Last week marked the anniversary of Valery Pustovoitenko's Premiership. The one-time minister without portfolio became a Prime Minister without a program. It has been a year and no one is still certain about what guidelines this man has actually abided by in his performance. As for his comparative political longevity, there is a children's anecdote about Elusive Joe called elusive because no one bothers to catch him. Premier Pustovoitenko seems to stand in no one's way, and even if he does those on whose toes he is treading simply have no time to deal with him as he deserves. But to give him his due, he has created a situation in which no one would ever think of associating today's lamentable economic policy with his name. For Mr. Pustovoitenko is not so much the Prime Minister as the Cabinet's figurehead.
Meanwhile last week's economic policy followed the programmed course. The government dealt the final blow to the "shuttle merchant," its number one adversary, by levying per capita import duties with regard to the most marketable commodities. One is at times under the impression that the Cabinet is fighting these "shuttle merchants" due only to ideological considerations; these "shuttles" cannot be normally fleeced by bureaucrats the way they treat all "legitimate" business (e.g., endless inspections, bullying, red tape – in a word, every trick in the book to subjugate and make it ready to "cooperate"). With the "shuttles" it is different; they are too independent and can be either "reasoned with" or destroyed, because they do not have vulnerable legal entity status. No one can predict the consequences of this rash decision, but most agree that they will be negative. On the one hand, we all know the adage about business serving to soften mores. On the other hand, no government has been known to cultivate its own "entrepreneur" variety, because this variety is very special, it can grow and develop passing through the small, medium, and heavy caliber phases. Last but not least, such business people are supposed to be really independent and this independence is supposed to be part of the foundations of any solid polity.
In Ukraine, state organs, being the only decision-maker, went on with their "socially beneficial" policy last week. We were demonstrated another stage in what has been widely publicized as the "confrontation" between the branches of power, although in a somewhat new status, with the President, Premier, and Speaker enlarging on the need to combine efforts for the good of Ukraine, keeping all this in an exaggeratedly cheerful vein. The overall impression left one wondering, except for Interfax's report called "The President and Speaker Favor Cooperation between Branches of Power." I read the item and thought that we had for the past several years witnessed hostilities waged by two states, with each round of bloodshed preceded by endless verbiage about peace.






