Party No Man’s Land
VILLAGE DEMOCRACY
Hitherto, all attempts to make the countryside politically affiliated have failed. Even under the dictatorship of the proletariat village cells of the Communist Party of Ukraine did almost always as ordered by district Party committees. A villager volunteering to join the Party without any career prospects was regarded about the same way as a visiting lecturer telling about the near and radiant communist future.
In principle nothing has changed. A dozen or so political parties mentioning peasants in their names or referring to themselves as agrarian might as well be Martians for all the people in the village care. Of course, a prominent official at the district or regional level can easily list the whole populace, livestock included, as members of his party, but this will not make the people affiliated.
There have been quite enough political forces trying to win the new class of village proprietors over to their side, yet such owners have never sided with any at the national level, either because the development of private farming is too slow or canvassing such farmers too formal. The same is true of politicians trying to use village conservatism and even showing positive turnouts during previous election campaigns. Even if people in the village are nostalgic for the past, it is most likely about specific figures of it rather than parties and blocs.
The village electorate’s political indifference is most convenient for the party of power that has countless levers to pull to secure the desired rural turnout. Until recently, the problem was that there were many parties of power. The situation has changed and the instructions are now received from For a United Ukraine (known by its Ukrainian initials, ZaYedU) but again, they may not have enough people to give those instructions in every administrative district, every village council. In other words, today’s village voters have an entirely democratic choice: for or against ZaYedU.
Likewise, one should not underestimate the village opposition’s potential, as it can assume different guises, depending on the locality and time of the elections. Voting against those in power, the countryside could support the Communists, Progressive and conventional Socialists, Rukh, even Hromada. This time an even greater number of parties and blocs claim the opposition status.
AFFILIATION PROBLEM
The rural resident traditionally receives less information than does his urban counterpart. This is explained by the specifics of his daily life and chores. Thus when it comes time to make a political choice most villagers seek advice from those they trust the most – not necessarily local intellectuals (you find them practically on every village street these days and they make up village party organizations, few as they are). There are others fond of reading newspapers and watching political programs on television; such individuals can figure simultaneously on several party lists, on the strength of which parties send reports to the Ministry of Justice, attesting the presence of their cells in the countryside. Therefore, if a party has its cells in a number of villages it will not always automatically secure a greater number of votes, the more so now that village party activists cannot keep track of the blocs forming and falling apart on the political Olympus and make timely affiliation adjustments in the current campaign. How can you trust a person unable to explain why you belonged to one party yesterday and another one today?
What is actually left are the powers that be and the church. It is either or: either the church with the regime or against those in power. Prudent politicians have long correctly assumed that betting on the church will never fail, and so the true Ukrainian faithful (not many, unfortunately) are securely divided between warring denominations. Doing political business is easiest where the church and the authorities work together. The leader of a party or bloc, going to the right kind of church (supported by the regime) and praying in public, can be sure that most of the local constituency will vote for him. The trouble is that such constituencies are not many. Most parishes are concentrated in several western regions of Ukraine known for political discord, where political peace is not likely to take root in the foreseeable future. In the rest of the country authoritative advice is traditionally provided by those in power. The chairman of a village council tells his ill-informed villagers which of the parties he thinks worth voting for. Does this mean using the administrative resource? There is little doubt that such friendly advice is being given in many places. But who advises the friendly advisor?
GUESTS
There is a countryside election phenomenon recorded and lavishly commented upon during the previous campaigns. At times the turnout proves contrary to all expectations, be it in terms of party rosters or constituencies. People traditionally tend to believe those visiting their villages and talking to them. With the number of constituencies doubling after 1994, a limited number of candidates can make a sufficient number of campaign tours, for visiting villages (and not empty-handed, of course) is possible at either one’s own expense or if financed by the state. There are almost no candidates representing low-budget parties, blocs, or those remote from power visible on the village horizon. One can, of course, walk from one hamlet to the next, but people will start giving one food and clothes, meaning the candidate will change his status without knowing it.
As a result, there are “fed” constituencies where the deputy visits on a more or less regular basis with great pomp and a charitable gesture that does not cost much but has a visible effect (presenting school aids or a bus to a boarding school, paying for several voters’ medical treatment or tuition), given a lot of coverage by the local media bolstering the candidate’s image. In addition, such a deputy is careful to be on friendly terms with local authorities. In this case also success is guaranteed, as party affiliation is the last thing the electorate cares about.
Some note sadly that few such constituencies are left vacant, as the number of those eager to tame village constituencies several times exceeds the number of the such districts. This means that the competition will be severe, interesting and informative to watch. Over the past several weeks people living in godforsaken villages in the forest and the steppe and have seen so many foreign limousines – and are likely to see even more in the next couple of weeks – the stories about such visits will last several years, yet the end result for most such visitors will be negative. People in such villages will become totally confused trying to figure out who they are to vote for, so once again they will turn to the local know-it-all for advice, but the latter will have been briefed by the visiting political star. Woe to the chairman of a village council in such a situation; he will have to choose between directives from the district state administration, the politician’s promises, and personal predilections (if any).
FALSIFICATION
Today only the indolent are not talking about rigged returns in backward rural areas. There is much talk and very little done, for preventing such falsification – or even putting it on record – is possible only by taking part in the rural electoral process as qualified observers. We have never had so many and such observers, nor are we likely to ever have them. In other words, all that talk about unfair elections will remain just talk, a convenient topic for debate at a conference hall, on the radio, or television. Trips to the countryside are not comfortable, so few are willing to make them. Although most of us come from the countryside, we tend to return there only in case of absolute necessity. At present, only those participants in the election campaign that really need it are in the countryside, so trusting them stands to reason.
