The Cat: “The dog is my worst enemy”
The Dog: “Mine too”
(from Tales by Karel Capek)
The June 10 successive round (the sixth) to elect a Verkhovna Rada Speaker highlighted a very important aspect of the political situation in this country. Oleksandr Moroz (Socialist and Peasant Party of Ukraine bloc) claimed that in the depths of the President’s Administration, a scheme had been devised to dissolve Parliament.
Popular Movement (Rukh) leader Vyacheslav Chornovil said that President Leonid Kuchma had assured him that he had no such crafty schemes and it was not his intention to dissolve Parliament. Oleksandr Yeliashkevych considered such a reaction from the top executive as most threatening, reminding the “chosen representatives of the people” that such statements by Mr. Kuchma statements should be interpreted exactly the other way around.
Of course, this exchange of remarks has extraordinary significance not because it brought up the hackneyed topic of the Administration repressing Parliament. After all, last year (July 30, 1997) there was a confession by Yevhen Kushnaryov, Head of the Presidential Administration, that the Administration had considered disbanding Verkhovna Rada of the previous convocation, and the President’s confirmation (August 1, 1997) that “the Administration of the President should study every step by Parliament.” It is quite possible that while studying the newly-elected Verkhovna Rada, the Kuchma Administration has already considered radical actions of one kind or another. But even for Mr. Kushnaryov a superficial analysis would suffice to see the whole array of “negative consequences” which could result from coercive measures. Thus, the problem in this case is not an imminent threat (real or imaginary) to Ukrainian parliamentarism.
The discussion in Parliament about whether it will be disbanded or not has mirrored the critical condition of Ukraine’s political elite mainly characterized, for some time now, by the lack of any mutual confidence whatsoever. True, it has been always regarded as somewhat not quite descent to discuss the issue of confidence among politicians; this is one specificity of the profession. But in Ukraine even very conditional “political confidence” has in the last few years been devaluated to zero and has virtually recalled from circulation.
May and June of 1996 was the turning point.
As we know, on May 28 Leonid Kuchma, addressing pro-presidential deputies, numerous at that time, assured them that he did not intend to hold a referendum on the draft new Constitution “individually, without adopting it in the second reading and getting it approved by a majority in Parliament.” And no later than June 26 the President, without any discussion with even loyal deputies, signed a decree to hold an all-Ukrainian referendum on adoption of the new Constitution, where it was planned to submit the draft approved “as a basis” in the first reading.
The further process resembled an avalanche. The President and then Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko pledged their confidence and allegiance to each other (all the while Lazarenko’s dismissal loomed from the first days of his appointment); numerous blocs were created involving various parliamentary, para-presidential, government, and business circles, and the outlines of those alliances changed after each political shakeup like in a child’s kaleidoscope. Owing to one such very temporary union, by joint efforts of the Communists, Socialists, and Rukh, actively supported by Yevhen Marchuk and Pavlo Lazarenko, a new law On Elections was adopted. Occasionally, the situational blocking produced good results, but the broad implementation of one-time alliances in political practice was, no doubt, vicious, because it fixed the political establishment in its amorphous, unorganized state and eliminated the last vestige of faith of potential partners in long-term collaboration, which cannot be based only on the momentary interests of those involved.
The parliamentary election campaign was the last straw. The game of who will double-cross whom first became the favorite pastime of Ukrainian politicians. And, as a logical result, ignoring any and all deals made. The talks on forming blocs and coordinated actions held by the leaders of most of the small parties turned out to be fruitless. Such promising electoral blocs as Mist (Bridge) and Forward Ukraine! fell apart. The Presidential Administration made its contribution as well. By most conservative estimates, out of 30 parties and blocs participating in elections held in multicandidate constituencies, at least a half counted on support from the President and the Pustovoitenko Government. These slates were further beefed up by representatives of the Administration, local executives, and government officials. And, according to Mr. Kuchma’s statement at a press-conference on December 4, 1997, none of the ministers was included in the slate without “asking permission”. The election lot of the overwhelming majority of those parties and blocs was most discouraging. For example, in the Crimea, before the eyes of an astonished populace, the pro-presidential NEP bloc waged a war of extermination against the equally pro-presidential NDP . I remember well the amazement of my acquaintance who was managing the election campaign for one of the blocs most loyal to the government, when on the first day of the unforgettable ballot-count he discovered that his bloc was being drowned in most unrelenting manner. The situation was absolutely clear: the governors, who had to account to the center for the two major indices — voting for the NDP and APU (Agrarian Party of Ukraine), — “rewrote”, whenever possible, ballots for their men, understanding that those, for various reasons (including personal dependency), would not make a great deal of noise. By the way, my acquaintance refrained from public comment.
Thus, the first session was marked by the complete lack of confidence of parliamentary politicians in each other and representatives of the other branches. For this reason, it could not be expected that the election of the parliamentary leadership would be easy or smooth. During the Speaker’s election, lasting over a month, party factions and some of the deputies have demonstrated most abrupt maneuvers. The complete mistrust in comrades-in-arms was clearly seen in the centralized collecting of ballots from parliamentarians by their faction leaders. We can only hope that this is the limit beyond which one cannot possibly go.
The cynicism of the government’s highest echelons is absorbed by our society in general. In this country, like in Alice’s Wonderland, deceit and hypocrisy became a norm. The cynicism became a national resource. Now they called it pragmatism. In other words, what used to be bad is now good, and vice versa.
Only an incurable optimist can believe that the situation will change, that white will ever be white and black be black again. But the incurability of such optimism is true pragmatism, without quotation marks. For it is the only guarantee for a decent social being not only now, but in the future.
Photo by Valery Miloserdov, The Day:
A “secret column” can certainly be for agreeing to some plan or still more for the emotions toward those who ruined it







