• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Vyacheslav PIKHOVSHEK: "I HAVE NOT YET USED MY MAIN DOSSIER ON POLITICIANS. BUT NOW I WILL" 

27 April, 1999 - 00:00

Vyacheslav Pikhovshek is once again keeping his politically worried compatriots
in tense anticipation. The television shows "Fifth Angle" and "5x5" have
given rise to and strengthened his fame as a "radical" and an "agent provocateur"
among political journalists. Professionals know another Pikhovshek - the
author of quite unexpected (and complicated!) works in the sphere of political
science, the leader of the Ukrainian Independent Center of Political Research.
He combines the television star's usual tendency to demonstrate his achievements
(his telling at every turn the amount of taxes he has paid is well worth
mentioning) - and the confinement of an analyst who prefers to work in
the shadows and shuns publicity. Another remark: while obviously being
a pioneer of the political talk-show genre on our television (in its professional
performance) Pikhovshek did not become popular in the ordinary sense of
the word. In his new show "Epicenter: Non-Secret Materials" Vyacheslav
is planning one more time to encroach on our politicians' reputation with
the aid of his colleagues - the journalists who are to be equal creators
of traps for the studio guests. Naturally, Pikhovshek himself will be the
catalyst of the process, and he promises to be even tougher than ever before
and better armed with arguments, not a bad idea for a journalist often
accused of bias. Will such political debates get normal ratings not in
1997 or even in 1998 but in 1999 when people's trust in public officials
has reached a critical low? Will the country's viewer-in-chief, the President,
be loyal to the possible appearances of opposition politicians on the show?
As we know, his current penchant is for keeping real competitors off television
and discrediting them in the mass media under his control. Will the authorities
be able this time to resist the temptation to close down the program (or
dictate conditions to its authors)?

"I WANT TO MAKE

POLITICAL EVENTS ON MY SHOW"

"The show's main goal is to influence the presidential elections," Vyacheslav
Pikhovshek says.

"We will pick the topic of every program bearing in mind the influence
of an event on the presidential race or simply the event's being in the
context of the elections. Twenty eight weeks will pass from the moment
the first program is aired to the first round of the elections, and now
we are talking of the block consisting of twenty eight programs. What will
be next, on the eve of the elections, I can tell without going into details:
the debates will not resemble the debates held before the presidential
elections of 1991 and 1994."

The Day: Do you think that your show will be the main one
on this subject on Ukrainian television?

V. P.: To say so would be presumptuous and even over-confident.
Though I will do everything in my power to make it so.

The Day: What will be in "Epicenter" - toughness and the persistent
desire to dig in depth?

V. P.: I will practice what I have never done before. It will
be a process of brainstorming. It will be a show not of television but
political activity. I want to make political events in my show.

The Day: And, this way, go beyond journalism as such?

V. P.: Yes, there is a problem here. But a great deal that is
happening in our country disturbs me, so I think that intervention, active
intervention is needed. We have to actively interfere in order to elucidate
the situation and to help people become oriented, including those who got
us into this situation.

The Day: But there is a real problem here. Either you as a
journalist see some problems and show them to the viewer as if to make
him think and in this way influence the formation of public opinion, or
you actively interfere in the process and try to manipulate public opinion.

V. P.: Manipulation is a question of words, not technologies,
I would say. It depends on what goal one sets oneself. If one works as
an active participant in someone's election campaign, then, of course,
one is manipulating public opinion for the sake of a certain campaign.
But if one shows the situation in its diversity and tries to influence
it for the sake of changes which one considers positive, I would not call
that manipulation. Yes, it is undoubtedly subjective. But subjective is
not necessarily wrong. The more so that my journalistic colleagues will
be very different, with different political principles and degrees of involvement
- from absolutely independent to active participants in somebody's election
campaigns. Our show will be quite versatile, objective, and very dangerous
for all the politicians who come to our studio.

The Day: But not be the only ono agree of Vyacheslav Pikhovshek
alone will take part in creating "Epicenter." Hence you, too, will depend
on, let us say, interests, rules of the game in the domestic news for the
very same 1+1 station.

V. P.: Structurally, our organization is like this: 1+1 creates
the studio and provides for video and producing (Iryna Ionova). Our Ukrainian
Independent Center of Political Research, financed 100% with American money
will take care of information and analysis. The money is provided by the
National Endowment for Democracy; these are open regional grants of the
foundation, which has been financing me since 1990. Britain's Westminster
Foundation is also taking part in financing "Epicenter."

The Day: So foreign investments provides some guarantee of
your personal freedom. But 1+1 is still connected with the interests of
a number of structures supporting it.

V. P.: The presidential race is not the best time for any journalist
to realize his or her principles who considers himself to be not even completely
independent but at least selfdependent. This is why I had the option of
going through presidential race without appearing on television. But 1+1
needed such a show, and thus "Epicenter" emerged. Under current circumstances
we chose the following form: the show is entirely mine. That is, it is
not connected in some way with other people's responsibility. 1+1 and I
will work together, will talk, and talk a lot about these 28 programs.
But I am responsible for everything.

And it is the best balance of what can be done today in Ukraine and
how one can work with American foundations. I often run into the situation
when our political elite is constantly looking for a big brother. Big brother
in Moscow or big brother in Washington, or - where is he, that big brother?
In any case, stating the problem this way demonstrates a certain intellectual
narrowness. People look for a big brother instead of being normal, self-sufficient
Europeans. I want to produce an impression that we are a small European
country. We are not a big country to be afraid of. But neither are we a
country ignored by one and all. We are a country like most other countries
in the world - like Belgium, Poland, Canada. We are trying to be such a
country. For we are choosing not just some generalized European way - we
are choosing the path of building a civil society, and it is in general
the same everywhere, and it does not matter how we call it. It does not
mean that there are no intrigues among top officials. But Washington intrigues
are ten levels higher than Kyiv ones, because in Washington the graduates
of the best American colleges and universities are making their careers
there. Comparing corrupted politicians in Washington (there is corruption
there, too) and in Kyiv I would definitely say that we are talking of a
corrupt aristocrat and a village thief. The difference is in quality. But
at the same time I proceed from some postulates that are hard to deny,
and they are like some firm ground in Brownian political movement. I work
to make contact with elected officials, not appointed by somebody but elected.
Because I think that the electorate should be responsible for their choice.
And people sooner or later have to understand that they have to be responsible
for what they choose. You want to live like that - be free to live. But
your choice will de decisive.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE SECOND WAVE FROM DNIPROPETROVSK

The Day: But do we have a real choice - that is the question!
Our press totally depends on those in power, television is monopolized,
and top officials openly do everything to discredit their opponents.

V. P.: Now we can see that the legislative power of the USA supports
their President's actions toward Yugoslavia. They act as a whole. And the
American mass media work in unison with them. Our political elite interprets
this in a very specific way: look how American press approves of Clinton's
actions. My answer is: this is because Clinton does what the American people
want, because opinion polls confirmed it, and even Congress, Republicans
- even they say that yes, it should be done. And whose press is it? The
press also reflects the nation's opinion. This is an axiom that works.

The Day: And our situation is absolutely different.

V. P.: Our situation is the opposite, and the infrastructure
is distorted. The biggest problem is the distribution of newspapers among
financial-industrial clans, the distribution of television among them.
Why do I insist that the second wave from Dnipropetrovsk has caused degradation
of Ukrainian press? Because strange as it may seem, when Pavlo Lazarenko
came to Kyiv he made a most valuable contribution to the development of
democracy in 1996. He bought those mass media outlets nobody else wanted
to buy, and this is what the representatives of another oligarchic clan
are doing now: they buy those television stations and mass media no one
needed earlier. And reacting to such actions by Mr. Lazarenko, all the
other politicians started founding their own mass media outlets. And this
is an ironic form of freedom of the press.

It is a press that depends not on the balance of public opinion but
on the balance of interrelationships of oligarchic interests and mass media
related to them. In this case, as President Kuchma said, the press becomes
a battering ram of financial groups fighting among themselves. This is
a pluralism under which every financial group can voice its position, and
it will certainly be published. And such a situation can develop to the
level of free press, the more so that in Ukraine the relationship between
journalists and the owner of a media outlet is such that journalists come
and say: we want to work for you, your policy suits us; we understand that
there are some taboos but othetwise we can be free. Thus I worked on "Fifth
Angle" within the structure of the Alternative Television Company owned
by Hryhory Surkis and Viktor Medvedchuk. And for two years and a half they
never, not once, tried to pressure me. Now I have a similar understanding
with Rodniansky. But the second wave from Dnipropetrovsk made the possibility
of such relations null and void. They started oppressing everything more
or less independent, and recognize only the principle of an order and its
being carried out unconditionally.

"I SEE POSITIVE TRENDS IN THE SHADOW ECONOMY"

The Day: What do you see as possible ways to change the situation
of our mass media that are directly tied to political and economical processes?

V. P.: The situation can be changed in only two ways: the first
is immediate privatization of the land, and the second is liberating everything
possible from licensing and registration - to make it possible for people
to work and create normal family businesses. If this does not happen, a
second phase of the Ukrainian nomenklatura revolution will begin. I consider
the students' hunger strike to be the result of the first phase. The regime
in the country has not changed. People who worked under the Soviets in
all the power structures have simply switched rooms. By the way, I am not
sure that something would have been different if the regime had changed.
This does not mean that I am a pessimist. I am an optimist. If I had not
been an optimist I would have left this country long ago. Strange as it
might seem, I see positive trends in the shadow economy. Why? Because it
is a generation of people who do not expect the government to give them
something. They go out and get it themselves. Yes, they do not pay taxes,
on paper all their enterprises are unprofitable, and their money is God
knows where. Yes, there are such problems as crime, drugs, white slavery,
and all of these are painful. But these people say: we do not want to be
dependent anymore. And there is again a logical paradox: will people respect
such a country, will they be its patriots, will they defend it if the state
simply ignores them? Will people vote in such a country? Obviously not.
This is why I agree with those Ukrainian politicians who say that now the
most important thing is to restore the electorate's trust in the country.
When we started the students' hunger strike and when we conduct research
projects in our center and broadcast them on television, we do it in order
to change something. I see so many people willing to change something in
the country. And I have a feeling that if President Kuchma or someone else
does not take necessary steps - we will see the second phase of the revolution.
And what it will be like in details, I think, no one can now say.

The Day: Are there politicians who, as you see it, can change
the situation without throwing the country into a cataclysm?

V. P.: There are both politicians who can do it and reasons why
each one of them might not be able to do it. Moroz, for example, has very
big problems with land sale. But no one is talking of the arbitrary sale
of land or of restoration of feudal estates. We are talking about the contemporary
variation of capitalism, post-industrial society, which has learned a great
deal from idiotic Soviet socialism with its violations of human rights.
Finally, there is global experience of reserving the right to land property
only for Ukrainian citizens who would lease the land to anyone and make
money from it. Or, for example, I was alerted when I heard Yevhen Marchuk's
statement on Tsendrovsky's "Dialogs" show. Mr. Marchuk, talking about the
necessity to reinvest the capital sent abroad in Ukraine, said that businessmen
should be forced to do it. If he meant by the word force creating the necessary
legal mechanisms, it is one thing. But if he meant non-democratic ways
of reform, then that is something else. However, Mr. Marchuk's activities
as Prime Minister demonstrated his responsible attitude toward the law.
And I do not belong to that part of people who criticize him for working
in the KGB. It was his job, and he did it the way he could in those days.
And none of the toughest dissidents could say that he has any important
compromising evidence on Marchuk. It is clear that there are no simple
ways to get out of that deepest of holes the Ukrainian state has dug itself
into. And if either Moroz or Marchuk is ready to work in the situation
when there are no simple solutions, it means we have a chance. And if not...

The Day: And you created "Epicenter" as a project that might
create - at least virtual - situation of choice for the voter?

V. P.: I start with the assumption that it is very hard for me
as a voter to choose between one or another. I understand: whatever television
does, whatever it distinguishes itself with during elections - either with
its activity or inactivity - it is impossible to fail to get pensioners'
votes in polling districts. Muckraking television that uses overtly false
materials - I call it killer-television - is leading to a fascinating situation.
It is not leading to giving someone an advantage over other politicians
but to discrediting our internal politics in general. I do not want to
discredit politicians and politics as such. I do not want everyone to be
brought down to the same level, and this inexorably happens on muckraking
television. I have never done it and never will. I will try to show my
guests' positions objectively, and it will be the way to create not propagandistic
television but one that influences the electorate's conscious choice -
conscious, for it will be made with the best possible information and the
maximum responsibility for the choices made.

 

Rubric: