• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Disheartening thoughts on the eve of Ukrainian Independence Day

17 July, 1999 - 00:00

Now that Ukraine is about to mark the 8th anniversary of its national independence (August 24), certain politicians continue to question it, trying to attribute all the existing socioeconomic problems to independence and the dissolution of the USSR. One is instantly tempted to ask them: How come it dissolved if (according to the Left radicals) it was a polity based on a just social system? Also, what was it that made over 90% of the Ukrainian citizenry vote for national sovereignty during the 1991 referendum? What did all those people expect from independence and why have their expectations not become a reality? Why, rather than develop and prosper, is Ukraine experiencing a decline in the economy and culture? Why is its judicial system falling apart and people's social protection and health care are going from bad to worse?

To answer these questions, one must take a closer look at the factors relevant to the above-mentioned negative phenomena.

SOVIET HERITAGE

The reasons for the USSR's dissolution are too obvious and do not call for an historical discourse. We all vividly remember the «advantages of developed socialism.» Endless lines in the shopping areas; constant shortage of quality goods; lying or silent media; total censorship; restrictions on political freedoms; economic, social, and ecological problems; low living standards compared to the developed countries — this and a number of other negative phenomena caused the «Soviet people» to turn its back on the Communist Party which, in turn, caused the USSR to collapse and a number of independent countries to emerge on its territory.

Independence became a fact for Ukraine and for the other former Union republics, so they could only embark on the road of forming national polities.

At the time of the USSR's collapse Ukraine had better starting opportunities compared to the other republics.

However, its political leadership headed by Leonid Kravchuk, afraid to lose their seats and yielding to the opposition's pressure, made concessions and accelerated the democratic process. People who had for long decades lived under totalitarianism, used to unquestionably carrying out orders from upstairs, could not muster the courage to make independent decisions — and this is precisely what a democratic system requires. The old command-administrative system was almost completely ruined and a new one still to be built, so instead of democracy Ukrainian society fell into an anarchy accompanied by a soaring crime rate, total corruption, and uncontrollable privatization of public property. Smart operators, of course, took advantage of the situation, building staggering fortunes. The economic collapse caused quickly spreading unemployment which, in turn, made the bulk of the populace fall below the breadline. Poverty-stricken, people started blaming the democrats who had, allegedly, led the country into chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, during the 1994 elections, Leonid Kravchuk, formerly second secretary of the party central committee and now an embodiment of democracy, lost to Leonid Kuchma representing the «strong hand.» He promised to straighten things out in the state. After taking office and with a command administrative experience, Leonid Kuchma proceeded to rule the country using party nomenklatura methods. His team was put together relying on the personal loyalty principle. As a result, total control over the economy and other social spheres grew stronger. Excessive taxation and bureaucratic despotism slowed down economic development, forcing business people to seek ways to bypass the law, thus exposing themselves to law enforcement and other controlling authorities. This made it considerably easier for the regime to control them. Under the circumstances only enterprises whose managers had some strings to pull upstairs could function more or less effectively, because their managers could thus get tax concessions and other privileges.

Once again there emerged a privileged caste, the way it had been during Soviet times. It was then known as party nomenklatura . Now we know these people as oligarchs. As we did previously, we have a handful ruling us all. Whereas the bulk of the populace is barely level with the breadline, thinking of nothing else but survival, a small group of people is receiving superprofits. This policy of the current President undermines the people's confidence in the state; it is conducted under democratic mottoes and thus discredits the very idea of democracy.

It is «thanks» to the policy conducted by the first and second Ukrainian presidents that a considerable part of the populace tends to side with the Left radicals, hoping that when the Communist come to power they will secure stability and order. But will they really?

The current tangible increase in the exponents of leftist ideas does mean that people really share Communist ideas. Most people see this as the only way to express their opposition to the current President's incompetent policy. Hence the Nataliya Vitrenko phenomenon.

Opposition? It has turned out unable to carry out democratic reform. The trouble is that the democratic movement emerged spontaneously and has remained poorly organized. It proved strong enough to topple the bankrupt regime, but the democrats failed to take power in their hands. There were various reasons, but mostly due to constant interdemocratic squabbles, this being an insurmountable obstacle in building a single front; also, the democratic leaders lacked practical experience in the state-building sphere. In the situation that had developed, the first and second presidents were elected from among the good old Soviet nomenklatura who relied on old party cadre. The absence of a strong and organized opposition resulted in power being usurped by the presidential administrations. That is why the democratization process is so slow and painful in Ukraine.

WILL HISTORY TEACH US NO LESSON?

The current opposition to the current President is divided into two hostile camps supporting and opposing the idea of democracy and independence, with the Left blaming everything on the Right and vice versa. Regrettably, none of the warring parties is willing to hear what the other one has to say.

The most balanced stand under the circumstances is taken by the democratically oriented Left-centrist, centrist, and Right-centrist political parties. But again, such ideas can be implemented only by one's representatives in the highest bodies of power. Considering the manner in which the democratic forces are getting prepared for the presidential elections, it is safe to assume that their chances are slim. Unlike the Communists and the President's team, almost all democratic parties put forth their own presidential candidates, although it is clear that only two — Oleksandr Moroz and Yevhen Marchuk — stand a real chance. The situation strongly reminds one of what happed during the previous presidential campaign. Does this mean that we learn nothing from history? Once again democratic candidates will tear the electorate apart, each grabbing at the votes, eventually playing into Petro Symonenko or Leonid Kuchma's hands. The former, if and when elected President, will drag Ukraine back into the totalitarian past. The latter, if allowed to stay in office, will continue to obstruct its advance.

Apparently, someone has to cast personal ambitions aside and step down, out of the way of the stronger contender.

The people will expect clear-cut and resolute decisions and actions from the new President, aimed at guiding Ukraine out of the crisis, ensuring its democratic social progress.

Now that Ukraine is about to mark the 8th anniversary of its national independence (August 24), certain politicians continue to question it, trying to attribute all the existing socioeconomic problems to independence and the dissolution of the USSR. One is instantly tempted to ask them: How come it dissolved if (according to the Left radicals) it was a polity based on a just social system? Also, what was it that made over 90% of the Ukrainian citizenry vote for national sovereignty during the 1991 referendum? What did all those people expect from independence and why have their expectations not become a reality? Why, rather than develop and prosper, is Ukraine experiencing a decline in the economy and culture? Why is its judicial system falling apart and people's social protection and health care are going from bad to worse?

To answer these questions, one must take a closer look at the factors relevant to the above-mentioned negative phenomena.

SOVIET HERITAGE

The reasons for the USSR's dissolution are too obvious and do not call for an historical discourse. We all vividly remember the «advantages of developed socialism.» Endless lines in the shopping areas; constant shortage of quality goods; lying or silent media; total censorship; restrictions on political freedoms; economic, social, and ecological problems; low living standards compared to the developed countries — this and a number of other negative phenomena caused the «Soviet people» to turn its back on the Communist Party which, in turn, caused the USSR to collapse and a number of independent countries to emerge on its territory.

Independence became a fact for Ukraine and for the other former Union republics, so they could only embark on the road of forming national polities.

At the time of the USSR's collapse Ukraine had better starting opportunities compared to the other republics.

However, its political leadership headed by Leonid Kravchuk, afraid to lose their seats and yielding to the opposition's pressure, made concessions and accelerated the democratic process. People who had for long decades lived under totalitarianism, used to unquestionably carrying out orders from upstairs, could not muster the courage to make independent decisions — and this is precisely what a democratic system requires. The old command-administrative system was almost completely ruined and a new one still to be built, so instead of democracy Ukrainian society fell into an anarchy accompanied by a soaring crime rate, total corruption, and uncontrollable privatization of public property. Smart operators, of course, took advantage of the situation, building staggering fortunes. The economic collapse caused quickly spreading unemployment which, in turn, made the bulk of the populace fall below the breadline. Poverty-stricken, people started blaming the democrats who had, allegedly, led the country into chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, during the 1994 elections, Leonid Kravchuk, formerly second secretary of the party central committee and now an embodiment of democracy, lost to Leonid Kuchma representing the «strong hand.» He promised to straighten things out in the state. After taking office and with a command administrative experience, Leonid Kuchma proceeded to rule the country using party nomenklatura methods. His team was put together relying on the personal loyalty principle. As a result, total control over the economy and other social spheres grew stronger. Excessive taxation and bureaucratic despotism slowed down economic development, forcing business people to seek ways to bypass the law, thus exposing themselves to law enforcement and other controlling authorities. This made it considerably easier for the regime to control them. Under the circumstances only enterprises whose managers had some strings to pull upstairs could function more or less effectively, because their managers could thus get tax concessions and other privileges.

Once again there emerged a privileged caste, the way it had been during Soviet times. It was then known as party nomenklatura . Now we know these people as oligarchs. As we did previously, we have a handful ruling us all. Whereas the bulk of the populace is barely level with the breadline, thinking of nothing else but survival, a small group of people is receiving superprofits. This policy of the current President undermines the people's confidence in the state; it is conducted under democratic mottoes and thus discredits the very idea of democracy.

It is «thanks» to the policy conducted by the first and second Ukrainian presidents that a considerable part of the populace tends to side with the Left radicals, hoping that when the Communist come to power they will secure stability and order. But will they really?

The current tangible increase in the exponents of leftist ideas does mean that people really share Communist ideas. Most people see this as the only way to express their opposition to the current President's incompetent policy. Hence the Nataliya Vitrenko phenomenon.

Opposition? It has turned out unable to carry out democratic reform. The trouble is that the democratic movement emerged spontaneously and has remained poorly organized. It proved strong enough to topple the bankrupt regime, but the democrats failed to take power in their hands. There were various reasons, but mostly due to constant interdemocratic squabbles, this being an insurmountable obstacle in building a single front; also, the democratic leaders lacked practical experience in the state-building sphere. In the situation that had developed, the first and second presidents were elected from among the good old Soviet nomenklatura who relied on old party cadre. The absence of a strong and organized opposition resulted in power being usurped by the presidential administrations. That is why the democratization process is so slow and painful in Ukraine.

WILL HISTORY TEACH US NO LESSON?

The current opposition to the current President is divided into two hostile camps supporting and opposing the idea of democracy and independence, with the Left blaming everything on the Right and vice versa. Regrettably, none of the warring parties is willing to hear what the other one has to say.

The most balanced stand under the circumstances is taken by the democratically oriented Left-centrist, centrist, and Right-centrist political parties. But again, such ideas can be implemented only by one's representatives in the highest bodies of power. Considering the manner in which the democratic forces are getting prepared for the presidential elections, it is safe to assume that their chances are slim. Unlike the Communists and the President's team, almost all democratic parties put forth their own presidential candidates, although it is clear that only two — Oleksandr Moroz and Yevhen Marchuk — stand a real chance. The situation strongly reminds one of what happed during the previous presidential campaign. Does this mean that we learn nothing from history? Once again democratic candidates will tear the electorate apart, each grabbing at the votes, eventually playing into Petro Symonenko or Leonid Kuchma's hands. The former, if and when elected President, will drag Ukraine back into the totalitarian past. The latter, if allowed to stay in office, will continue to obstruct its advance.

Apparently, someone has to cast personal ambitions aside and step down, out of the way of the stronger contender.

The people will expect clear-cut and resolute decisions and actions from the new President, aimed at guiding Ukraine out of the crisis, ensuring its democratic social progress.

Rubric: