Social Democrats propose formula for political continuity
The XVII Congress of the Social Democratic Party of Ukraine (United), held March 28 in Kyiv, was rich in information. One of the first items was SDPU(O) leader Viktor Medvedchuk’s statement that the continuity of power should be ensured by electing as future president the candidate proposed by the parties that have formed the current parliamentary majority: “I am sure we will manage to put forward a single centrist candidate... It is necessary that power continue to be held by the competent and experienced people whose efforts have brought about positive changes in the past few years,” the SDPU(O) leader stressed in his report. According to him, the time is not right to argue about candidates or the format of SDPU(O) participation in the 2004 elections. “We face a more important and urgent task: to make sure that this country is still governed by an effective leadership and the people do not fall hostage to an irresponsible change in the official course,” he said. One of SDPU(O) parliamentary leaders, Nestor Shufrych, listed for The Day — in the congress margins — the main qualities for selecting a single candidate: “The three political forces that in fact represent the center” — the Party of the Regions, Labor Ukraine allied with the Party of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, and SDPU(O) — “are doomed to deciding on a single candidate... I hope the other political forces that represent the majority will also join this agreement.” As far as he knows, this matter is already under discussion and “we may soon see an appropriate decision made.”
The part of Mr. Medvedchuk’s report that dealt with the party’s successes and drawbacks abounded in figures: 350,000 members aged 39 on the average (“The SDPU(O) is a party of young and energetic people...”), 17,000 local cells (“in half of Ukraine’s cities and villages”), support of 7-11% of the population, according to public opinion polls, 822 groups and factions in the legislative bodies of all levels, 25 party members heading district administrations, and four as oblast administration heads... (Incidentally, Mr. Medvedchuk in fact made his report as party leader, not as chairman of the Presidential Administration).
Among the SPDU(O) drawbacks that affected the last election campaign, the party leader mentioned overestimation of the importance of political and PR technologies and some technologists, mistakes by some regional organizations and election headquarters, and “undisguised amateurishness in the ideological coverage” of the campaign. Mr. Medvedchuk believes the party cannot be happy about the results of the 2002 parliamentary elections. In his words, the SDPU(O) was one of the favorites, but “the party’s popularity dwindled at the last stage, and we failed to check this negative tendency.”
Mr. Medvedchuk said active participation of the SDPU(O) in implementing the president’s political reform is one of the party’s chief political goals.
The SDPU(O) leader noted that all the main political forces of this country support the political reform, while the existing — not very basic — differences can be the subject of businesslike debates and compromises (“including some with those forces that now see as their opposition”), and the party is prepared for them. In Mr. Medvedchuk’s view, danger to the political reform emanates from the political forces that hope their leader will come to power and gain unlimited authority. “I’ve got some good news for those ambitious gentlemen,” Mr. Medvedchuk said. “Their far- reaching plans will never be pan out.”
Another resonant (and not universally applauded) declaration by Mr. Medvedchuk was that SDPU(O ) intends to become “the stronghold of friendly attitude to the Russians and Russia in Ukrainian politics.” Leonid Kravchuk, incidentally, did not clap his hands. This attitude, according to the party leader, “is fully consistent with the views of most of our compatriots” who did and do believe that Ukraine and Russia should be independent and simultaneously friendly states with open borders having neither customs nor visa restrictions.
Does the party leader’s idea of the priority of relations with Russia run counter to Ukraine’s declared course towards European integration? Does this mean the SDPU(O) is now in opposition to this course? “Ukraine cannon waver all the time,” SDPU(O) parliamentary faction leader Leonid Kravchuk told The Day: “Our party and faction once backed the President’s message to Verkhovna Rada that advocated the European choice. Viktor Medvedchuk spoke about something else: he does not reject the European choice, he just thinks relations with Russia should be on the proper level.”
That nothing could jeopardize SDPU(O) unity is so obvious, according to congress delegates, that it was not even discussed either in the session hall or corridors. The storm caused by a recent interview of the party’s deputy head and parliamentary Vice Speaker Oleksandr Zinchenko seemed to have abated at the congress. Incidentally, Deputy Zinchenko himself was absent: Leonid Kravchuk said he had informed the Political Council the day before that Zinchenko was on a ten-day trip to Germany for his health. “We are open to debate and criticism,” Kravchuk told journalists, “and if congress delegates wanted to discuss the crisis in the party, of which Zinchenko spoke in his newspaper interview, they could easily do so. But, as far as I see, nobody raises this question... I also know it was never raised at district and regional conferences. Incidentally, there also is the party press available to every party member, which could be the proper place for such a debate... I am convinced it is not quite correct to put an issue to nationwide discussion before it has been discussed within the party.”
