The Day After

The public passions that are accompanying the presidential race are about to reach their apogee. Prominent politicians, and civic and political forces, much like rank-and-file Ukrainians, have been drawn into the election circus, mulling over poll results, and the chances and prospects of individual presidential nominees, in particular those of the two frontrunners. For some people, this year’s elections are of moderate interest, whereas the future of others depends on their outcome. Still others are placing their bets on the outcome of the presidential race in the hopes of cashing in on the victory of their chosen candidate. Meanwhile, one thing that has escaped public attention is that the political process in the period between the end of the presidential elections and the next parliamentary elections will most probably be of a very complex and contradictory nature. In this period the development of the political process will be determined by the following key factors.

1. First of all, the new head of state will face an immediate need to form an adequate political support base during the early stage of his presidency. No matter which of the current frontrunners wins, political circles will undergo a restructuring in line with the agenda and ideological principles of the new head of state, his political personality and professional qualities, the political and financial-economic priorities and interests of his entourage, and the political forces that helped him come to power. A new and relatively stable parliamentary majority will play a key role in this process. Most probably, the political forces that support the soon-to-be president will form the hub of majority consolidation.

2. At the same time, neither of the two presidential frontrunners have enough support from the political forces in parliament automatically to form the required political base. Hence, the new president’s top priority will be to balance the political, economic, and social interests of the leading civic and political forces, primarily those represented in parliament. The consolidation of the interests of political forces should be viewed as the key mechanism for broadening the political base of the new head of state.

Likewise, one must take into account the fact that the formation of a pro-government coalition will be accompanied by a simultaneous restructuring in the opposition camp. The results of the elections notwithstanding, leftist parties will most probably remain in opposition to the new leadership because of their unwillingness to accept the agenda and ideological principles of either of the probable winners. The opposition may also eventually include those who, despite the fact that they do not have major ideological differences with the new leadership, will not enjoy adequate understanding on the part of the latter — which will mean that their interests will not be taken into account or realized. This applies both to the representatives of the defeated contender’s camp and some of the political parties, civic organizations, and individual politicians that currently support the soon-to-be president.

The actions of the new head of state and his entourage will largely determine the way in which public political forces, primarily those represented in parliament, will be divided into the pro-government coalition and the opposition. Of critical importance to both the third president of Ukraine and the country in general will be steps that must be taken to ensure the opposition’s willingness to come to terms with the majority. In this connection one should keep in mind the fact that the camps of both frontrunners show a certain degree of determination to continue their unyielding confrontation even after the presidential elections.

3. Such a major and simultaneously complex and politically sensitive issue as re-staffing the central and regional government bodies should also be approached from the standpoint of forming the required political base. Without a doubt, in approaching this issue one must proceed from the need to staff government structures with highly professional specialists with an untarnished public image. In a matter of several months a sufficient degree of balance must be achieved in the system of state power, as well as adequate coordination and productive cooperation among ministries, state committees, executive bodies with a special status, and regional state administrations.

Whether these tasks will be carried out, especially in the early days of the new presidency, will depend on the coordinated cooperation between the Cabinet of Ministers, the National Security and Defense Council, and the Presidential Administration. Subsequently, the roles and functions of the latter two bodies will undergo significant transformations and most probably will see their influence on the system of state power limited. However, during the difficult period of readjusting the state policy mechanism it is the coordinated actions of presidential power structures and the government that will play a key role in providing successful solutions to the strategic and day-to-day tasks of social development.

The solutions to such problems could become far too complicated, should the re-staffing of the state machinery be implemented exclusively in line with the successful candidate’s pre-election obligations and promises that were given to leading representatives of public political forces that supported him during the election race. There is a need to foresee the possibilities and scope for using the re-staffing process to balance the political, economic, and social interests of the leading public political forces. At the same time, political factors in general should be subordinated to the need to establish an effectively functioning system of state power and to implement the strategic priorities and national interests of Ukraine. An especially important task is to establish a professional and effective system of state executive power that would ensure productive cooperation with parliament and, through its mechanisms, with the leading political forces, and successfully and consistently realize long-term and day-to-day goals in public life.

4. The positioning in the presidential race, the direct or indirect support for one or the other candidate, and the results of the elections will have a major impact on the internal processes in the political milieu, especially those in parliament. In particular, the level of electoral support for the Communist and Socialist presidential nominees will largely determine the future of these two forces in particular and the Ukrainian leftist movement in general, and will bring about transformations within the two parties, especially in their leadership.

How political forces position themselves during the three weeks before the runoff will play a key role in determining their future prospects. At the same time, caution should be exercised so as not to overestimate the importance of siding with the future winner. His support will in no way guarantee a stronger political position for such forces after the elections, and under some circumstances could even be detrimental to their prospects in the long run.

5. As the March 2006 parliamentary elections draw closer, they will have an increasingly greater influence on the political process, orientation, and actions of the leading political forces. Already in February-March 2005 all political forces of at least some significance will have to launch vigorous political, organizational, and propaganda activity to identify and achieve their election goals during the parliamentary elections.

The parties forming the political base of the two frontrunners will face especially tough decisions during this period because of the need to form a powerful election structure (a party or election bloc) within a short period. Today, neither candidate has a structure that can effectively achieve new goals in the parliamentary elections, i.e., to win enough seats in the March 2006 elections to form a stable parliamentary majority or a powerful opposition to their political rival’s majority.

It is imperative to take due account of the strategic priorities of the political forces in the 2006 election campaign as the successful presidential candidate forms his political support base and government-parliamentary coalition, as well as in the process of re-staffing central and local government bodies.

6. In the period between the elections, the political reform question will significantly affect the development of the political process. The final voting in parliament to amend the constitution could bring about a fundamental transformation of the country’s political system and, at the same time, could spearhead and bring more substance into the political process in general.

However, even if the constitutional reform does not pass parliament before the 2004 presidential elections, this question will not be dropped from the political agenda. First, new attempts may be made to push a parliamentary-presidential model through parliament in response to possible steps taken by the new head of state, especially with respect to forming a new majority. Notably, presidential powers — especially to form the government and appoint heads of central executive bodies — can be significantly restricted even without amending the constitution, i.e., by means of amending a number of bills, such as “On the Cabinet of Ministers” and “On the President of Ukraine.”

Second, all leading political forces without exception have publicly recognized the urgent social need for political reform that should be carried out before the 2006 parliamentary elections and the formation of a new Verkhovna Rada. Both presidential frontrunners have stated their commitment to political reform both in their election programs and during public appearances.

Third, the key political forces will have to define their stance clearly on political reform in the run-up to the 2006 parliamentary campaign. Most probably, this will become a key issue in public debates that will arise during the parliamentary elections.

7. In view of the multifaceted nature of the developments transpiring in the political process in the period between the elections, i.e., between December 2004 and March 2006, as well as the dynamic political situation that will ensue, already now there is a need to begin developing a set of adequate measures and means to address them. The outcome of the presidential elections notwithstanding, it is vital to keep control of socioeconomic and sociopolitical processes so as to guarantee sustainable economic growth and a timely resolution of pressing social issues, and to maintain political stability and peace in Ukraine.

All the presidential nominees, and the frontrunners in particular, should now be demonstrating their ability to address these complex issues. Meanwhile, in order to make informed and reasoned decisions, voters should be taking into account the candidates’ real abilities to solve the complex issues that Ukraine will be facing in the period between the elections.

We believe that political experts should be playing a key role in developing public debates and designing appropriate mechanisms to address these questions. Despite the fact that most Ukrainian political experts are now directly involved in the election campaigns of the presidential nominees, they should not be distancing themselves from the problems that the Ukrainian state and society will inevitably face ten weeks from now.