Politics

The results of his government's performance are generally known. Suffice it to recall the trust pyramids. Yet the people elected him President, perhaps to spite the previous one or maybe they believed his promises. Mr. Kuchma promised much in his campaign and has reneged on most of it, but this does not seem to stop him from running for reelection. In fact, analysts think he still has a chance. Another historical phenomenon which, of course, calls for specialized research. Phenomena are known to abide by their own laws, but in Mr. Kuchma's case most attention should be paid to his efforts as President. Thus, he made a number of significant statements recently that allow one to assess his views on the current realities and prospects.

HIS SECRET
OF SUCCESS

The President's speech to regional media people may have been a response to his dropping popularity. It was a historic address in a way. This author has been writing about him for a number of years and has developed his own formula of the man's success: he owes it to his enemies, all of it. In fact, he confirmed it in full public view, declaring, "There is success when and wherever they do not get in my way, where I can do something and be responsible for it as President." Since there has been no success, one and all can only assume that someone somewhere has been plotting against the President, betraying his cause all along, and that the President himself is but an innocent victim. A faultless tactic, no doubt, which has worked just fine all these years, except that now, after the above statement, one may question its further effectiveness.

LEONID KUCHMA
AS PRESIDENT

Mr. Kuchma once again proved his devotion to domestic political tradition whereby an important statement of principle is made not in the form of an official message to Parliament, but on some informal occasion, preferably in provincial environs, perhaps because on such occasions there are no bothersome imagemakers and advisers around or maybe it is just another crafty political technique. In any case, talking to regional journalists, Leonid Kuchma said enough to add the finishing touches to his profile as the Chief Executive.

To begin with, he declared that he considers himself responsible for Parliament's enacting the Constitution the way it wanted and wrapping him around their little collective finger. Not a very good statement; first, it follows that it would have been better if the Constitution had been enacted not the way Parliament wanted it, but the way the President did. This sounds somewhat immodest; secondly, everybody remembers that it was the Presidential Administration that staged the "Constitution night," leaving all parties satisfied; thirdly, it follows that it took the President two years to realize that he had been taken for a ride, which is very bad for his image (until recently he reacted very sharply to the slightest mention of revising the Constitution).

Those believing that the President does not like Parliament are wrong. He cannot understand why Parliament should be there in the first place. "We shall never achieve anything if the President and Government act of their own accord on the one hand and Parliament does so on the other hand," he declared. In this sense the "unity of the branches of power" would be possible if each and everyone - Parliament's majority and, of course, the government - became members of one party and proceeded to carry out a single program. However, this is not what Mr. Kuchma has in mind. For one thing, he is against parties nominating presidential candidates. One is loath to assume that disguised under his call for unity of the branches of power is his desire to have the legislature (and all the other politicians) do as he pleases. But all the indications are there. "Today, practically all political parties benefit from exploiting our hardships, our misfortune, pointing an accusing fingers, forgetting that they should point it at themselves first," he said. It is still a mystery to this author exactly how a party not in power can influence or be responsible for anything, or why, noting the existing hardships, this party should point an accusing finger at itself. The sole purpose of any political party is to struggle for power. Mr. President was correct to mention "our hardships." Indeed, these hardships are the President's and Cabinet's headache, but by no means that of any of the parties in opposition, meaning all parties except the NDP. Very unpleasant but a fact and a universally accepted underlying principle in any given normally developing country is that there are those in power and those wishing they were instead.

Finally, the Left should know better than identify Leonid Kuchma as a democrat or accuse him of building capitalism. Take one example to the contrary. Mr. Kuchma attributes the fact that reform is marking time in Ukraine to the "inefficiency" of the structure of state power, yet this structure was built in accordance with the Constitution. He is further displeased by the fact that Parliament, by adopting the "one-night Constitution," assumed all power to initiate legislation, leaving the President and Cabinet responsible for the situation in the country, reports Interfax Ukraine. However, Mr. Kuchma broaches the subject generally known as separation of powers. One is reminded of France's 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen: "There is no Constitution without a separation of powers," and of the fact that the Left do not recognize this principle...

PRESIDENT MAKES TACTICS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

The Presidential Administration's tactic may be summed up like this: first, to call a referendum "on economic issues and certain clauses of the Constitution of Ukraine." It is anyone's guess what these "economic issues" are all about or how a referendum could be held on them. As for the Constitution, it is expected to prolong the President's right to issue economic edicts for another five years (under the current Fundamental Law, this expires come July 1999). It is also unclear whether this initiative relates to this right or to the Transitory Clauses as a whole. And those clauses contain a proviso of utmost practical importance to the executive. Clause 13 regulates arrest and custody procedures that are the direct opposite of what is laid down in the Constitution.

The form, however, is not as important as the substance. And the priorities are: (a) the referendum, to be used as a distraction, raising the working masses' self-esteem (of course, a top level political dispute in which the parties refer to the people as the umpire, with the initiative coming from none other but the President!). If it works, the executive will solve some of its problems, extending its right to issue edicts and annul legislative immunity. If not, the mass of people will know exactly who to blame. Incidentally, if they pull off the referendum as planned, the President's reelection will be guaranteed, for such is our mentality, especially when it comes to someone's privileges. Of course, the whole idea is absurd. On top of shifting the responsibility onto the taxpayer's shoulders, that taxpayer (not always in possession of special knowledge) is to be asked to enact economic laws.

There is an aspect of principle to this referendum business. For the first time during the presidential campaign that has started mention is made of institutional support of the current head of the state. In other words, the Presidential Administration seems to have shifted from pure intrigue to "legislative work." Although the referendum initiative is really just another intrigue, this does not change the situation. The President apparently distrusts his entourage (both the current one and, quite possibly, whatever replaces it), just as he obviously wants to strengthen his position at the constitutional level.

Also, the President has made his stand clear with regard to the presidential elections bill. Here the most important thing is the thesis about what is, mildly speaking, an inadequate clause concerning the million signatures a presidential candidate must collect. You have three guesses: Who will collect that many? This author can confidently point to only two persons: Mr. Kuchma and Comrade Symonenko. In other words, the Presidential Administration to set the Communist off against the President, and it can do so without too much trouble. It should be pointed out that the million signatures problem is being underestimated by many. This author has been involved in a number of signature-collecting campaigns and can state with perfect confidence that, even without visiting respondents but just filling in questionnaires and affixing fake signatures, it will take huge spending and strenuous organizing effort, something only the Communists can afford today.

There are many things about the bill causing the President serious concern, yet he will never agree to the clause about who is to organize the elections. Parliament proposes local councils. The President says the executive should be responsible for the arrangements, accusing the councils of falsification in advance. Meaning he is prepared to veto the law and draw out its revision as much as possible. In this sense, the only reasonable tactic on the part of all presidential candidates would be to help pass the bill, the sooner the better, thus exposing the current President's less than constructive stand and his ultimate goal: holding onto his posts with both hands and at all costs.