For Whom or What Ukrainians Should Vote

In the last, most frenzied lap of the election race, the voters’ heads spinning with declarations, protests, and lawsuits, an increasing number of Ukrainians ask themselves whom they should actually cast their ballots for. This is a natural question, of course, but hopelessly unanswerable under the circumstances. By voting for a specific candidate, one makes an unproductive choice; the turnout notwithstanding, this choice will not teach the voter anything, nor will it move this society any further in any direction. If a candidate goes back on his promises, who can guarantee that another will keep them?

FIRST ERROR

During the first real elections, when there was actually a choice to make, the candidates were conventionally divided into new and old ones. At the time distinguishing a nomenklatura nominee from an “informal” (democratic) one was no problem. Those standing for democratic reform voted for the latter and the rest for the former. And the former won almost everywhere. This was evidence that the people did not want any serious change, but change it did, regardless of who was elected. Does this mean that the people were wrong? Not at all. It was just that change was unavoidable, so much so no election turnout could stop the process. The old winners took command over the new ones and together led us along the road leading to the destruction of production and loss of people’s savings, a process currently lauded by all parties and blocs..

Whether purposefully or spontaneously (it does not matter now, really), those first reforms resulted in the ruin of the basic structuring of society that had commenced in the course of the first elections. The speed at which yesterday’s Leninists were converting into democrats championing independence and privatization was such that everybody became confused, the more so that until 1989 practically everybody was a Leninist by definition, save for a handful of dissidents — and the latter turned out to be Bolsheviks.

There was a chance to change things for the better in 1994 when both presidential candidates were not exactly “new” but they were not “old” either. If Leonid Kravchuk’s team followed him after losing the elections to set up an opposition, we would have a democratically structured polity today. This did not happen. Instead, those on the winning side quickly assimilated with those on the losing one, producing a motley crowd in power that would be scandalously beaten by the Communists and Rukh in 1998. Once again the people had a chance to rally round those two forces, so there would be a choice to make between the past and the future. Once again they let it pass because of the habitual post-election diffusion of the deputies. The phenomenon is sure to repeat itself this time.

GOOD CANDIDATE OR VAGUE PROSPECTS

It is common knowledge that there were no pure Communists or Rukh members left before the start of this year’s election campaign. Comrade Symonenko’s party, by force of habit, is finishing its last but one political game and there are individuals with overly dubious reputations gathered under the Rukh signboard. In a desperate attempt to win the campaign, party signboards were quickly replaced by the names of male and female leaders, hoping the electorate would have no time to figure out what was behind the name at the head of one bloc or another.

There is no denying that Oleksandr Moroz, Yuliya Tymoshenko, Viktor Yushchenko, and Natalia Vitrenko cut spectacular figures capable of attracting voters’ attention. And the absence of actual power only adds to their being spectacular. On the other hand, its presence makes those at the head of the For a United Ukraine Bloc fade into the background, hard as they try to appear in public with strained smiles. Are we going to have anything new by voting for Moroz, Tymoshenko, Yushchenko, or Vitrenko? Are we trying to remain in the past by voting for For a United Ukraine? So far it is hard to imagine anyone voting for the Lytvyn bloc of one’s own free will — well, maybe as an act of despair. Probably because this conglomeration is neither new nor old, just like the rival blocs campaigning under their leaders’ names, the party of power represents our current realities without offering any clear prospects.

Who, then, is the electorate supposed to trust? Are we to believe that some of the current functionaries will be jailed after the elections and others set free? That someone will give the little old ladies back their hard-earned rubles? That Russia or the West will help us out? Where is that productive idea which the Ukrainian electorate can accept as their own and suffer through the reform for some time, for the sake of a better future? Who is there to present and interpret that idea? Practically nobody, because things like that do not pay off these days. It is better to show the public one’s decisive full or half face. Just to make sure.

TOMORROW OR SOMEDAY

There is little doubt that this time too the Ukrainian electorate will not be able to set the country’s political course in any certain direction. We are in for rehashing what we had four years ago, with updated declarations but with the same personae. We will not be in a position to tell the world or ourselves that we are ruled by the Right or Left. There will be just power wielded and supported by some, and opposed by others, depending on the situation. Most likely the presidential candidates will likewise fail to represent political forces with specific action plans and responsibility for its implementation. This will continue until a political force appears with such a plan and responsibility. Whether it will be something new or the current politicians will finally get the masses under control with their ideas is hard to tell. Just as it will be impossible to identify who is in power and whether they will lead us to yet another crisis or stability. The situation will remain the same until we are allowed to vote not for somebody but for something, telling us what that something is all about and giving us examples. So far there is only one example: our life and the way we live. We all see this, and if we vote for this, when electing the new parliament, we will certainly make no mistake.