An unfinished conversation

Every politician has his or her own style of communicating with people. Knowing those characteristics and habits, the politician’s subordinates form a proper information environment, which is supposed to support both the leader’s opinion about the people and to show the leader’s proper image to the people. On February 25 our president heard the questions he was supposed to hear and answered them based on his competence and worldview. It looked rather somber and gloomy, yet without the typical sensations or verbal lapses which became traditional for Ukraine’s head of state.

If this situation persists, Yanukovych’s annual talks might be transformed into a monotonous psychotherapy session for the undecided, and “persuading the persuaded.” In other words, a show for his supporters, a show for the sake of a show, while the ratings continue to decline. Those who do not acknowledge Yanukovych as their president will simply turn off their TVs. Those who were disappointed, who didn’t find answers to the questions disturbing them, will abandon attempts to reach out. As a result, the president will only speak to his fans. Closer to the elections this situation can altogether end up in a farce a la “expressing enthusiasm for the leader.” Moreover, this may be due to the initiatives of the officials responsible for the broadcast than the president himself, who perhaps would like to learn what people really think.

Too few journalists were admitted on the studio, only the most loyal ones were selected. Even in Russia more journalists are gathered in the studio from where the president’s speeches are broadcast, and sometimes they are allowed to ask thorny questions. In our case there was an apparent stake on the principle “lest anything happen.”

As a result of the work of “frightened” officials (as Hanna Herman put it), the president was not asked many questions, and did not say much either. We didn’t hear the report on the work done over the past year. We didn’t hear how one can survive on 800 hryvnias per month. All kinds of reasons were to blame for the problems of Ukraine and Ukrainians — the previous government, global conjuncture, careless officials or corrupt journalists. No question about Education Minister Tabachynk was asked during the broadcast. However, questions about splitting the country and the Russian language were voiced. In this regard two interesting details should be pointed out.

Both questions — about splitting/federalizing Ukraine and the status of the Russian language — were worded in the best way possi-ble for the respondent. Not the east but the west, Lviv to be precise, asked about splitting the country. This highlighted that if anyone harbored separatist sentiments, if was the Galicians. A man wearing black glasses, looking like some law enforcement body representative, asked this question. Perhaps this was done so as to prevent any Svoboda representative from asking it, as it might have been phrased in a much more dramatic way otherwise.

The question about the Russian language was planned in an interesting way as well. It was asked by a girl from Odesa. Not from the Crimea or Donbas, not from Kharkiv, but exactly from Odesa — a city that is now at the center of the fight for the “rights of the Russian-speaking population.” It is possible that it is exactly in Odesa that they can now start elaborating a political project meant to direct the pro-Russian sentiments in those areas where former Party of Regions voters no longer trust the president or his administration. These people needed a clear message from the head of the state: there will be no Russian as a state language in the near future. At least until the elections to the new parliament, or better yet — until 2015. Or never. The message is sufficient, first, to clearly outline the current president’s position on this issue, and second, to have the grounds for uniting under the new flags of “extreme federalist-Russophiles,” if the growth of such sentiments can’t be avoided.

Thus, his answer to the question on the Russian language can be considered the only sensation during the talk with the people. And when at the end he sang the song “the favorite city can sleep peacefully,” for some reason it sounded funny. It’s difficult to say whether this was an improvisation of the head of the state or an action planned in advance, but it’s more likely it was planned. However, it didn’t help to “adorn” the conversation with the country this way and make it more “cordial.” Well, the head of the state sang. He also said he played tennis and damaged his knee. Still Yanukovych is in no way associated in the mass consciousness with sport. But the very attempt of the organizers of the show to depict the president’s “private” side are only natural; after all, that is how television works.

Obviously, there had to be questions about Stalin and Bandera, and about the Holodomor. If these questions hadn’t been asked, the program would have been justly criticized for avoiding urgent social and historical topics. And the president’s answers were obviously planned so that they did not go beyond his prior statements. As a result Stalin, quite predictably, turned out to be “a bad person,” the Holodomor was called the common tragedy of all the peoples of the USSR, not just Ukrainians, Shukhevych and Bandera were splitting the country, though people were free to honor them. Still, nothing was said about the fate of those arrested for destroying the monument to Stalin. But even if the question had been asked, we would only have once again heard the postulate that the president doesn’t influence the judiciary. Indeed, that is how Yanukovych answered the question on the case of the “corrupt opposition members.”

He could not have answered otherwise. That is what Tymoshenko heard from him regarding a trip to Brussels — that the president cannot influence the decision of the investigator. Perhaps this question, about the president’s influence on the courts, best showed the citizens’ lack of confidence. Some simply believe this should be so and the “orange” criminals should be punished, while others accuse the government of double standards and cynical lies. The president has played it safe in all matters pertaining to this issue.

Regarding Soviet exaggerations in the form of the performance of the Bukovyna Archimandrite Lonhin (who, of course, belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate) with demonstrative songs (honoring the president), sang by the children he takes care of, as well as the loyal performance of Yenakieve residents — these moves were unsuccessful and unnecessary. They simply annoy everybody. Of course, for Yenakieve he was and will remain the local hero, but the questions they asked did not address their biggest problems, did they? Father Lonhin certainly deserves respect, but it is obvious that using children to sing praising songs to Yanukovych is not appropriate (this is a political ad), and it is explicit, toady flattery.

It looks like the president himself is well aware of the value of such expressions of “people’s love.” Perhaps he accepts such things as appropriate, and they feed his self-esteem, but for some reason a stable impression is formed that he, understanding everything, plays the game he previously approved. The game, in which he acts as the “father of the nation,” who personally solves all the country’s problems, is as relative as the role of a “passive petitioner” given to the people. In this play people, complaining about their daily woes and careless officials, however, stably and invariably hope for the “father of the nation,” and he, in his turn, gives promises, demonstrates the monarch’s anger, promises to delve into the issue and asks to tighten one’s belt even more. Generally, he plays his favorite role of a severe but just boss. And people appear before him as he wants to see them.

From now on such broadcasts will be places to petition the “boss”: “give money!,” “help!,” “come to us!,” “punish!,” “judge!” These appeals are the apogee of paternalistic expectations, which are quite natural for broad masses of Ukrainians and especially those from the Party of Regions bastions, where belief in Yanukovych’s good will is still very strong. On the other hand, this is an attempt by the people to use the head of the state for their own benefit, as a last instance against the indifference and pressure of the local authorities. And the president plays this role with pleasure, not noticing that by this he is digging a grave for his ratings, taking responsibility for everything — for buckwheat and tariffs, schools and roads, for each housing office and each bureaucrat. If the country has only one “chieftain,” he gets all the blame. But the fewer possibilities the “chieftain” has to solve them, and the less possibilities he has to hear everybody out, the less the people will trust him. And then, even if the organizers of some new shows will plan to dismiss the entire Cabinet of Ministers live, this step will not save the head of the state from his personal responsibility for improving “everyday life.”

Finally, a few words to defend the president from the excessive attacks and causticity of some critics. Those who were ready to put down the record number of linguistic lapses were clearly disappointed. The president didn’t say anything like “Anna Akhmetova [changing the surname of the poet Anna Akhmatova to that of billionaire oligarch Rinat Akhmetov. – Ed.],” a big achievement by itself. Clearly, he is concerned about the numerous mistakes he makes while speaking. Thus this decision to communicate with the people, even by means of prepared materials yet nonetheless live and with much improvisation, can be considered his personal achievement. The same can be said about the criticism of the president’s Ukrainian, and its numerous “russicisms.” Compared to Azarov, Mohyliov or Blyzniuk, the head of the state is now truly bilingual. He became bilingual at an elderly age, and with complete responsibility and thoroughness learned (and did it quite well) a language which was not native to him. It is absurd to expect philological purity in Ukrainian from Yanukovych. Not everybody speaks correct Ukrainian. In everyday life, unfortunately, surzhyk prevails. Therefore the Ukrainian language of Yanukovych must inspire respect and not laughter — he is trying hard, and with rather good results.

Still, there was no fair conversation with the country. And this was due to all parties: the president, the organizers of the broadcast, and those who asked questions. All of them played the game and played it to the extent that they accepted their roles. The future broadcasts will show in what format the orchestrated shows like this will be held, whether in the future conversations there will be real sensations and re-velations, whether we will be able to see the president not playing a role, and whether we will be given a chance to ask him really topical questions.

CONVERSATION IN FIGURES

The president talked to the people for four hours. In this time he was asked 39 questions. At this, almost 20,000 questions were received via internet (actually, only two were asked in the broadcast) and about 30,000 by phone (three of them were voiced). There were direct broadcasts from 14 regions. Men asked more questions than women. In addition, six journalists asked their questions; these were the representatives of television channels who were in the studio. As a result of the broadcast, Yanukovych promised to charge five orders to ministers and asked the governments in three regions to pay attention to what his interlocutors were talking about. Four people invited the president to visit them.