By Natalia TROFYMOVA, The Day
The results of The Day's Internet poll have become another illustration
of the pre-election situation in Ukraine, much more complicated than the
Bankova Street "technologists" try to portray. The high "presidential"
rankings of the "trio" - Kuchma, Vitrenko, and Symonenko - compete with
equally high negatives of emotional allergy that these politicians provoke
in the voters.
Answering the question "What feeling does Leonid Kuchma primarily evoke
in you?" 43% of respondents chose contempt and 20% hatred. Iron lady Natalia
Vitrenko stirred up pity in 15% of respondents and sympathy in 9%. The
most feared candidate is the Red oligarch Oleksandr Tkachenko (10%) as
well as the most hated (29%). Coming abreast with him in stirring up antipathy
is Petro Symonenko (29%).
Yevhen Marchuk and Oleksandr Moroz were leaders in positive emotions
(although their presidential rankings, according to well-known polling
agencies, are lower than those of the previous trio). Messrs. Marchuk and
Moroz account for 36% and 18%, respectively, in respect, 15% each in affection,
and 14% and 3% in trust.
Incidentally, the opinion of Ukrainian respondents almost completely
coincides (+3%) with that of foreigners (mostly residents of North America
and Western Europe), who constituted 22% of respondents.
This poll, for a number of understandable reasons, does not, of course,
lay claim to reflecting the opinion of the entire electorate. But it reflects
the sentiments of the most educated and active part of it (87% of those
polled are people with higher education, and 64% are aged between 20 and
40).
Do we want to despise, fear, disrespect, or feel pity toward our president
for another five years?
Iryna HOLOVNIOVA,
Candidate of Sciences (Psychology), Kharkiv Ukrainian People's Academy
Liberal Arts University:
"To have a chance to win, the very image of a candidate, his behavior
and manner of speaking should inspire in the voter the idea of stability.
Another point: a candidate must be self-confident and inspire confidence
in those surrounding him. This is very complicated, for self-confidence
often borders upon aggressiveness. And a number of our politicians have
this sin.
"It is also vital to demonstrate competence. The voter looks forward
to a candidate who is well-versed in the basic matters of political and
social life.
"Moreover, there are a few points which may not be so important politically
but are very important from the standpoint of interpersonal perception.
It makes a very good impression when a politician can joke, not only about
the others but also about himself, when he takes criticism in his stride
and accepts it constructively. Also important is energy. We have become
accustomed over a long period to not so young and not so healthy politicians,
so we must also pay our attention to whether he or she will hold out.
"Another thing (true, this is not much discussed here): research shows
that of great importance are also gender-related psychological characteristics.
The societal mentality regards a man as a more attractive person who has
an image special to his gender and displays more affection than one who
does not possess these features. One should stress his/her gender-related
identity.
"The role of a politician must be played by either a true man or a true
woman. And, always preserving an integrated image, the politician should
know how to meet the public's demands, flexibly varying even his/her vocabulary.
"As to the current candidates, their popularity is conditioned by perhaps
other special features of social consciousness. Our people are very afraid
of uncertainty. This is especially reflected in the high rankings of Leonid
Kuchma. Let be evil, but a well-known evil."
Pavlo FROLOV,
Candidate of Sciences (Psychology), Institute of Social and Political
Psychology, Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, Ukraine:
"A politician is perceived within the framework of other categories
than a communication partner. A communication partner is perceived primarily
from the standpoint of communicative qualities, a politician from the perspective
of the problems he is able to resolve, i.e., his professional qualities.
He/she must hold a certain place in the power hierarchy. He/she must be
appraised as strong and attractive. Add to this ideological considerations.
In other words, if he/she is perceived as a good and honest person who
is unable to solve problems, is there any sense in voting for him/her?
"Sociologists long ago established such an indicator of positive perception
of a politician by voters as their level of trust. This is an integrated
feeling that combines many things. There is an obvious relationship between
the level of trust and the level of votes. But there also are exceptions,
when a person is trusted but not voted for. In this case, other mechanisms
come into play. For example, Grigory Yavlinsky has a very high ranking
of trust in Russia but also a very low ranking of vote. There are similar
politicians in this country also.
"The rankings of trust and mistrust is an indicator of a stable social
system. Western sociologists draw a certain line: if the level of mistrust
in a politician oversteps this line, this is dangerous for society. In
our situation, when more than half the population do not trust their top
national leaders, but nothing happens in society, there must be a rather
unique social organism."






