Firm governance needed

Ukrainians have probably never been as distrustful of their government and protest sentiments have never reached such high levels as now. In early 2009, Research&Brandng Group published its sensational poll findings. As many as 80 percent of the polled Ukrainian stated they wanted firm-hand governance, while nearly one-third made it clear they were prepared to part with human freedoms to have this kind of governance.

Sociologists note, however, that these scary figures do not mean that the people want to have a dictator, a Ukrainian fuehrer. What the people want in the first place is order. Quite a few of the respondents want to see strong and responsible politicians in power; to them strong does not mean dictatorial but, rather, being able to consolidate this society and stop the hostilities between the branches of power and elites. On this approach, firm-hand governance is exemplified by Margaret Thatcher, F. D. Roosevelt, and General Charles de Gaulle.

Word spread through the Verkhovna Rada that the new president would start by contesting the political reform in the Constitutional Court. Yet what really matters at the moment is whether Ukrainian society will be able to adequately respond to the next president’s possibly undemocratic decisions. In other words, have we become indifferent? Will we respond to the encroachments on our civil rights and liberties or keep looking on? Will we be able — and willing, above all — to keep the government under public control? Below The Day‘s experts share their views.

Dr. Vitalii MASNENKO, political scientist, lecturer, Bohdan Khmelnytsky Cherkasy National University:

“First, we need to look and see whether the current election campaign actually focuses precisely on that firm-hand governance or a strong personality. This is true but only to a certain extent, because not all candidates are actually capable of taking this stand, just as not all voters would want to have their problems solved that way. Second, how much is our society prepared to accept or reject this approach? I think there isn’t a straight answer to a straight question here. After all, public mentality doesn’t always associate the concept of firm hand with something antidemocratic, even though we have our negative experience of the Soviet totalitarian system. The firm-hand and putting-things-in-order concepts were conceived precisely that way. However, there are other approaches to this problem. There are democratic systems proposing more centralized governance methods, and here things may be carried too far. What we’re faced with in Ukraine could be described as a kind of ‘steered chaos.’ We have several decision-making centers of power that contradict each other. In the end, no decisions are actually adopted or, once adopted, they are utterly useless.

“This situation prompts the general public to believe that Ukraine has no effective political leadership, which puts it in an unbalanced state. Therefore, our society expects the situation to be improved with a firm hand within the current legislation framework, so there can be a single decision-making center and the real division of power. On the other hand, I don’t think that the greater part of Ukrainian society would put up with any kind of dictatorship, like curbing business activities and the freedom of expression. Consider, for example, the active citizens who have realized that they can start their own businesses, even though there are great hurdles and hardships on this path. These people and others have a feeling that they could live in a free society, enjoying the freedom of expression and other civil liberties. This is a certain way of life and I believe that our society — at least a part of it — appreciates its advantages. However, it is hard to say at this stage how influential this group is and the political system’s authoritarian encroachments will be rebuffed.”

Liudmyla SHARA, psychologist, Khmelnytsky:

“Ukrainian mentality was shaped in conditions of an age-old cult of slavery. This circumstance is playing a dirty trick on us now. I’m sure the time has come to overcome our stereotypes and reconsider our stand; otherwise we will passively watch, while our statehood will be ruined.

“We must figure out what will happen after January 17 when our country finds itself gripped by a worse crisis. It is aggravated by a spiritual crisis as most of us are scrambling to make a living and neglecting the spiritual domain. Cultural growth means assuming responsibility for your life, and the lives of your next of kin. It also means an end to accusations, criticism, and hatred, replaced by an understanding that our future depends on the choices each of us makes.

“We have to trace our spiritual roots, otherwise we’ll be slaves; there is no alternative. Where are we headed? What are our prospects? We must find the time to ponder these questions and find answers; otherwise we’ll have no future in terms of progress.”

Ihor PROSIANYK, lawyer, NGO Yuryst plus, Odesa:

“What is happening in the Ukrainian political community is proof that our society wants to change the situation for the better. Our society is simply ‘pregnant’ with such changes. Our people, businesses, local authorities, and even Kyiv’s political circles are sick and tired of the goings-on. We’re sick and tired of watching all those television democracy shows, so we increasingly often hear about firm-hand governance. There is every reason for establishing an authoritarian system, including the increasingly authoritarian nature of public consciousness, the crisis of the incumbent government, loss of control over the economy, and the frequent changes in the key political players’ tactics. All this devaluates any strategy; our society’s expectations of reinstated order are being transformed into initiatives to form strong centralized government. The authoritarian turn is the bifurcation point for our entire system.

“An authoritarian system, however relevant for the Ukrainian political regime, will not be able to play out the Russian scenario because the Russian political model is essentially different, based on its political leadership’s control over all the raw material resources.

“The Russian Federation is an externally rating democracy that relies on the strong statehood tradition, a strict chain of command which is the basis of its regime. Russia’s political class is dominated by the ruling elite that keeps its oligarchic economy, deformed democratic institutions, and the media under control. Ukraine doesn’t have such raw material resources, ruling elite, or statehood tradition. In other words, we don’t have most of the components that make up Putin’s political model, and so it would be premature to expect Ukraine to produce her own Putin.

“Anyway, an authoritarian model should be regarded as a temporary phenomenon in Ukraine. The Orange Revolution did take place here, so this country can’t be expected to put up with any iron hand because any kind of authoritarianism spells enormous social losses, so much so any TV democracy shows will seem peanuts in comparison. The alternative is a dedicated effort aimed at forming in Ukraine, if you pardon the clich?, a European-oriented model of the rule of law. This is a hard job that will take time, but let’s hope there will be no alternative. Considering the ratings, this will not happen under Ukraine’s next president.”