impact on Ukrainian politics. When our statesmen realize that they have to scramble out of their political shambles, they start talking about the public’s interests. This is especially apparent during election campaigns. Unlike politicians, ordinary people have a lot of common sense. For example, the split in the country that we discussed earlier is not manifested among ordinary people. This mood should have a positive effect on current politicians because their aggressive attitudes are absolutely unacceptable to the general public. They don’t seem to understand that people are outraged by threats to their personal security, and that they will never vote for a politician who is aggressive.

Do you think that Ukraine will manage to avoid being influenced by such strong external political factors as the US, Russia, or the EU?

Europe would breathe a sigh of relief if one day Ukraine ceased to exist, because we represent problems, and Europe already has enough problems with Russia. Ukraine must coexist with the West in such a way that it will not have to get involved in international scandals because of us. At the same time, we should not expect a free ride. Our country is capable of developing its economic resources absolutely on its own, because we have our own rich intellectual and cultural potential.

As for Ukraine’s neutral status, this is an illusion. Ukraine is not Switzerland, and we don’t have banks on which the world economy relies. Hungary and Czechoslovakia tried to become neutral countries in 1956 and 1968, respectively, and we know the outcome: Soviet tanks on the streets of Budapest and Prague. Today it is difficult to talk about tanks in Kyiv, but they nearly drove into Tbilisi. Neutral status is good where it is possible to avoid a political and military conflict, but in the sphere of ideology this status is unfeasible.