Our society has not yet chosen the main priorities for building a “civilized state, Ukrainian style.” Some believe each must work primarily for himself and his family, and not for abstract idols (like the state, people, or justice. Others, such as those who profess the national democracy, still place the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian state first. Can these seemingly antagonistic approaches be reconciled? Open Politics leader Anatoly Matviyenko thinks they can. This can be achieved by a new interpretation of the national idea as a practical and truly existent action program presupposing a streamlined structure, the formation of a material and financial basis, and the necessity of observing corporate and personal interests. Almost all Right-wingers now admit that the very concept of the national idea has been largely discredited during the years of independence. Mr. Matviyenko proceeds first of all from the fact that the overwhelming majority of Ukraine’s people will not agree to sacrifice their personal welfare for the sake of abstract national values. Some of Mr. Matviyenko’s views might seem a little idealistic, but his program as a whole undoubtedly deserves serious attention as an attempt to work out an action strategy for the Right (and not only for them) under conditions such that the national democratic ideology is in crisis. In this connection we will be eager to know how you, dear readers, assess Mr. Matviyenko’s attitudes and his interpretation of the national idea. Does the national idea in Ukraine have any chances in the future, or should it hold a place in the museum of unfulfilled Ukrainian dreams?
WHAT WE NEED IS UKRAINE, NOT RUINS
“We are still analyzing the results of the last elections. We can perhaps say: they won, but we are right. Do you share this point of view?”
“Not quite: what we need first of all is Ukraine, and not ruins, standing on which, we could take pride in the fact that we stood to the end. The election results are, of course, bad but generally objective. There are two main reasons for them. To understand the former, we must go back to the early nineties. That was a period of romanticism in politics, and we had no clear idea of what kind of a state we needed and what should be the concrete content of this notion. We finally threw all state monopolies at the mercy of the wild market. As a result, 90% of financial flows are being controlled today by only 5-8% of Ukraine’s population. Five years ago, in 1994, all political forces had great appetites and feared no losses. By 1999, these appetites had grown still more, but a fear of loss had also appeared. The latter refers to large capital owners who failed to destroy each other and were very much afraid of redistribution. This is the first reason.
“The second reason is an extremely low level of public consciousness, which varies directly with the overall living standards. Our people are very susceptible to manipulation, they can be easily used for somebody’s political purposes (which the mentioned large capital owners have done quite successfully).
“The conclusion is that we must admit material and financial sources is a serious basis of politics. They defend the interests of certain groups, and we must give a clear and well argued definition of these interests, attracting for this purpose those who control the bulk of finances in the state. Financial flows should be diversified, and political activity should promote this process. In addition, one should emphasize enlightenment and keep the people more informed, which requires above all the development of non-governmental and independent media.”
“This is quite a long-term prospect. Let’s talk about now: how would you assess the political life in Ukraine after the elections?”
“Everybody is now fighting for his own interests in the political arena, trying primarily to save himself. There is not a single extant political party capable of becoming the leading force in Ukrainian society. This struggle of political dwarfs is going on against the backdrop of the ever-growing symbiosis of the oligarchic power and the Communists. The latter continue to display themselves as a force in opposition to the regime, but they still do not strive to take power in earnest. The ruling clique is quite happy with such a safe opposition, and it even creates a certain electoral base for it. This symbiosis existed during and after the election and continues to flourish today.
“A dangerous tendency of the fragmentation of political forces still exists. Anti-Ukrainian forces, both in power and in opposition, are doing their best to divide the parties, robbing them of the opportunity to exert real influence on the situation in society. The authorities try to reduce political struggle to a squabble for a ‘tasty piece of the pie:’ there seems to be a trough with a limited number of feeding places, so one has to fight seriously for these places, which the political parties are doing. But in reality they are only puppets in the hands of non-Ukrainian forces. What we need is a coming together of political forces on the basis of strict observance of the national interest.”
“A NATIONAL IDEA EXISTING OUTSIDE SOCIAL REALITIES CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE”
“You are talking about ‘non- Ukrainian forces.’ Who do you mean by this?”
“I call non-Ukrainian the forces that do not strive for strict observance of the national interest. On the one hand, this is the Communist Party which is shamelessly trying to sell out Ukraine, dreaming of a certain mythical profit out of this. On the other hand, these are oligarchs who use the national interest exclusively for achieving their own goals.
“One must take a pro-Ukrainian stand today and observe the national interest, relying on a sound material and financial basis. A national idea existing outside objective realities cannot be effective. Noteworthy in this respect is the tragic example of Rukh which has not yet disappeared but is already sinking into political oblivion.”
“So you are offering your theory on the vestiges of the previous interpretation of the national idea.”
“In a nutshell, my idea is as follows: all that is being done in Ukraine should be done with due account of the national interest. Take your newspaper, for example. What is most important is not the very fact that The Day exists but that it meets the requirement of a publication like this in Ukrainian society. If society does not need such a newspaper, there is no point in clinging to it. One must strictly observe the hierarchy of priorities: first comes the national, then corporate, and only then personal interests. This formula expresses as best as I can my vision of the national idea. Of course, there is a certain degree of idealism here. But any movement begins with an idea called upon to set pace to this movement. My followers and I believe that we must first of all form the elite and prepare society for the acceptance of this idea. At the same time, to be the bearer of the national idea, one must be a self-contained structure. One can cooperate with the authorities but one should never kowtow to them, justifying this with the impossibility to change anything in this situation. This is why I do not understand or accept the Rukh concept of constructive opposition. It is unacceptable to become dependent on the authorities and try to form a material basis by means of a secret shadow relationship with them. This is why one has to have a financial base of one’s own.”
“Can you affirm there is a considerable number of businessmen and financiers ready to really implement your idea?”
“There are certain forces ready to fund Right-wing parties, but not to do so in public as yet. The real situation is this: a genuine war is going on today between the oligarchs who personify the old thinking (fast accumulation of wealth outside Ukraine) and nationally- conscious financiers who strive to observe the interests of Ukraine in their activities. But the ruling regime puts on the hit list all those opposing the order set by the oligarchic clan structures.”
“Perhaps it is not worth transferring to this day what was during Leonid Kuchma’s first presidency, for the President’s second term has just begun.”
“What worries me very much is that Leonid Kuchma’s constantly stresses that we are going to see a NEW president. This sounded especially clearly in his inauguration speech. If he declared this when assuming presidential office for the first time, I would only welcome such a declaration. But since he tried on November 30 to feed me again with promises for tomorrow... Mr. Kuchma has had enough time to make the right choice: what to reject and what to leave behind and further develop. So he should have clearly accented his new future course as early as in his inauguration speech. Unfortunately, we did not hear this. Of course, we can wait one hundred days and even five years. I would be happy if we have to wait, say, only one year.”
“NOBODY BUT UKRAINE NEEDS A PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY”
“Suppose Mr. Kuchma will carry out real transformations. Who could he rely on?”
“The main objective today is to change the socioeconomic situation for the better. To achieve this, the President will have to rely on pro-Ukrainian forces. But it is most of all necessary that the President show in deeds his readiness for cooperation, for a dialogue with the opposition. It is unpardonable to cover up one’s own mistakes with complaints about the struggle of different branches of power. The current Parliament is incapable of making any basic changes: it can only make certain replacements and form some pro-presidential centers. I would single out three centers: 1. The non-Ukrainian opposition (the Communists and their supporters), 2. pro-presidential forces, and 3. an independent pro-Ukrainian force. The latter may become a pro-Ukrainian force: everything depends on the course Mr. Kuchma will follow.”
“How would you assess the prospects of the formation of a new government and parliamentary majority?”
“Unfortunately, I see no radiant prospects today. Even if Valery Pustovoitenko goes, he will leave behind the old practice of keeping the controlling shares of state-owned capital in the hands of a small group of individuals.
“Parliament can, of course, put together one way or another a rotating majority, which will resolve the problem of the Speaker and the Prime Minister. But it will fail to really change the socioeconomic situation in this country. I categorically disagree with Oleksandr Volkov who claims a parliamentary majority can be formed on an individual, rather than party basis. This is simply absurd.”
“But perhaps it would be wise if the leaders, who were until now behind the scenes, came onstage, took part in the formation of a majority, and bore responsibility for its actions?”
“First of all, we must ask the question: who stands to gain? The answer will be no one. For instance, does Volkov want to assume responsibility for a majority in Parliament and for the formation and performance of the government? Does he need to be responsible for the actions of a government that has failed to cope with its duties? No, he doesn’t. Does the President need it? I do not yet see his readiness for a dialogue with the opposition and with all interested forces. He has never sat down at the negotiating table with these forces. Moreover, he made no steps in this direction after his re- election. The Speaker? If he wants to show initiative, he will have to take responsibility for the actions of the parliamentary majority. But he doesn’t need this. Nobody but Ukraine needs this majority. Unfortunately, there is no force capable of meeting the public demand for this idea. And I am absolutely certain that no majority will be formed. Because those who want to and can assume responsibility will not be allowed to do so, while those who keep their hand on the pulse of financial flows do not need this responsibility.”







