Anatoly TOLSTOUKHOV, “Those in Power Do Have Things to Ponder...”
In Ukrainian politics, it is not at all honorary and prestigious to be part of the government bloc. On the contrary, the authorities are the object of many complaints which are now also being raised, for quite clear reasons, against the For a United Ukraine bloc, which accumulated the main political and administrative resource. Some of The Day’s questions about this bloc’s vision of their current role are answered by Anatoly TOLSTOUKHOV, first deputy leader of the People’s Democratic Party and deputy election-campaign chief of For a United Ukraine.
“Do you think the result gained by For a United Ukraine is a victory or a defeat?”
“That so many parties joined forces during the most crucial elections is a hitherto unprecedented thing for Ukrainian election campaigns. Considering the conditions under which the bloc was formed and the time it had to put its name on the map as an election campaign subject, I would say the bloc has fulfilled its mission. It could have done this even better, but, in principle, it has done a good job. Moreover, if you also take into account that For a United Ukraine was the only force that contested the elections under the crossfire of all those disgruntled with the government, criticism from all kinds of opponents, and mean whisperings of all who envy, then I think this is a success.
“But if you look at it from a different angle — that this election was in fact a referendum on the public trust in the authorities — I think the party of power, in the broad sense of the word, does have things to think about.”
“Do you think the bloc may lose out on its conformism, i.e., readiness, so often declared by bloc leader Volodymyr Lytvyn, to cooperate with all political forces in parliament?”
“Our bloc is called For a United Ukraine, but there can be no united Ukraine if we strip it, artificially or, the more so, naturally, of the fragments of some ‘wrong’ electorate, political force, etc. So what you call conformism must in fact be called differently, as a search for compromise. Searching for compromises, the bloc may take both a soft and tough stand, but in any case it will be searching. Conformism is something else: it is malleability and weakness. It seems to me we have no option but to try to rally Ukraine ideologically, politically, and economically. But the point is that this kind of goal should be set not only by For a United Ukraine or the parties that make it up. This goal should be set by all. And you saw the figures that illustrate the experiments tried out on the election field by Unity, Women for the Future, and Winter Generation teams.”
“What also seems doubtful is the bloc’s cohesion: there are too many business, regional, personal and other centrifugal forces in it. Is there a guarantee that the bloc will remain united?”
“What seems at first glance the question of our bloc’s cohesion is, on the other hand, one of the future of the Ukrainian political elite and the prospects of rallying processes. I can’t say we don’t have questions we are ready to ask each other. But these questions are secondary with respect to our understanding of the responsibility we have shouldered and the necessity to translate this responsibility into practical action. Therefore I see no reason why the bloc should break up, and I think you will also see this when we follow the path we charted at the beginning of the election campaign, that of building a unified party.”
“There was, some time before, a widespread opinion that it would have been wiser to appoint Anatoly Kinakh, a politician more popular among the grassroots, rather than the Presidential Administration’s head, as the bloc leader. To what extent do you think those reproaches were fair?”
“When five equals got together and failed to decide which of them was worthy of bloc leadership, they decided there must be a sixth. So the sixth one became the leader. And the election campaign course showed we were not mistaken.”
