Less than a year is left till the next presidential campaign and, as usual,
there is no legal framework. To date, the Verkhovna Rada has approved the
presidential election bill "in principle" and the document was drawn up
by People's Deputy Oleksandr Lavrynovych, a noted Ukrainian lawmaker, author
of almost 50 other bills who kindly agreed to attend The Day's roundtable.
Q: Word has it that someone is trying to procrastinate deliberations
on the presidential election bill. Is it really so and who do you think
would be interested in throwing monkey wrenches into the works?
A: I regret to say that it is. The Presidential Administration
plans to have the process drawn out until May 1999 or so, when the situation
will become clear enough and the bill can be enacted, worded properly -
I mean the way the Administration ideologues want it.
Q: Getting back to your bill. Can you think of any clauses, in any
presidential election laws, providing for or curbing abuse of office?
A: Of course I can. There are many. Nomination, election committee
formation procedures, counting the votes returned, electoral participation,
etc. Some in certain political quarters in Ukraine believe that the bill
should retain the clause about compulsory participation of 50% of the voters
in the second round. Now this percentage can be easily and "properly" computed,
considering "possible technical errors," whereupon the elections are proclaimed
legally invalid. Nomination is another stumbling block. In my bill each
presidential candidate can be nominated only by a political party. However,
Mr. Kuchma has certain very efficient services and people working for him
who have planted the idea among the Left that their Communist Party may
banned shortly before the presidential elections. Hence the Communist approach:
self-nomination, although this clause plays primarily into the current
President's hands, because it allows for the appearance of almost countless
candidates.
Q: What will be the Rukh stand during the campaign?
A: I am aware of the importance of its outcome for literally
every Ukrainian citizen, so I consider that Rukh, being the most important
political force in that camp which we have come to know as national-democratic
must alter their attitude to the next elections. If they are content with
declarations about unity and a common candidate, the result will not be
any different from what we have seen over the past seven years. If this
approach does not change, Rukh may well find itself doing the campaign's
special audio effects, staying off-screen, of course, or being used by
the Chief Executive as a weapon to combat his opponents.
To prevent this, leaders of the various parties ought to agree not on
a joint presidential candidate (for I know this will never happen), but
on each of their members having the right to voice his/her view of the
problem. Further, parties accepting this approach should be offered to
enter ten, twenty, even three hundred names in their rosters - I mean people
found eligible for the presidential post, even though purely theoretically.
These people should be given an opportunity to state their views, first
at the oblast level, then summing up the turnout all over Ukraine. Then
Rukh would play a tangible role and their presidential candidate would
have an advantage that no others would ever have, meaning, of course, that
his chances would be very real and high.
Q: Are there other Rukh members supporting your stand?
A: Yes, there are.
Q: And the ratio?
A: I can't say.
Q: How do you think your approach could be carried out?
A: The final decision is to be made by a party convention scheduled
for December 12-14. I made my statement known to Rukh's Central Leadership
and I hope I will have an opportunity to declare my approach before the
party convention.
Q: Suppose Rukh would then follow in Hromada's footsteps - I mean
a rift, even the emergence of a separate wing?
A: I would have nothing against seeing a new wing emerge, for
having wings means one has a chance to fly. On the other hand, I think
that each and every Rukh member is only too well aware that different parties
imply different views on a variety of issues, including truly pressing
ones. This is only natural provided this does not result in running counter
to major conceptual, underlying principles, concepts, or institutional
precepts.
Q: You mean that Rukh has not as yet come close to such split?
A: It has not, but it is getting there.
Q: And the outburst could happen before the presidential elections?
A: It could.
Q: What is your personal forecast: will the critical point be reached
before or after the Rukh convention? Prior to the last parliamentary elections
many predicted precisely this outcome, perhaps sounding more logical at
the time, considering that all those discrepancies had been maturing over
previous years. Mr. Chornovil believes that the press attacks are targeted
against Rukh. I propose that the man is trying to replace the actual reality
with what he thinks is true. Many consider his approach to the situation
inadequate.
A: What I am driving at is that we have very strongly demanded
serious reforms in the electoral system. We came close to having them effected
practically by the start of the parliamentary campaign. No tangible steps
could be made at the time, because this would have a negative effect not
only on individual parties, but the entire political process. I think this
would be too dear a price to pay for achieving an improvement within any
given party.
Q: If you will pardon my saying so, all your previous statements
leaves one in the dark as to the main problem facing your party. The leadership's
recent conduct - I mean what we have been able to gather from media coverage
- makes one believes that this is yet another campaign underway in Parliament,
but which does not seem to consider the existing realties. Even the man
in the street, far remote from any political affiliations, is under the
impression that your party is not showing enough intellect, and that its
intellectual evolution has come to a standstill, remaining at a level best
referred to as 1991 or thereabouts. The impression is that you do not have
any actions to your credit that would allow one to view Rukh as meeting
the European standard. And the leader, of course. He says that you will
be supporting Leonid Kuchma in the second round, provided you can make
a deal with him. Is this what one is expected to regard as constructive
opposition?
A: I would put this in different words.
Q: Yes?
A: I would say that, instead of assuming a certain stand and
backing certain public interests, we are tempted by the emergence of those
"chosen few" to secure the elections' outcome - and mean that this outcome
would not benefit one's own party or any other political forces, but those
of separate groups. I would further say that this position constitutes
a lethal danger in principle. It would mean an end to all political prospects.
And I know that a great many Rukh members will not accept it.
Q: Getting back to Rukh's involvement in presidential campaigns,
one can discern a rather surpassing trend: at the time of the last presidential
election Rukh bet on Mr. Chornovil, which was understandable under the
circumstances, and was resolutely opposed to Leonid Kravchuk. Mr. Kravchuk
was elected President. In the second campaign Rukh resolutely opposed Leonid
Kuchma and he won. Of course, we all know that the Communists secured his
election, and we also know that Rukh was opposed to it. Now what is happening
toward the end of Mr. Kuchma's term, with all indices being much worse
than could be expected? Why should Rukh come out in his support?
A: Elections mark the final round of the political game. We remember
its outcome, but there is nothing we can do about it. Also, we know that
it is worth summing up what the current President has achieved after more
than four years in office. Remember what his said in his program statement?
The program was titled "Following a Course of Radical Economic Reforms,"
pointing out guidelines most of which tallied with those laid down in the
basic documents of Rukh. I think I would support them now, too. However,
a metamorphosis occurred; the things declared contradicted those actually
done.
Q: You have known Mr. Chornovil quite a long time. What do you think
caused him to change his attitude?
A: Over the first years I did not know his basic traits. To me,
he was a dissident who had suffered during Soviet times. I was among the
Rukh people supporting his presidential candidacy. That was in 1991. Later
when we had started working together my views on his style and approach
to pressing issues changed.
Q: How would you described Mr. Chornovil's current standing with
Rukh?
A: I have no authority to speak on the party's behalf. Personally,
I think that his ratings have been on a markedly downward curve of late.
Q: Do you think you could work together with Slava Stetsko and Mykola
Porovsky as members of the same party? We know that Mr. Chornovil declared,
November 7, that Rukh was going to unite with the Congress of Ukrainian
Nationalists and the Republican Christian Party to form a single party
under the same name, Rukh. What do you think caused the leaders to change
their stand, considering that they had seemed resolved on a common block?
A: I believe that forming a single party like that is more on
the theoretical side. As for my role in it, I will answer only after I
can have a clear picture; what might actually happen and the consequences.
You see, I cannot regard this as a practical possibility, not yet.
Q: How about uniting with Pynzenyk's Reforms and Order?
A: This possibility is being discussed, but I am not involved,
although I think this turn of events would be a promising one. Both parties,
if and when united, could encourage other, less influential, parties to
join in, eventually forming precisely that right-centrist force that could
offer real resistance to the current administration. Regrettably, the latter
seems to have problems dealing only with the Left opposition.
Q: Can you visualize this opposition with Hromada, without Pavlo
Lazarenko but headed by Yuliya Tymoshenko?
A: No, I can't. It's impossible. Ms. Tymoshenko's attitudes are
known to be quite changeable. In fact, they change so quickly the reality
leaves little hope for any degree of consistency, stability, reliability,
you name it. I would actually refrain from any comment on the subject at
this stage. I will agree, though, that quite a few NDP and Hromada people
could join this rightist opposition.
Q: Is there any possibility of Leonid Kuchma stepping down in the
next campaign?
A: There is such a possibility, a theoretical one. Much will
depend on what will transpire over the months separating us from the event
and, of course, on what happens in Ukraine. He could quit, if and when
convinced by reading the polls that he stands no chance, come what may.
Q: Suppose Mr. Kuchma is reelected. How would you respond?
A: In that unlikely event I would suggest that you think of a
different name for your newspaper.







