Recipe for Ukrainian gingerbread

There is no denying that shows like the Person of the Year not only have a right to exist but are even necessary after their fashion. Such closely following events in Ukraine must have made their own lists of rankings and nominees, so comparing them to a government-run event (and the Person of the Year has become one, even if not formally) is not only interesting but also very informative. Such a comparison makes it absolutely clear in which direction the Ukrainian political elite is headed and precisely how much it lives up to its elite image.

Perhaps what most those watching the 1999 Person of the Year pomp on TV felt was embarrassment. The show’s scenario and the entire atmosphere were dramatically distinct from universally accepted notions of ethics, propriety, decency, and even common sense. The whole thing was graphic evidence that the “elite” and the rest of Ukrainian society are headed in opposite directions. Of course, this does not mean that all of the nominees did not deserve their awards. On the contrary, most did, but the embarrassing thing was the strong political odor about the show and its inherently unacceptable logic. For the time being these feelings are not turned into deeds, because Ukrainian society does not yet have an atmosphere in which such scenarios would be unreal. The Day will attempt to make its humble contribution to the creation of such an atmosphere.

In short, the finale of the nationwide 1998 Person of the Year program could be described using two words: barter done. The organizers succeeded in placing the runners in all nominations so there would be no head-on collisions.

Thus, last year’s top patron Hryhory Surkis was named Businessman of the Year (as was the case two years ago). Mykola Shvets (Dnipropetrovsk) became Mayor of the Year. Kyiv was proclaimed City of the Year, (meaning that Oleksandr Omelchenko was not passed over, either). Mr. Semynozhenko became People’s Deputy of the Year (one is strongly tempted to add “an ideal nominee determined in consultation with all factions”), etc.

Petro Symonenko was not in attendance to receive his award — but there is no evidence that he has refused it. Oleksandr Tkachenko, fence-sitting as always, was absent also, but this was quite understandable: he was preparing to celebrate his birthday. Mr. Kuchma received a special trophy as two-time Statesman of the Year. Addressing the audience, the President made no mention of all those millions of ordinary people that had no part at his royal court. And why should he? The man in the street did not do the casting for the gala show. Moreover, mentioning unpaid pensions and wages, homeless children and dead enterprises did not seem proper in an audience of the rich and the famous. Last year the second Ukrainian President envied the first one receiving excellent brandy from Hennessy. This time Morris and Hennessy personally handed the Chief Executive the cherished bottle. Now that was some attainment! The President being presented a bottle, the Mayor of Kyiv feeling proud about the capital being “firmly established,” actually a prison slang expression meaning that a certain ex-convict holds an important position in the underworld. This brings forth an interesting chain of associations, rather accurately exemplifying the tastes being cultivated in the Ukrainian political beau monde and its close ties with those whose vocabulary Ukrainian the dignitaries use.

The Day has for a number of years acted as the Person of the Year’s information sponsor. Last year, it was named Newspaper of the Year (now we extend warm greetings to our colleagues at Facts and Commentaries for their award). We have repeatedly stressed the need to commend and reward the best professionals even in a country gripped by such economic and political crisis as is Ukraine. However, today, as we did last year, we strongly condemn all political nominations. Of course, people like Anatoly Solovyanenko (Person of the Year in Culture and the Arts), Serhiy Rebrov (Athlete of the Year), and Katia Buzhynska (Young Talent of the Year) deserve their awards. Their merits are known and appreciated throughout Ukraine. But our politicians? What merits can they show to justify the nomination and titles? Why do millions of people living in Ukraine feel that the ceremony was an expensive yet cheap show, unnatural, and that many of the awards were totally undeserved (as evidenced by the first comments received by The Day)? Was it perhaps because, despite the elaborate scenario, the whole thing lacked clearly stated criteria that were used to name the winners? Or because everyone understands that, should such criteria be formulated, none of the politicians would even dare put in an appearance, this as well as last year? Also, maybe because the show and especially its pompous finale reflect the laws and principles by which Ukrainian society has to live — i.e., lawlessness and arbitrary rule by those on high, with their barter schemes, wheeling and dealing, issues barred from public debate, and dubious functionaries?

The ceremony’s bilingualism also called forth many caustic remarks both inside and far outside the Ukraine Palace of Culture. Although this author believes that at the turn of the third millennium everything made in Ukraine should be considered Ukrainian, language or parentage of the authors notwithstanding, the winning politicians delivering their thank-you spiels in Russian looked and sounded markedly equivocal. And the same is true of naming Speaker Tkachenko Statesman of the Year, considering his selling to Parliament the resolution on Ukraine’s accession to the Interparliamentary Assembly...

As for the ceremony, the atmosphere in the audience was dull and on-stage events were wooden. Fortunately for the winners, the show was staged on the eve of International Women’s Day, so they could enlarge on the subject of the fair sex. None said anything of social or public importance. Of course, the emcees did their best to make a dry official event a festive occasion, but there was only so much they could do.

Of course, there was the customary stand-up buffet, except that it was much larger with first rate brandy from Hennessy, the event’s principal sponsor, although many preferred Hetman vodka. Food and drinks were abundant. The dishes left by the several hundred duly wined and dined guests would be enough for several hundred festively laid family tables, meaning all those people for whose benefit Person of the Year political laureates work and deliver such interminable speeches. As for how much faith the public has in its public servants, the next elections, not gala parties, will show.