CONGRATULATIONS! WE NOW HAVE THREE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES! 

While the United Social Democrats were electing their new leader (Viktor Medvedchuk, as it turned out), the former chief Parteigenosse Vasyl Onopenko announced the foundation of the Ukrainian  Social Democratic Party (USDP). Regardless of how both sides described the phenomenon (the United SDPists called it "strengthening" and the new ones "cleansing"), what actually happened was a plain, ordinary split, and its consequences may prove much more interesting than the appearance of a third SD party.

Naturally, both SDPU(U) and USDP strove to demonstrate support from regional structures. The former's convention was attended by delegates from 25 oblasts, while Mr. Onopenko was mainly supported by regional and district party cells. Both parties also made clear their attitude to the authorities. Although Mr. Medvedchuk declared that "the goal of SDPU(U) is to come to power," his party took a considerate stand, while USDP declared itself in opposition and that it was going to take part in forming a coalition left-centrist forces.

The main reason behind USDP's emergence was, allegedly, a desire to get rid of the "moneybags" regarding SPDU(U) as a "commercial office or political holding." Some of the delegates mildly reproached Vasyl Onopenko for his "tolerance and patience." Although aware that those who "stole into the party leadership" were not popular and that they created a "bad party image," and made endless concessions "for the sake of the party's unity," allowing regional interests to be ignored. "We arrived today not to stuff our pockets or divide portfolios," they announced, adding that they hoped that the party, thus "cleansed," would be supported by the people. In fact, if this "support of the people" could turn into a decisive factor in the forthcoming political
battles, it would be worth considering obvious distinctions  between the "strengthened" and "cleansed" Social Democrats. The former take accusations of being "bourgeois" in their stride and hand the helm over to one of Ukraine's wealthiest men. The latter are at odds with the
"moneybags" and say the rich want "not the idea, but the roof overhead." The former  are for "cooperation with the executive" and the latter are in opposition. The former joined the President's newly formed Domestic Policy Council and the latter are planning a coalition with Buzduhan's Social Democrats (the man is forming an alliance with Moroz's Socialists).

True, all this may prove of no consequence, since SDPU(U) has no financial problems and SDPU has no money.

And the United Social Democratic convention was adjourned, not completed, as the second round will take place in one of the regions to discuss the presidential campaign. Most believe the venue will be somewhere in Transcarpathia where Mr. Medvedchuk collected almost 100% of the votes and which is referred to as the United Social Democratic outpost. According to the party leader, "successful performance in the presidential campaign" will be included in the "minimum program" after adopting the presidential election law (Mr. Medvedchuk is the author of one of the drafts). In other words, the SDPU(U) will nominate a  person and that person will become President of Ukraine.

One question remaining is the United Social Democrats' opposition status. Yevhen Marchuk, as faction leader (but not a member of the party) addressed the convention, stressing that "the victory of Social Democrats in Germany, Sweden, and Great Britain became possible because they were strictly opposed to the existing government. It was precisely such strict and consistent opposition, aimed at protecting the working people's social interests, that allowed them to achieve such significant results." Remarkably, when asked by journalists to comment on that address, the new leader said, "You did not listen to Yevhen Marchuk attentively enough and misunderstood him; he proposed precisely what is laid down in the resolution of the 13th United Social Democratic convention. It is a stand geared to consolidate all power branches, so as to prevent a political crisis in Ukraine."

COMMENTARY

The reader ought to be reminded that SDPU(U) dates from 1991 and has been subject to repeated rifts, mainly resulting from the confrontation between the "pragmatists" and "idealists" - or the right and left wings. Almost as soon as founded, the party split into SDPU (rightist) and SDPU(U) (leftist). Ironically, the United Social Democrats at the time actually constituted the left wing led by Yuri Buzduhan. Later, they reunited as Social Democratic Party of Ukraine, but another rift followed shortly, in the course of which Vasyl Onopenko, currently acting as an "idealist," striving to preserve the Social Democratic ideals, was an outspoken "pragmatist," regarded by many as campaigning to take over the leadership. This resulted in the appearance of two parties: Onopenko-led SDPU(U) and Buzduhan's SDPU. Onopenko's current attacks on "moneybags" may sound right, but without their help the United Social Democrats would not have been likely to surmount the 4% barrier and get seats in Parliament. It is also true that the choice between good financing and a correct political stand has remained a very painful issue for the political parties in Ukraine, primarily because a "correct political stand" inevitably implies opposition to the existing government (even if the government is generally not affiliated to any party), and being in opposition is an obstacle to earning good money. As for the current split-up, time will tell. Both parties are represented in Parliament, so the electorate will judge their actual orientation and performance.