Has “Democracy’s Victory” Led to Society’s Defeat?

Last week, the Institute of Politics held a round table discussing the topic, Presidential Elections in Ukraine: Results and Lessons. Taking part were political scientists Mykola Tomenko, Oleksandr Derhachov, and sociologist Serhiy Makeyev.

In keeping with his tradition Mykola Tomenko aphoristically described the elections turnout “not the victory of democracy but defeat of the Communists,” and related what he and his colleagues considered possible scenarios on the central theme of the post-elections situation in Ukraine: the new issue of a new government. He believes the following possibilities should be considered: (a) a situational rather than permanent majority in Verkhovna Rada that will, accordingly, form a situational government of the type we have all seen (i.e., with similar performance results); (b) a victorious government formed with the President taking a most active part handing out portfolios to those who helped him win the campaign — in other words, he will simply promote people already playing leading roles in domestic politics. In this case the most likely Premier would be Valery Pustovoitenko; and (c) a government of political expedience with different forces nominating certain persons for government posts, proceeding from strategic considerations aimed at the future. Thus, Mr. Tomenko believes that the Premier’s portfolio could be offered NBU head Viktor Yushchenko and that the latter’s capacities would be considerably reduced with the overall situation worsening before the 2004 presidential race; finally, the least likely scenario is a government of political responsibility — which would be the option for Ukraine.

By and large, the round table tended to focus on the consequences of Ukraine’s international choice and their impact on the people and state. Those present were reminded of George Soros’s public statement and those made by politicians from the developed countries. The domestic analysts’ findings did not sound very optimistic. Mr. Derhachov said that the most important factor determining Ukraine’s prospects is whether a third force will appear in Ukraine, a civilized Right opposition capable of exerting a real influence on government policies (including foreign policy).

Mr. Derhachov further declared that according to political science research the existing regime has grown “considerably stronger” after the elections while society’s stand in defending its interests has weakened. All constructive opposition has vanished as a political force or has agreed to play the role of kid brother under the present regime. Dr. Serhiy Makeyev, Ph.D. (sociology) made an interesting observation to the effect that a truly ideologically oriented and powerful Left electorate “was not registered.” This is further proof that the Communists’ tangible mass support was solely due to their capitalizing on the people’s protest sentiments (something the existing regime made easier for the Communists to do thanks to reasons that do not have to be repeated, which fact was repeatedly pointed out at the round table). The general impression was that the Left opposition had lost a fair chance to take the wheel and steer this country along the road of “true state reforms.” Even if Mr. Makeyev did not have this in mind when he said that “power falls into the hands of those who fight for it,” it sounded that way. Even though the constructive Right opposition is seldom supported by the mass of people (as stated recently by the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences corresponding member Myroslav Popovych), apart from the appearance of that “third force” there seems no other option capable of reviving the Ukrainian political space.