The pluses of Viktor Yushchenko’s presidency,

Five years ago the Central Election Commission made public the final results of the first round of Ukraine’s presidential elections. 39.87 percent of the electorate voted for Viktor Yushchenko and 39.32 percent for Viktor Yanukovych.

There seemed to be no euphoria in Mr. Yushchenko’s team. When the results were announced, perhaps only Yurii Kliuchkovsky was clapping his hands, while the incumbent president called the first round’s results a victory of democratic forces.

Now that Yushchenko’s rating wavers between three and five percent, he still says he is sure of his victory in the coming 2010 elections. The president’s opponents believe that, given such a low rating, this kind of rhetoric reveals either the current head of state’s inability to make decisions or his intention to use undemocratic, administrative, levers.

Quite in the context of the current No.1 topic – the outbreak of flu – is a rumor, widely discussed lately on both the official and the expert levels, that a state of emergency may be imposed on Ukraine. As a result, the presidential elections will be postponed until after the winter and Yushchenko’s term of office will be automatically extended.

Meanwhile, the results of the tests for public reaction to a state of emergency, conducted by Ihor Popov, Deputy Chief of the Presidential Staff, and Raisa Bohatyriova, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, do not seem to have inspired the head of state, who said there are no grounds for taking this measure. It was clear from the very beginning, though, that this plan was a non-starter because a state of emergency cannot be imposed without parliamentary consent and parliament is unanimous, like never before, in reso­lu­tely opposing this measure.

In principle, the president could find roundabout ways for this if only he wished to (there have been precedents), but he will hardly opt for this. An important detail: in the past few years Yushchenko has not succumbed to the temptations that may have paved him the way to a second presidential term. On the other hand, it is a moot point whether the new Ukrainian leader will succumb to the same temptations. Undoubtedly, it will take us some time to be able to impartially assess the domestic and foreign policy processes in Ukraine in 2005—2009. But, shortly before a presidential election, the societal and expert analysis of the president’s, premiers’ and parliament speakers’ performance usually focuses on negative things, failures, etc.

Most Ukrainians tend to remember well the mistakes of a certain leader and very quickly forget even serious achievements. Now, too, it is considered almost good taste to criticize the incumbent president, but practically nobody is speaking about Yushchenko’s achievements. Even those who stood next to or behind Yushchenko on a frosty Maidan stage and bent over backwards to show support for the Orange Revolution leader’s course are today casting their eyes down when they hear about, say, Ukraine’s integration into NATO. Such examples are endless. Only time will perhaps vindicate these standpoints, if this is the proper word. Meanwhile, some well-known experts and we have attempted to mark the key positives and achievements of Ukraine during the Yushchenko presidency. We have done this only to get a true picture on the eve of a new election of our head of state.

“NOBODY WILL EVER FORGET WHAT THE HOLODOMOR IS”

Viktor NEBOZHENKO, head, Ukrainian Barometer sociological service:

“Indeed, it would be wrong to say that Viktor Yushchenko’s presidency is exclusively a black streak. It would have been a black streak if there were a regime of personal power and tough authoritarianism.

“One of the current president’s key achievements is that he did not hesitate to take part in the Orange Revolution and go through all the Maidan events. The most striking result is, of course, the three last months of a heated election campaign against the background of an illness and personal involvement in the manifestations. But this event belongs to Ukrainians, not only to Yushchenko or Tymoshenko. An undeniable plus is the fact that the president strives to adhere to a certain ideology and philosophy of life. This is a very interesting model which Ukraine has not had before, when politicians would either speak in a crowd-pleasing language or overtly cling to power. Conversely, Yushchenko is trying to stand out as an ideological giant. Also noteworthy are his attempts to breathe new life into national democracy and turn to Ukrainian history. This is also important for Ukraine as a state. Nobody will ever forget what the Holodomor is. But it is beyond any doubt that this will not suffice to win at the upcoming presidential elections.

“Yushchenko is very contradictory in his approach to the social and national questions. Only now that he has signed the law on increased social standards he has suddenly begun to speak about ordinary people and the necessity to protect them. Before this he positioned himself as a rabid national democrat and a European-type liberal in economics.

“Unfortunately, there is no evidence of President Yushchenko’s achievements in reforms. What have we seen? Courts, the uniformed services, and other structures are working in a hands-on mode, which a really bad thing.

“As for the president’s foreign policy efforts, we should note his attempts to integrate into Europe and ring Ukraine closer to NATO. But Yushchenko shows a wide gap between his noble-sounding words and desires and the ways of achieving the latter.

“Undoubtedly, he has noticeably grown intellectually as president in the last five years. I think history will pass the final judgment, but it is obvious that Yushchenko is not the worst one among all the Ukrainian presidents. The trouble is that political struggle turned out to be a cut above his ability to implement good ideas. I know that his advisers keep telling him to hold out to the end, but it would be better if he showed strength in tackling the problem of NATO and the Russian Black Sea Fleet. And the economic crisis? He is well respected in the West, but we can see he is absolutely uninterested in this. It seems to me he has somewhat lightly parted with the Maidan ideals. We were still euphoric with the Maidan, when a juicy scandal suddenly erupted about ‘dear friends.’ That was so unexpected.

“On top of all that, he is leaving behind an unstable country: a constitutional conflict, a crisis, scandals, and a host of unsolved problems. Since the Gongadze affair, we have seen more and more sensational scandals – one scandal every two months. I am wondering with horror what scandal will mar our New Year holiday. That this will occur is beyond any doubt. But it is the fault of all politicians. If Yushchenko elegantly withdrew today, he could easily head some national front, a large foundation, etc., in a year’s time. After all, he is still a very young person, he is only 55, while, for example, Kuchma only came to power at 56.”

“HE MANAGED TO RESIST THE TEMPTATION OF A STRONG VERTICAL POWER STRUCTURE”

Yurii YAKYMENKO, director of political and legal programs, Razumkov Center:

“Firstly, we should note that, in spite of rather unfavorable political circumstances (political rivalry and his own scanty political resource), Viktor Yushchenko has refrained from tanking measures that stifle democracy, freedom of the press, etc. Sometimes he spoke and acted, so to speak, on the borderline of legal norms, but he never seriously trespassed this. The president managed to resist the temptation of building a strong vertical power structure right after the elections. This paved the way for greater pluralism in the political process. Although Mr. Yushchenko could ha­ve used the administrative resou­rce in the elections, he never did so. This is, naturally, positive from the viewpoint of democratic development. But as for the consequences, there may be different opinions.

“In other words, the key plus of Yushchenko’s presidency is his adherence to democratic norms and procedures. As for the pluses, I would note his constant emphasis on the formation of a single identity of Ukrainians. If this were complemented with progress in other fields, I think the question of a second term would look far more feasible for Yushchenko. But as for the ability to form a closely-knit political team to follow up on the 2004—2005 triumph, the president has, unfortunately, failed to deliver the goods. Besides, the Presidential Secretariat has played an extremely negative role.

“Speaking of the foreign-policy aspect, I cannot assess it in no uncertain terms and say that it was good or bad. There have been both achievements and losses in the president’s policies. It will be perhaps right to emphasize successes in the first years after the Orange Revolutions. On the crest of a wave of euphoria, Ukraine had the Jackson-Vanik amendment lifted, joined the WTO, and achieved progress in the relations with the European Union. God willing, this will be formally confirmed and implemented. But all this was offset by domestic political processes in which, unfortunately, the president was also involved.