Heorhy KRIUCHKOV: “There is no reason to change the Communist Party leadership”

The first post-election plenum of the Communist Party of Ukraine is tentatively scheduled for December 4 in Kyiv to discuss rather serious issues regarding the party’s and its leaders’ further destiny. High on the agenda will be the summing up of the presidential campaign and the appraisal of Communist leader Petro Symonenko’s participation in it. Many consider in this connection that the Communist candidate’s election defeat may compel the plenary meeting to raise the question of his replacement.

One of the party’s ideologists, chairman of the Verkhovna Rada National Security Committee Heorhy Kriuchkov is sure this will not happen. In an exclusive interview with the Center for Journalist Research, he shared his opinion about this and his vision of the party’s future.

“How do you assess the results of the presidential elections in Ukraine?”

“The victory of Leonid Kuchma is rather a sad result for me personally and for the whole Ukrainian people. Historically, this is also a defeat of the Communists. The main objective, to remove Mr. Kuchma from office, remained unachieved.

“Yet, the 40% vote cast for Mr. Symonenko in conditions of information blackout, mudslinging, and intimidation, can be justly considered a great victory for the Communists.”

“Do you think that it is the Communists who helped repeat the Russian election scenario and caused such results?”

“I cannot say so. First, the leading role in this scenario was assigned to anticommunist psychosis rather than to the Communists. The top position of these two candidates only allowed playing this card. Secondly, Mr. Symonenko took part in the runoff with the goal of winning.

“But, unfortunately, the party did make a number of mistakes which brought about its defeat. In particular, the election campaign did not place clear emphasis on the three important things I told about three years ago at a party plenum.

“The first is the theme of statehood which was never played in the election campaign. The Communists gave it to the others, although they in fact support Ukraine’s independence. For the dollar debt hanging on this country amounts to political, and not only economic, dependence. To say that there is statehood and independence today is the same as to speak to a hanged person about the rope.

“True, there are arch-revolutionaries in the Communist Party, who shout, put up slogans, and demand an urgent return to socialism and the Soviet Union. And if you talk to them about statehood, you almost become a nationalist in their eyes. Perhaps somebody was looking back at them, fearful of losing his constituency. For, to achieve this goal, we must pass through the long stages of integration, primarily in the economy, and renewal of the stupidly disrupted ties which we could need and profit from.

“The second is the supremacy of law. Who else but the Left must take up this slogan, when the law is being violated above all by the President, his team, and the government? Unfortunately, not enough attention was also paid to this.

“The third point is about reforms. It is a lie to say that Kuchma is a reformer and the Left are drawing us in the opposite direction. Nobody is drawing us back. If voted into office, the Communists would have first hit out at the Mafia-type structures and criminals who have subjugated everybody, including the President. Other people would have been working the way they did before. If the party had put forward the slogan of reform, it would have been supported by all.

“It is these facets that I think were neglected in the campaign. In addition, campaigning was mostly conducted among the Communist followers, rather than among those who hesitated and doubted. This is also a drawback.”

“Can the mistakes you made form the basis for replacing the party leadership?”

“We cannot put the blame on a leader who polled 40% of the vote but failed to become President. Today there is no reason to replace Symonenko who enjoyed large-scale popular support in the elections. The idea of doing so is being foisted from outside. Somebody wants this. Likewise, there will be no split in the party, now in the media spotlight. The party is likely to take part in the parliamentary elections in the same lineup. But it is too early to speak about the next presidential elections.”

“Did your party consider the possibility of supporting a different candidate in the elections?”

“The issue of Oleksandr Moroz did arise. I am deeply convinced Mr. Moroz would not have won. Not because he had no chances. The whole course of the election campaign showed that Moroz must have presented the greatest danger for the President at the first stage, so all fire was concentrated on him. For today nobody recalls the Ivanchenko case and so on, as if they had not happened. You don’t have to be very wise to guess that this situation was used, if not organized, to discredit Mr. Moroz. I am sure his adversaries would have done their utmost for this purpose.

“But this does not mean I unconditionally support Mr. Moroz. Perhaps I have more claims to this person than to anybody else. Moroz had some chances to win, but his victory was foiled. In my opinion, the anti- Kuchma political forces should have united and nominated a different candidate which could have been supported by both the Communist electorate and those who hesitated before the elections. This candidate could have defeated Kuchma, without necessarily being a Communist or a Socialist.”

“Was there a candidature like this?”

“Yes. But I won’t tell his name. All this is in the past.”

“Did the Russian Communists offer your party any help? Word has it that Gennady Ziuganov visited Kyiv on the eve of the elections.”

“That Mr. Ziuganov came here is pure invention. Somebody intercepted his phone conversation with Symonenko and threw this idea to journalists. They tap in the same way conversations here in my office and at home. In reality, Mr. Ziuganov’s party extended no help to our party. Our two parties are independent and friendly, but neither ever interferes in the affairs of the other.”

“What is your attitude to the President’s intention to hold the inauguration in the Ukrayina Palace?

“The President is crowning himself, while this should be done by other people. The Communists firmly oppose the breaking of traditions. Our stand will not change, so the Communists will never witness the blessing of lawlessness.”

“Which of the possible candidates do you see as the new Prime Minister?”

“We will only be able to discuss this when the President submits candidates for Verkhovna Rada scrutiny. All I can say is that our faction will not support Mr. Pustovoitenko. The Communists have many times mooted the question of recognizing as unsatisfactory the performance of the government he heads.

“What is in store for the party in the next few years?”

“We’ll be gathering strength. The next year will be very hard both in economic and social terms. This will enhance the protest potential of society, and our party will garner more support. The authorities, though, will try to stem the pro-Communist tide or to drive the Communist Party into a ghetto, leaving it 10% at most. This could happen. We have already become convinced in this country that anything can happen.”

Mr. Kriuchkov agrees to the opinion that his stand over some things differs somewhat from that of the party leaders. At the same time, he remains devoted to the idea to which he has given all his life and which he will never abandon. Speaking with us, he quoted Lenin but pointed out that he does not accept a dogmatic and fanatical approach to the Communist idea. There is not even a portrait of the proletarian leader in Mr. Kriuchkov’s office. He considers himself a Communist even without this, and stresses he doesn’t need to prove it.