Leonid KRAVCHUK: The elite must ensure effective government

Let us face it: we are very proud of our historical projects because we sincerely hope that the ideas instilled in The Day’s Library will help Ukrainians to adequately rethink themselves, their country, its history, and enable the political elite to work out the common standards and principles that are so badly needed precisely now. As long as representatives of not only the power-wielding but also the cultural, academic, and business elites often visit The Day, it has become a good tradition to present them with our two volumes, Ukraina Incognita and Two Rus’s.

Presenting an album of our photo contests and a two volumes to Leonid Kravchuk, we could not refrain from asking questions on the most pressing issues of Ukrainian politics, which resulted in a conceptual interview.

“Mr. Kravchuk, what do you think of our ideas and initiatives about books and photo contests?”

“I think we are need them very much today for the simple reason that our historical and spiritual education is on a very low level. When a presidential candidate, I toured many institutions of higher education. I asked the students and teachers of a Zaporizhzhia college, ‘Which of you can name eight of the twenty-six hetmans of Ukraine?’ Nobody could. Later on, I asked the same question at many other meetings. What the people could recall at best were such well-known names as Khmelnytsky, Sahaidachny, and Doroshenko. In other words, our people know the history of Ukraine very badly. So this kind of initiatives and books are needed desperately. I leafed through your first book with pleasure and read many articles. The way things are explained is quite lapidarian. These are not bulky tomes that nobody can fathom without strenuous effort. Everything is very concise and, at the same time, fully addresses a given problem. This could be a excellent textbook for school and college students as well as an interesting and instructive read for all those interested in history.”

“And do you know what we say in the book Two Rus’s? We say Ukraine must help Russia. The point is the more Ukrainian Ukraine is, the healthier Russia will be.”

“A very interesting idea. The Russians must really understand there also is another great nation with a very interesting and difficult history of its own. I initiated publication of the book, A Thousand Personalities of Ukraine. So when we addressed this problem — history from the ancient times through the early twentieth century — we noticed that many prominent figures of Russia and the world were either of Ukrainian origin or had something to do with Ukraine.”

“THE MAJORITY SEEMS UNABLE TO NOMINATE A SINGLE CANDIDATE”

“Mr. Kravchuk, on October 14, interviewed by Radio Liberty, you sounded skeptical about carrying out the political reform before the presidential elections. On what grounds do you think the reform will not be carried out? And, in general, what is happening? There is a host of bills, and public opinion polls show the population is ready to approve whatever you like...”

“I think we’ve gotten down to the political reform too late. We should have made up our mind and carried out a European-style reform two or three years ago. But we made a different decision and held a referendum. The referendum was diametrically opposed to the basic provisions of the reform now being offered. Then the president did something in between the referendum and the European way: he introduced a bill that in fact came down to the project of a presidential state. In the long run, he accepted and supported the idea of a parliamentary- presidential state. I’m happy he understood that this is the only way to put an end to ineffectual rule in Ukraine. Still, we’re too late. What convinces me that nothing will come out of this, at least before the presidential elections, is, for example, the situation with the law on the election of people’s deputies. Experience shows that if there are as many as four bills, the parliament will pass none (which actually happened on May 16 — Ed.). Moreover, deputies often tend to openly distort the political essence of the election system. For instance, they propose that elections be held in 450 winner-take-all districts but that candidates run on a party ticket. This is called a majoritarian election. For what determines the nature of an election is not who nominates candidates but who gets the votes and how. I don’t think that People’s Deputy Bohdan Hubsky, the author of this bill, understands that that he is suggesting a winner-take-all system. Yet, he tries to prove that this is a proportional representation system. This makes the audience smile. Even such a staunch advocate of a winner-take-all system as our faction member Yaroslav Sukhiy said to him the other day, ‘Stop pulling the wool over our eyes, Bohdan, and say that yours is a winner-take-all system, and everybody is free to accept or reject it.’

“Meanwhile, the majority is unable to form a common position. The attempt to find such an attitude fizzled out, although there were consultations with the speaker, the premier and the president. Opinions differed. Regions of Ukraine and European Choice made it clear they would not support the proportional system.

“Of course, there’s a problem here. When a deputy elected from a winner-take-all constituency comes and asks me how he could enter parliament if elections were held on party tickets only, I have no answer. This non-party deputy is well aware that nobody will put him on a top list. Besides, he is already connected with that constituency: he has established a relationship with somebody, has built something, invested his own or budget money in something, and so on. He doesn’t want to lose the chance to be reelected. This means the problem does exist, and it must be solved. The Communists say they completely support the proportional system. No wonder at all, for they have so far been gaining 14-16% of the votes without too much effort. They can also put their winner-take-all deputies on the party list, while a party that can expect to win 4-6% at most will be unable to get in its members elected by districts.”

“All this shows that there is no unanimity in the Verkhovna Rada majority. Then what do you think will be the logic of the presidential campaign that Volodymyr Lytvyn has already declared open? Or is the word, logic, out of place here?”

“I once thought these presidential elections would be smoother, more predictable and transparent than previous ones. But now it is clear to me this will be the most hotly contested election of all, because now, unlike in the past, there is quite a strong opposition. If, God forbid, there are some violations of the law and the Constitution, this election could turn into a confrontation, the consequences of which are difficult to predict. For there will be ample grounds for concrete actions rather than protests and mudslinging. I believe that violations must not be allowed under any circumstances. The elections must be held strictly under the law and the Constitution. And should the Constitution be amended, it should be followed even in this case, with amendments.

“The majority is obviously unable to nominate a single candidate. Not only because everyone who attends a meeting wants to be the candidate but also because all of them expect the president to point a finger at somebody. But, while the president is marking time, everybody else is waiting. The logic of this process is quite primitive and customary for us: we’ll do what the boss says. And until he says this, the parliamentary majority will be in a terrible political turmoil. It even seems to me that the president finds this to his liking, interesting, and even funny to watch our respected and independent politicians unable to solve a problem that is solved clearly and easily in democratic countries. These politicians are competing in either degrading or kowtowing to the president without exception. I cannot understand why this is being done. For the president will not appoint another president — the people must vote. Even if the head of state is to be elected by parliament, still face should be saved at least to some extent. Why all this kowtowing?”

“The more so that the administrative resource will not be as strong as it was in the last election. Or will it?”

“Much less strong. Another factor is that Europe has received a lot of assurances and good signals from Ukraine recently. So they want to see whether or not these signals will hold water during the presidential elections. They will send in very many observers to make their own conclusions. And we must get ourselves ready for this. Not just ‘to pass an exam for Europe’ but to be really democratic — for ourselves.”

“The best must win for everybody’s benefit. For when the best man wins, everybody wins.”

“At any rate, everybody calms down.”

“And what is now the progress of consultations on a single majority candidate?”

“Just beginning. Although there was an attempt to unite the parties around a common platform, nobody has ever tipped anybody as single candidate. They are waiting for the president to speak out and thinking, ‘Once he says my name. I will become president automatically.’ Yet, this might end up the other way round. Let us face it: no matter how angelic the current government is, the people will still want to change it after ten years in office. As my fellow villagers say, ‘better a worse, but different, one.’ The grassroots are tired of the government. So it is not worthwhile to hope that the president’s support is a 100% guarantee of being elected. In reality, one must apply his abilities and willpower, take such actions that people could believe that this is being done for their benefit. You can fool the people once or twice, but not all the time. Some politicians hope that electioneering, money, and the administrative resource can do everything. I will say this is a great force, but it is still not enough to win. The administrative resource can be a decisive factor in a small constituency with 100-150,000 voters, but this will be too little in a nationwide election. For a presidential election is an altogether different story.”

“UKRAINE SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT OF BOTH EAST AND WEST”

“As we became independent, we had to address many acute problems, including the Black Sea issue and others...”

“True. The current Ukrainian leadership is not facing such acute problems. Now there is a state, governmental institutions, twelve years of experience; there are people with a different mentality. All we have to do is develop, strengthen, and improve this. Back then, we had nothing. There was the Soviet Union, an army of five million, and the security services... We did not even have a mentality of being a state. At that time we had to weigh every step so that the state and the people did not face very complicated problems. We need now, as never before, consistency, a principled approach, and openness.”

“This also turns out to be a very difficult task. For, then there was sort of an open challenge and overt opponents. Visiting Estonia recently, I saw very many matrioshka dolls in an old Tallinn square, the last place I had expected to see them. It turned out far easier to fight the Soviet Union in this way than to counter the complicated money schemes. The Ukrainian elite is now facing very serious challenges. Are you alarmed over the future of Ukraine?”

“I am. I want Ukraine to be independent of both East and West. For we have two extremes: some politicians want to prove they are loyal to Russia, others show their loyalty to Western Europe and the US alone. And it is high-ranking politicians who compete in being more loyal. So I think that if the Western trend wins, this could lead to negative consequences in the East. Should the Eastern trend win, this could have a negative impact on the West. In other words, Europe can build its influence on Ukraine, and Ukrainian politicians will say, resisting Europe, ‘Well, if they don’t understand us, we’ve got to go East.’ This raises in turn the problem of the lineup to which Ukraine can go East. Should we cross a certain line in our rapprochement with Russia, we will be told: you have reached, economically and politically, the point of no return, so let us establish some kind of a Slavic union.”

“Liberal empire was the term suggested by Mr. Chubais.”

“See, they’ve even coined a name. So I am alarmed that those who look West or East might forget in the heat of the moment that we should be independent of both East and West.”

“It seems sometimes that society has grown to be a political top. Kyiv is far less active than the provinces. I have recently been to the Ostroh Academy, where you are very warmly remembered. For you signed the documents that attest to rebirth of the Ostroh Academy. There are entirely different people and attitudes there. Are they heeded here by the political elite and the Verkhovna Rada majority leaders? Do they feel the new pulses of our society?”

“I don’t think they listen to them very much. For they know they can thus far manipulate opinion in this society. They think they can foist a certain idea on the people and then, shielding themselves with public opinion, try to prove that this is a great idea. For example, they put forth the political reform. I am surprised to hear references to public opinion in support of a certain pattern of electing the premier. In fact, people don’t think about this. To make government effective is the political elite’s job. If the political elite doesn’t want this, it will appeal to public unwillingness. This is exactly what’s happening. Do you think Ukrainian politicians don’t know how to make government effective? I will never believe this because there is the experience of many countries; there is, after all, some experience of our own, from which we know that a governmental structure with two executive centers of influence is not effective. To avoid this, one must establish either a parliamentary-presidential or a presidential republic. Any thing in between will do nothing.”

“But perhaps the wish that Ukraine should be independent of the East and West should be asked of a mature political class or responsible business circles that can cement the political factors. Who can we appeal to now? Who will take the responsibility to create such an influential force?”

“We have no other such force but the government. It is no accident that the common perception is that the government must take responsibility. Meanwhile, political parties — one, two, or three — might act independently, flying in the face of certain high offices.”

“So where should people expect their so-called salvation to come from?”

“I believe that time works in the positive vein. Twelve years is both a little and a lot. But there is no doubt that we have undergone changes in our mentality, views, and assessments. While we still feel dependent in material terms, we are already independent in our thoughts. The coming election is pivotal for us, because the current lame-duck president is not allowed to run for office again. This kind of election is always very difficult. I am often asked about the president’s attitude to the fact that his term of office is irreversibly drawing to a close. His attitude is sober, although I cannot say he is ecstatic about it. You quickly get accustomed to and then hate to give up power. When the first term expires, the president’s team still hopes he will win again and everybody will keep their offices. But in this case such hopes are senseless. All kinds of influence on the president are increasing. Confrontation is growing because the opposition is more and more aggressive in anticipation of power, while the current ruling coalition is afraid.”