Society’s clumsy response to the regime’ s awkward endeavors

The events and actions by politicians and the media can be regarded in various ways, but one thing is clear: all of us have to live with all this, including those expecting to pull out a plum, those circling the wagons, and those being led down the garden path yet again. Everybody understands that the scandal has long passed the limits of a local conflict, turning into a social phenomenon. Both politicians and journalists are trying to ride the crest the wave of public protest to be carried higher than their colleagues. And the question where this wave has come from is traditionally avoided, although it is an interesting question indeed.

The scandal was sired by two. First, the regime: in 1991, it failed to establish a constructive dialogue with the opposition, because there was actually nothing to discuss and all talk was about personal executive appointments rather than solutions to specific problems. The authorities proved inferior to the opposition not so much in terms of their changing course (let alone working out an effective one) as by throwing to the rebellious wolves one governor/minister/premier after the next. This political system took shape in the late 1980s and has entered the second decade of its being frozen, which means a frozen system marked by the collapse of developed socialism. Of course, it is difficult to build an independent state using a political machine designed to collapse, yet no one has ever obstructed the regime in making any efforts to change the political situation. No such efforts have been made, perhaps due to the ever dominant desire to stay on top come what may. The main rule in this game is a free for all, so why should anyone be offended by the opposition dealing a blow contrary to all conceivable rules of logic, morals, and political culture? You reap what you have sown.

The other parent of the scandal was the specifics of Ukrainian journalism. The latter has no logical system, meaning that our journalists are incredibly credulous. It would be hard to say who is duping whom more, the journalists or politicians. The process is reciprocal. Politicians leave things unsaid and journalists leave questions unanswered, but the fact remains that the linkage between politicians and journalists is far stronger than between the journalists and their readers (viewers) or between the politicians and the electorate. And for this reason the interests of the people are the last thing on the journalist’s mind, while politics and politicking are uppermost. The higher the heat is turned up in the power play, the better for the journalists. The Ukrainian information machine is geared primarily to hysteria. When they talk about staggering sums invested in the cassette scandal they consciously proceed from the inadequacy of our information space. Regrettably, there is no freedom of expression in Ukraine, merely the freedom of hue and cry. Words are something nobody hears. Political journalists try to shout down one another. Now he who shouts cannot hear, unlike he who talks. Under this system the president can be accused of murder (cannibalism, pillage, bed-wetting, or whatever); all this is manna from heaven, and no investment is required. Moreover, this system is created with taxpayer money and on direct orders from the powers that be. The cassette scandal was engineered with budget money, not with money supplied by some dark forces. Pouring oil on the fire serves the interests of most journalists, for they can take money from both sides (those in power will pay more anyway). The regime fell into its own trap; those on high wanted an information space they could keep under maximum control. Now they suffer because it can be controlled by a different and not such a decent person. Many journalists are happy to have an opportunity to vent their wrath against the regime. This opportunity is used mainly by those media people who bowed and scraped before it, in many cases without actually having to. Needless to say, the most servile have since received quite good jobs and are now venting their own meanness, combining business and pleasure, while getting good honoraria. All has this resulted in a situation where the president can be defended only by those acting in the line of duty or working on big money. Do they actually defend him? Yes, but halfheartedly, even reluctantly (talks with the other side are constantly underway). This system is prepared to sacrifice any politician but never itself.

What about the people? They realize that they are being taken for a ride, but they are not sure who is behind all this, so they trust those shouting the loudest and proceed to destabilize the regime according to long established tradition. Whatever reform is accomplished is done without the people (and mind you, there is reportedly even some economic growth), and thus it has come time to play politics. The regime has been passive, so bring out the machine guns! Even if they do start shooting, the engineers will hide behind others’ backs, and if they win they will be the first to fool the people. But perhaps this social outburst is not that massive, because memories of 1991 are still fresh.

The regime has to choose between the use of force, sacrifice, or an attempt to change the political situation. Use of force will result in dictatorship. Sacrificing a minister will only strengthen an existing political system that will only demand new sacrifices. Changing the political situation is impossible without the people’s help. Winning the people’s support is impossible without a propaganda machine that is geared to destroy, not to create.