What Does Viktor Medvedchuk’s Dismissal Mean?

December is a month for putting together political blocs. While the construction of more new sculptures and hothouses in Independence Square by Kyiv Mayor Oleksandr Omelchenko and his staff is in full swing, in politics the period of party blocs reshuffling or, according to a popular word, restructuring is coming to an end, with the blocs acquiring more or less clear shape. Last week, it seems, the bloc of so- called parties of power (those in or seeking to be in power, usually unfettered by any discernible political convictions — Ed.), For a United Ukraine (dubbed For Food by the grassroots due to a coincidence in its name’s initial letters) has taken final shape. Incidentally, leader of this bloc and Head of the Presidential Administration Volodymyr Lytvyn assured us that his coalition is not after any food (i.e., power), for it already has power and this is why it will not make use of the administrative resource.

True, there is one premier and one former premier, as well as one present and one former vice premier among the bloc’s leaders. Plus the head of the administration, that is, the president’s personal chancellery, who was placed at the head of the bloc and above the premier presumably to send a signal to each and all where the hub of power is, lest the Europeans with their respect for prime ministers should fail to get the message. As for ordinary ministers and the heads of city and oblast state administrations, their number among the bloc members is large. Clearly, Mr. Lytvyn is not telling the whole truth: power, like food, should not only be procured but also guarded against those eager to consume it. He and his colleagues are only too aware of this and are unlikely to stop short of using their offices to protect their power. The more so that they cannot count on the attractiveness of the election agenda of their bloc as it unites too differing political forces. There is no common ideology among the participants of this bloc as has been amply evidenced during voting the motion to dismiss Mr. Medvedchuk.

It is obvious that Viktor Medvedchuk’s dismissal was the result of a conspiracy among the Left and Right in the parliament, with revenge as an underlying motive. By voting down the first deputy speaker the Reds retaliated for the velvet revolution removing them from the legislative leadership and the Land Code, with the nationalists taking their revenge for Viktor Yushchenko’s dismissal as prime minister. Apparently, this is understood by all; however, not all, I think, are aware of one specific feature that united those who voted against Medvedchuk: their absolute lack of principles, for they all voted actually against those principles which they publicly pledged to defend.

Giving credit to Medvedchuk for his initiative, both Rukh and Reforms-Congress Solons were active in shaping the parliamentary majority and quite recently voted for the laws that the deputy speaker was steering through Verkhovna Rada (including the Land Code, a thorn in the side of the Left). Apart from the wish to avenge themselves, the Right was most likely driven by the desire to brake at any cost the enactment of a new law On Languages scheduled for voting last Thursday, on the same day Medvedchuk, the law’s adamant proponent, was deposed. Had the law been voted on, it would have been adopted, for at least 240 to 250 lawmakers were ready to support it. On the surface, it appears that the rightists have abided by their principles in this case. One can agree with this argument if they are viewed as nationalists per se, not as national democrats and advocates of the Western values they portray themselves to be. For European democracy implies the priority of the human and civil rights of citizens regardless of their language and ethnic origin. Recall that it was the Council of Europe that adopted the European Charter on Regional and Ethnic Minority Languages, the ratification of which was so resolutely opposed two years ago by the same rightist parties that have joined ranks against Medvedchuk now. Similarly, Mr. Yushchenko’s mandate is open to question as there are many Russian- speaking and ethnic minority Ukrainians among his supporters. Are they aware that on December 13 the member parties of the Our Ukraine bloc voted down the bill to protect their rights? Are they aware that the bloc has become home to nationalists and adding the word democrats is mere camouflage? If they become aware of this, will they vote in March for the bloc headed by a politician once regarded as an icon of political integrity?

The reaction of the leftist electorate is anyone’s guess as any compromise with the nationalists is viewed by them as a betrayal, the more so that the compromise was followed by scrapping the bill on the official status of the Russian language, so adamantly supported by the communists and socialists. To the Left, promoting the status of Russian has always been high on the agenda. As a rule, those voting for the Reds are simple and honest people and they will surely ask whether this is a betrayal, of their people’s deputies, absorbed in intrigues, sacrificing their basic principles?”

Some might argue that voting in this way the leftists and rightists demonstrated their negative attitude toward the oligarchs. But this is not the case. Of course, Viktor Medvedchuk is an oligarch, and only God knows how he made all those millions. But he is one of the few of their number who understands that the period of primary (predatory) accumulation of capital is almost over; he indicates his readiness to create a legal framework within which entrepreneurs, employees, and the state should operate. I am far from believing that a velvet revolution done Medvedchuk style has taken place in strict conformity with the law and for me the bourgeois democracy advocated by him is a far cry from real liberty and justice. But you must hand it to Medvedchuk: he was steadfastly moving toward his objective. The oligarchs, wooed by the nationalists and some leftists, are a different story. Let us take, for example, Ms. Tymoshenko who worked hand in hand with Pavlo Lazarenko, a thief among the oligarchs. I will not dwell on her misdeeds because they have not yet been proven in court, but her relationship with Pavlo Lazarenko is quite eloquent. It is no secret that many of those who voted down oligarch Medvedchuk were ready to declare oligarch Tymoshenko a Ukrainian Joan of Arc, despite her rather dubious past and present.

The issue is not so much the lack of principles of both the Left and Right. The voting on Medvedchuk also tellingly demonstrated the Center’s fiasco. The available 135 votes of the leftists and nearly 70 of the rightists were not enough. About 30 votes were provided by the parties viewing themselves as centrists and pro- presidential. In the first place, these are Yednist (Unity) headed by Kyiv Mayor Omelchenko who made headlines with his abominable [architectural] projects in Independence Square, and Poroshenko’s Solidarity. Without their votes the dismissal of Medvedchuk would have been impossible. Since pro-presidential parties are toeing the Presidential Administration’s line, we may assume that either the Bankova Street boys were looking the other way or did not know anything about the conspiracy. To go by Mr. Lytvyn’s words uttered on the heels of the crucial vote, the Presidential Administration did not dump Medvedchuk, being simply unaware of what was going on. It is sad that politicians from Kuchma’s closest entourage do not keep their eyes on the ball, but I fear that there is more to it. Let me stress that not a single (sic!) party of power belonging to For a United Ukraine supported the first deputy speaker. Could this be mere coincidence?

What is the bottom line of all this? In fact, there is no political Center whatever. There are parties that stand by the interests of bureaucracy and there is a moderately reform-minded SDPU(o). All other parties lean to the Left or Right. If such a configuration of political forces exists on election day, the new legislature will not be able to adopt any productive decisions because any union of leftists and rightists can only be temporary and destructive.

And creating a working majority would be too difficult a task, because we do not like bureaucrats and no serious agenda, for reasons discussed at the beginning of this article, can be offered by For a United Ukraine. As a result, these forces will primarily try to cash in on the administrative resource. This is very bad because this would indicate regression to ways of running the country that were inherited from the totalitarian past and will block badly needed reforms. And those in power will not reach their objective: I doubt if the bloc of Lytvyn and the ministers will get over 12 to 15 percent of the vote. Naturally, candidates running in separate constituencies could have better access to the administrative resource, but they are not likely to receive more than a third of the votes.

What about Medvedchuk? Obviously, by losing the deputy speaker’s chair he lost some ammunition. But after the voting he declared that his resignation will untie his hands. If this is really so, he will not only be able to make up for his losses but also benefit from the whole saga. Now SDPU(o) will be able to run its election campaign ignoring the Presidential Administration and having more room for maneuver. The administrative resource has never been crucial for SDPU(o) as it has a good war chest, its own mass media, and a reliable organization. It is now important to get rid of its image as a party of oligarchs and develop a program of reforms attractive to most Ukrainians. If the SDPU(o) succeeds in doing this, the party’s weight will increase, and this will attract additional voter support. If otherwise, we will have to agree with the fact that there are no consistently reform-minded political forces in Ukraine and making our way to democracy will be an uphill battle.