• 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

Oleksandr YELIASHKEVYCH: "The Lazarenko case is merely a detail in the case of Kuchma"

23 February, 1999 - 00:00

Interviewed by Larysa IVSHYNA, Volodymyr ZOLOTARIOV,
Iryna HAVRYLOVA, Dmytro SKRIABIN, The Day

 

 

In a way, People's Deputy Oleksandr YELIASHKEVYCH can be regarded as
extravagant. Political observers remember him not so much as an active
figure in the Reform faction of the previous Parliament but as one of the
participants in a then daring project: a committee investigating dubious
gas business transactions. Then suddenly the erstwhile accuser of Premier
Pavlo Lazarenko wound up in the same party with the former Prime Minister.
A rather intriguing setting, to be sure. As for Mr. Yeliashkevych, he repeats
time and again that he has never stopped short of criticizing Pavlo Lazarenko
and is still very negative in assessing his term as head of government.
But the fact remains that he is one of few Hromada leaders not to have
walked out on him at a time of ordeal, while making no secret of his intention
to do just that, at a later date. Thus The Day's editors thought
his views on the Lazarenko case would be of some interest to our readers.

The Day: Parliament is to have its final say in the Lazarenko
case February 17: whether or not to expose him to criminal prosecution.
What is your personal attitude? Also, regardless of Verkhovna Rada's decision,
what political, psychological, and moral lessons should Ukrainian society
learn from the whole affair?

O. Ye.: The Lazarenko case is merely a detail in the case of
Kuchma. Indeed, this section is dedicated to Lazarenko, but this does not
mean that it is all there is to it. By the way, Mr. Kuchma made a bad mistake
allowing the case to acquire such publicity, because if a matter like this
causes such reverberations, reaching the point where Parliament has to
step in, the first thing the President should do is tender his immediate
resignation. Let me remind you that German Chancellor Willy Brandt had
to resign just because an East German secret agent was discovered among
his close associates. In Ukraine, it is precisely the other way around:
Lazarenko must be isolated lest he tell what he knows about the President.

Under the circumstances, any politician would expose his own cowardice
voting for the stripping of Lazarenko of his parliamentary immunity without
demanding the President's immediate resignation. Such a vote would be tantamount
to voting for President Kuchma's establishing a rigid dictatorship.

The point is that we have an intricate system of state-monopoly capitalism
and this system was built with the aid of specific persons, Leonid Kuchma
topping the list. He has been in office for almost six years, starting
as Premier (and he made a very special Premier because he was authorized
to issue decrees having the force of law) and then as President. Just think:
six years out of Ukraine's seven years of independence.

The Day: How would you estimate Mr. Kuchma's six years in
power?

O. Ye.: It could be described with one word: deadlock. This deadlock
is prevalent in a number of spheres of activity in Ukraine. This might
sound harsh, but it's true.

The Day: Some might accuse you of deliberately shifting the
burden of responsibility onto the shoulders of just one man. How can all
this be focused on just one person?

O. Ye.: Leonid Kuchma is associated with so many changes in the
legislative domain and life of this country in general that one is safe
in assuming that his efforts have played a decisive role in what Ukraine
has come to be. Suffice it to recall his edicts and decrees, as well as
his role in preparing and enacting the Constitutional Agreement and the
Constitution itself.

The Day: In that case some could regard him as an outstanding
personality.

O. Ye.: He certainly is. He is an outstanding personality in
terms of power play and getting this power while having no aptitude whatsoever
for running this country. He has unique skill building up the enemy's image,
developing it in a variety of guises, remaining in office precisely because
of this omnipresent image. Ukraine has practically become a police state,
and all the time the powers that be keep discovering a new enemy as an
excuse for their actions, and society has agree in silence.

The Day: What about Verkhovna Rada? Why hasn't it formed a
popular opposition? The Left is called opposition precisely because it
is a historical outsider. It has been unable to come up with a single idea
other than returning the totalitarian past. Hromada was shaped by Turchynov,
adjusting it to Leonid Kuchma's needs, later siding with Lazarenko, thus
completely discrediting the idea of a non-Leftist opposition. Well?

O. Ye.: I wouldn't blame Hromada for discrediting the opposition
idea. Opposition in general is a difficult issue in Ukraine. A lot of people
could oppose Leonid Kuchma, addressing him severe well-fonaded criticism.
This not happened. And I mean really decent people, with spotless reputations.
Why didn't they? The non-Leftist legislators are guiding this country toward
its final collapse not because they do not understand what they are doing.
If they follow Leonid Kuchma, being fully aware of his inability to move
the country forward, this points to strong undercurrents forcing them to
do just that.

The Day: The undercurrents you have just mentioned have long
been common knowledge, just as everybody knows that business can be done
in this country only if one has strong guardians on high. We all know who
they are. Incidentally, NDP is a graphic example, the way their faction
was shaped in Parliament and the way it is falling apart after losing official
support.

Yet for the opposition to have the right to act as one, it must have
an edge over those currently in office, at least ethically. Otherwise everything
boils down to who is the first to get to the feeding trough. Recently a
businessman just ousted from the Administration said, "I just can't sit
and watch them rob this country." Spiteful tongues immediately paraphrased
this as "I can't sit and watch them rob this country without me." Regrettably,
the notion of opposition is very often interpreted precisely in this vein.
Granting Hromada's sharp verbal attacks from the parliamentary tribune,
one cannot but wonder: what happens to this opposition spirit afterward?
The impression is that it evaporates just as soon as your faction members
have tea with the President.

O. Ye.: I joined Hromada merely because I saw no other opposition.
In fact, Hromada is the first party I have ever affiliated myself with.
It was a hard choice to make, considering my differences with the party's
leader and my negative attitude to his record as premier. Lazarenko was
not there when I joined the party, but I could clearly see that he was
likely to turn up. Had there been any other real opposition capable of
changing anything in Ukraine, I would have joined it. My staying with Hromada
is, of course, a political risk. I gritted my teeth and took it. I thought
we could not allow Leonid Kuchma to destroy the opposition. I also think
that Hromada carried out its historical mission in 1997-98: it went to
the elections with sharp criticism addressed to Leonid Kuchma and the Cabinet.
This criticism was considerably sharper than that from the so-called Left
opposition, let alone the mild "constructive" reproach from the Right,
something like "Sorry, mind if we criticize you? So you don't mind? Very
well, we must say that you are working too hard."

The Day: To an onlooker your criticism looked very much like
a squabble rather than a constructive stand. That was probably why Hromada
started to fall apart so fast.

O. Ye.: It isn't falling apart, not yet (this was before the
mass defections began from the Hromada faction in Parliament - Ed.).

The Day: How about Dvorkis quitting and Turchynov busy preparing
some other ideological position? Let alone Yuliya Tymoshenko. Apparently
you have very special principles allowing you to stay at Hromada. Do you?

O. Ye.: Indeed, I have had more than enough reason to quit. There
are quite a few differences of principal between my convictions and the
party's stand. For one thing, I do not accept the party's distancing itself
from my signature-collecting campaign - I mean a referendum to make the
President resign now and for electing Oleksandr Tkachenko Speaker. Yes,
there have been many mistakes, including deviations from opposition. One
must understand, however, that Hromada inherited its leader Pavlo Lazarenko's
concepts which prevented the party from becoming a more resolute opposition
force. All this is true. But I can see that the problem concerns not only
Hromada and Lazarenko. Many other parties have this problem. That was why
I voted against Lazarenko's party leadership. Why am I still with Hromada?
I did not want to weaken the opposition, even though not the kind I wanted,
but my stand has long been known to my fellow party members and they have
no illusions about my future with Hromada.

The Day: How will Hromada vote in the Lazarenko case?

O. Ye.: I have long been collecting Deputies' signatures to cancel
our immunity simultaneously with the President's. Say, there are forty
criminals in Verkhovna Rada (just a hypothesis, of course), it still means
that there are 400 decent people opposing them. And there is only one President.
If he transgresses the law there is no one to oppose him. This is very
dangerous. I can give you an example. Lazarenko's arrest in Sweden made
another event fade away last year. I mean the President's jubilee financed
from the budget. He was given presents and he never declared them as every
other citizen must do, and nor did he pay the income tax. Now isn't this
a kind of bribe received in return for solving certain problems?

The Day: Did you ask Mr. Azarov, head of the tax service?

O. Ye.: I broached the subject from the Parliament's podium and
then in the General Prosecutor's study.

The Day: What did he say?

O. Ye.: What could he say with a huge portrait of the President
in the room? The personality cult is developing rapidly in Ukraine. One
can see his portraits in every bureaucrat's office. The General Prosecutor
said he had no incriminating evidence.

The Day: How do you think the lawmakers will vote? Particularly
the Speaker who is in a difficult position after Hromada's support for
his election?

O. Ye.: Let me stress again that I did not vote for Oleksandr
Tkachenko. Moreover, some hotheads tried to have me expelled from the faction
because of my attitude toward the Speaker. Well, I have my opinion of Mr.
Tkachenko. I hope to God he never becomes President. Considering his inimitable
cynicism and pragmatism, I think that his stand in the Lazarenko case will
be determined not by who voted for him, but by an opportunity to get rid
of a very serious contender. Besides, this will help him rescue another
Oleksandr. I mean Volkov. The man is a good friend of both the President
and Speaker.

The Day: Rescue? From what peril?

O. Ye.: Let's just say keep him out of trouble, and he could
well wind up in bigger trouble than Lazarenko.

The Day: You mean Oleksandr Omelchenko's information about
Volkov's bank accounts abroad?

O. Ye.: Not only that. I am certain that law enforcement authorities
would find a lot of things about this man most interesting professionally.

The Day: Here creating a precedent would seem most important,
because the question is why Verkhovna Rada should strip Lazarenko of his
immunity due to the General Prosecutor's and allow Oleksandr Volkov to
keep his despite Hryhory Omelchenko's arguments.

O. Ye.: None of the business people or politicians are thinking
about this at the moment. Voting on Lazarenko is not voting on a specific
person. Everyone asks oneself who'll be next. Those lashing out at the
President? Not likely. They aren't worth the effort. Most likely those
doing well in business. The tragedy of these people is that they do not
understand that they are next in line, precisely because they're doing
well.

The Day: Are we to understand that those working next to the
President should be wary about Lazarenko losing his immunity? And that
they do not understand what is really happening?

O. Ye.: These people are in a very difficult position. They are
all afraid of Pavlo Lazarenko. I mean they're scared stiff. He is not a
man to forgive insults, humiliations, and ridicule. Now those in the President's
entourage are also afraid of Lazarenko, but they are also afraid, even
if subconsciously, of the man who got the better of the former Premier
and now fears no one. For Leonid Kuchma stripping lawmakers of immunity
opens the way to his own unlimited personal power. If Parliament tries
to get in the way he will simply order it dissolved. The business and political
elite do not seem to be taking the situation seriously enough. This attitude
could be justified now that the President has to literally beg the electorate
for another term. If he succeeds (God forbid!), this will impact seriously
on parliamentary development in Ukraine. But I think that this would be
a Pyrrhic victory. In the final analysis his personal qualities will fail
him; he will not be able to retain such unlimited power. He has enough
in himself to embark on and follow this road, but he won't enjoy the result
for long.

The Day: We've been meaning to ask you whether it seems to
you that our politicians are lacking in terms of honor, but then we thought
that notions such as honor, morality, or decency simply don't fit into
the existing pattern.

O. Ye.: I mentioned deadlock, remember? Now this is something
one can feel especially strongly in Parliament. The trouble is that under
the circumstances coming to power being decent is physically impossible.
Leonid Kuchma has done things that will make themselves felt long afterwards,
both in the power structure and everyday life. It is very easy to let people
get used to receiving bribes, but very difficult to make them kick the
habit. The same applies to Parliament. The current membership is even more
cynical than the previous one. In its lobby one often hears things I'd
rather keep to myself, let alone see in print.

The Day: Why hasn't anyone done anything about enforcing certain
rules on politics so it would not get out of line? All our politicians
do is get even with one another and no one makes any rules. In the previous
Parliament Oleksandr Moroz was also fond of regarding himself against the
backdrop of Speaker-President confrontation, yet he did nothing to confront
the Chief Executive in the legislative field.

O. Ye.: Why should he? He saw himself as the next President and
thus had no reason to change anything in that field. He wanted to become
President with precisely the same powers as Leonid Kuchma. Besides, our
People's Deputies are very dependent on the executive. Here everything
is topsy-turvy. The Cabinet is formed not by Parliament but vice versa,
at least in many respects.

The Day: Back from Sweden Lazarenko told a news conference
he has a great deal to tell. Do you think he will?

O. Ye.: Why don't you ask him? Personally, I think that he will
never tell everything he knows. But even if he tells part of what he knows,
the President will be the one to suffer first. Once again, Lazarenko is
Leonid Kuchma's protОgО. The President helped up the ladder and awarded
him.

The Day: So what is the apple of discord between them?

O. Ye.: Mostly the President's anxiety. He was afraid to lose
his seat. He knew only too well that Pavlo Lazarenko was a gifted pupil
who would sooner or later surpass his teacher.

The Day: How do you visualize the situation after February
17?

O. Ye.: If Parliament strips Lazarenko of his immunity he will
be arrested as soon as he walks out of the hall. Under our conditions this
also means that he may not live to see the next morning in his prison cell,
the only way to make sure he never tells what he knows. If Parliament says
no the President will find himself in a desperate situation and may take
steps placing Ukraine in jeopardy.

 (carried by Den on February 17, the date of the parliamentary 
hearings)


 

Issue: 
Rubric: