A Game on a Common Field

Oddly enough, the coming presidential campaign, so long blamed for almost all the political vicissitudes in this country, is practically no longer affecting the electoral attitudes of our compatriots. The leading troika that emerged in the early autumn of last year is still standing its ground owing to the greatly increased number of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych’s admirers. According to a nationwide poll conducted by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation and the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in late January, if the elections were held next Sunday, the first round would see Our Ukraine’s leader Viktor Yushchenko, Viktor Yanukovych and Communist Petro Symonenko gain 22%, 9.2%, and 8.9% respectively. Fluctuations in the ratings of these prospective candidates have been so negligible over the past six months and the ratings of other politicians are so stable that there are no grounds whatsoever to presume there may be other leaders in the race. True, Yushchenko’s electoral potential has shrunk by 4% since October, but the available reserve will hardly allow the OU leader to become an outsider. True, the KIIS poll revealed a 6% drop in the popularity of the Communist candidate Symonenko, but this happened only because January’s polling list included a half- forgotten Natalia Vitrenko who immediately stole 3% from her Leftist confrere . Incidentally, the list of the likely candidates that various sociologists offer their respondents is today one of the most essential factors that affect the popularity ratings. This is why experts are so far in no hurry to make forecasts about who will win and how many votes they will gather in the first round, although they have no doubts about this troika’s leadership. “We will be able to be more specific when we see the final list of candidates after the election campaign gets off the ground,” Iryna Bekeshkina, chief expert at the Democratic Initiatives Foundation, told The Day’s correspondent. “Very much will depend on how many players there will be on each of the common fields. For example, if too many pro-government candidates choose to contest the elections, Yanukovych will not see his rating fundamentally increased. If the number of these candidates is small, many of those who have not yet made a choice (22% in January — Author ) will vote for the current premier. We have already seen the way Symonenko’s rating was affected by the appearance of the Leftist player Vitrenko on the list.” The sociologist says the presence of so-called friendly candidates will have the least impact on Yushchenko’s electorate, so it is still very likely that the OU leader will face a runoff. Ms. Bekeshkina therefore thinks that the main thing is who will go through to the second round with Yushchenko. Moreover, the sociologist does not rule out that things may take the following interesting turn, “If the political reform is carried out before the elections, and the president has his powers drastically reduced, it is quite likely that Yanukovych will prefer to remain a strong premier and refuse to run for presidency. For he has not yet made a clear statement on this.” Indeed, if effected under the only scenario that is possible today, the political reform may well make some changes to the course of the election campaign.

Incidentally, despite a long-drawn-out debate on the political reform and the rapid aggravation of this subject at the end of last year, the percentage of people knowledgeable about this has not only not increased since the last large-scale poll conducted in may 2003 by four major survey agencies but has actually dropped a bit. The share of people who claim they know the main Constitutional changes that are supposed to be made in the course of he reform has fallen by 4% to 19%. There is also a 4% drop (to 35%) in the number of those who have at least heard about the main proposed changes to this country’s political system. For the rest (almost half the population of Ukraine), “political reform,” a pep word for Ukrainian politicians in the past two years or so, remains just an empty sound. Yet, this does not keep respondents from expressing their opinion about some specific Constitutional changes. For example, this applies to electing the president by parliament or extending the term of Verkhovna Rada. I think it is common knowledge what the public attitude to this is. Suffice it to say that Ukrainians still mistrust those whom they have elected to parliament (“I hope I won’t be fooled again!”).

What looks funny in this context is the desire of the eternally erring voters to make a contribution to the political reform by voting at a referendum. 74% of those polled think that the key Constitutional amendments should be put to a nationwide referendum. However, when it comes to defending their own rights (especially the most sensitive right to elect the president by a public national vote), the zeal to affect the political process at least in some way is noticeably flagging. In particular, only 38% agreed to sign the demand that a referendum be held about the way of electing the president (a seemingly simple procedure) and 15% to take part in a demonstration. A mere 5-7% of our compatriots would opt for such things as striking or picketing. It is difficult to say what is more — mistrust in one’s own strength and capabilities vis-a-vis the state machine or certain indifference — in this public passivity. It is absolutely obvious, however, that the gap between the government and society, so much debated by sociologists and political scientists lately, has not yet narrowed. The one who is more self-confident and stronger should make a step to meet the other halfway. Ms. Bekeshkina, a longtime surveyor of public opinion, is far from believing that the voice of the people is the voice of God. In her opinion, politicians should use the poll results, especially in such difficult matters as political reform, not as an unassailable argument in disputes with their opponents but as a foundation for a sound dialog with voters, so that the Ukrainians make their future political choices on the basis of understanding and trust rather than the idiosyncratic interpretation of such things as the government and parliament.