Question of <I>The Day</I>

A logical reference point for assessing the new government’s activity would be the date when it was formed: that was February 4, 2005, more than two months ago. A new government is generally believed to show the most effective performance within the first 100 days of its formation. After this cut-off point, i.e., a month later, one can assess the president and the cabinet’s achievements without reservations and expect the first tangible results. We have been monitoring the public mood and particularly experts’ opinions. Thanks to our reporters stationed in various regions of Ukraine, The Day presents survey results and opinions voiced by people in various fields of endeavor about the new government’s most successful and least effective steps.

Andriy SENCHENKO, Crimean MP, leader of the Transparent Power Movement (Simferopol):

Among the effective steps made by the new government I see budget amendments, although there are certain debatable aspects to them. Still, there are more pluses than minuses. The new government hasn’t lost the credit of trust it received from the people and so far this is the main thing. Among the negative aspects are the attempts of newly appointed bureaucrats who hold local executive posts to capitalize on the reprivatization of large, nationally important projects (in most cases accompanied by blatant violations of the law), and to extend this practice to all local businesses and entrepreneurs. Following this tactic, local bureaucrats are using it as a cover to unleash a real racket vis-а-vis local businesspeople, including the smallest businesses. Out of the blue, the question of a state racket once again has appeared on the agenda. This is spoiling not just Ukraine’s international image but the local investment climate as well.

Among the new government’s failures I would list some 40% of executive appointments, at both the central and regional levels. It’s safe to assume that in the nearest future it will be necessary to make about the same percentage of replacements, simply because these people are professionally incapable of measuring up. In other words, I see that there are more dubious appointments, that one-third of these are hopeless cases, although there are some who will be able to “survive” and carry out their tasks.

Borys NAHORODNIY, Ph.D. (Sociology), dean of the Faculty of Journalism and Social Studies, Vladimir Dahl Eastern Ukrainian National University:

Many years ago I heard something from our Indian graduate students that you would never hear from Europeans: “The biggest victory is that no one is winning.” So much time has elapsed since the presidential election, but numerous examples still confirm the old adage, “Victory has many fathers; defeat is an orphan.”

I would be happy if our president focused on coordinating joint endeavors, rising above the humanly understandable images to embrace entire regions that voted against him, carrying out social plans laid down in the new budget program, confirming what is probably the key hope for a true rejuvenation of the Ukrainian government and our entire society. I dearly hope that the pertinent presidential structures start paying attention to the serious analytical materials prepared by the noted sociologist, Yevhen Holovakha, the author of the article “Remedy for Euphoria. Unfestive Notes on the Passing Year” (The Day , December 30, 2004) and “New Ukrainian Mythology” (The Day, March 22, 2005). I would say that the new government lacks such well-argumented critiques. I’m also perplexed by incidents of political vengeance and overt examples of politicians acting as mere yes-men.

I’m afraid that the power structures on various levels are still looking at one of the fundamental questions, “social resources,” in the old way. However banal it may seem to repeat this, our society’s main resource consists of the “nation’s intellect.” Therefore, the new government should resolve issues, like reforms in the scientific domain, by relying on a balanced basis with feedback from the public. Other complex issues like “administrative-territorial” reform, local self-government, and many other reforms require serious consideration by experts.

Roman PIATYHORETS, chairman, Zaporizhia Electoral Committee of Ukraine:

Among the new government’s positive achievements I would list the launch of criminal proceedings against individuals who were involved in falsifying the elections; Ukraine’s increasingly positive international image; the strengthening of freedom of expression and assembly; compliance with the commitments undertaken by Viktor Yanukovych with regard to our pensioners; the destruction of shadow business patterns; the government’s (relative) transparency with the media; the increase of retired servicemen’s allowances; bringing order to the question of tenders; and strengthening the hryvnia’s exchange rate.

The following are what I regard as the new government’s shortcomings: despite its positive aspects, the 2005 budget remains largely a pre-election budget and will fundamentally affect various local budgets, (e.g., pay rises for employees of budget-sustained organizations while curtailing privileges for budget-filling enterprises); a great number of documents issued by the President of Ukraine are marked top secret; no one knows how Kirpa and Kravchenko met their end (only very na Х ve individuals buy the official suicide version); the Ukrainian Railroad Company’s price jumps; payments to the Pension Fund imposed on private businessmen as a uniform tax, and higher consumer prices.

Viktor KRAVCHENKO, businessman, Dnipropetrovsk:

Viktor Yushchenko’s victory in the presidential campaign certainly produced a refreshing effect in Ukrainian society. Bureaucrats have become quiet and polite, certain controlling authorities have adopted a low profile, and people can be more open-minded these days. In general, the Kuchma regime’s atmosphere with its overall oppression, rampant corruption, and arbitrary bureaucratic rule is gradually evaporating. Therefore, life does seem easier and happier.

It is also clear that Yulia Tymoshenko’s cabinet, which is striving to fill in the central budget gaps at all costs, has upset the proverbial applecart in the Ukrainian economy. The very passage of this year’s “socially oriented” budget is not so much the fulfillment of pre-election promises as it is the new government’s desire to please electors before the parliamentary elections. In a word, the winner is actually following in the footsteps of his political rival, ex-Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

The constant squabbles, starting from the first days of the new government, do little to add to its reputation. It has reached the point that President Yushchenko has publicly urged his political comrades-in-arms to live in accord and understanding, meeting each other halfway if need be. Still, positions and spheres of influence keep being divided behind the president’s back. Viktor Yushchenko is also to blame for this, of course. Instead of straightening out his own country, he appears to have let many things take their own course, while traveling across the world — almost like his predecessor Leonid Kuchma in the early stages.

Mykhailo NEMOV, president, Khmelnytsky Municipal Association of Businessmen and Industrialists:

This country found itself face to face with Viktor Yushchenko as a strong and determined head of state, capable of making tough decisions. We still hope that he will be able to convince his friends and enemies meet each other halfway. There are already doubts among the masses, who are wondering whether certain Ukrainian functionaries are worrying about their posts or the people.

Businesspeople in Khmelnytsky welcome the 2005 budget program as being socially oriented. They acknowledge Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and her cabinet’s role in the process. They think that the fundamental increase in wages, pension, and social assistance is activating the nation’s producers and production of goods. But before this takes place, retail prices have already gone up and life has become more expensive. This has been noted by the government. However, these prices have a characteristic trait: they rise quickly and drop slowly. The complexity of the government’s decisions lies in the need to prognosticate and influence events.

There is another question: the work of self-governing bodies. Land and utilities are still objects of speculation. The highest-ranking government individuals have not disclosed their position on the non-transparent decisions of local authorities concerning these questions, which, as recent actions in Kyiv and Odesa have demonstrated, are troubling to society and also feed rumors, gossip, and assumptions in the provinces. Naturally, the new government has to deal with great obstacles, but at the same time much is expected of the government.

Roman OFITSYNSKY, Candidate of Science (History), associate professor with the Chair of Ukrainian History, Uzhhorod National University:

The third president of Ukraine was sworn in on the crest of social expectations. The nation believed in his ability to set a government machine in motion while ridding it of corruption; that he would be able to do this overnight, without any preparatory delays. This is easier said than done. Viktor Yushchenko’s first success is both the transparency of people’s appointments to high positions and in the disagreements concerning important questions.

I believe that another hopeful sign is the routine practice of self-purification of the law enforcement structures. If they don’t bring to account all those who were responsible for ordering and organizing the rigging of the 2004 presidential election results — in Mukachiv on April 18, 2004, and the runoff on November 21 — the logical outcome will be the problem of the legitimacy of Ukraine’s third president. If things don’t get as far as court verdicts, as in the Gongadze case and many other victims of authoritarianism, then why shake the world with our Orange Revolution? This conveniently leads to the third positive aspect: carrying out lustration not “by words but by actions.” The first stage is in progress and I can only hope that the second and third stages will follow.

Rev. Oleksandr, coordinator of “Sunlit Home” Municipal Benevolent Foundation, Odesa:

I believe that it would be na Х ve to expect the new government to show tangible achievements within 60 days. This is a very short period, on the one hand, and there’s a very bad heritage that was inherited on the other. Ridding Ukraine of its racket-dependent status after so many years is a very difficult task. Without a doubt, one positive aspect is that the current president’s team appears to have succeeded in restructuring the central budget along social lines. By doing so, this team has demonstrated that it is mainly focused on ordinary human interests. Another positive aspect is what I believe to be a well thought out foreign political course. Viktor Yushchenko and his team appear to have made the best possible use of that “credit of trust” from the West and enhanced it during the Orange Revolution. Finally, the third undeniably positive aspect: the government was not afraid of making “unpopular” decisions and has proceeded to act in keeping with the law.

It’s also true that there is a negative side to this positive aspect. The new government’s high intellectual level, its desire to do everything in accordance with the law, have led to a situation in which the administrative-bureaucratic staff, including inveterate enemies of the Orange Revolution, have retained key local posts. This situation may bring forth, and is already causing, acts of regional sabotage. I believe that this will manifest itself in the agrarian sector during the sowing campaign. Also, I personally expected Viktor Yushchenko and his team to take bolder steps to rejuvenate Ukrainian culture and the national spirit. In my opinion, the priorities of Ukraine’s social policy should be resolved simultaneously with a spiritual and cultural revival. Discussing our national revival in any other terms would simply make no sense. This takes a clear-cut, maybe even tough political course. We can’t expect any progress by relying on anyone else’s cultural legacy.

Serhiy HARMASH, journalist, head of the Ostriv Internet periodical:

The strain of the presidential campaign caused undue expectations of Viktor Yushchenko’s team. I believe that 60 days isn’t the kind of time-frame for assessing the new government’s performance, especially since we aren’t talking about replacing a presidential team; we’re talking about a change of political regime. However, we are witness to objective disillusionments in society, at least in the Donbas. We pass our judgments on the current government not by watching TV but by witnessing what’s happening in our home town or village. Our coal miners have stopped receiving their full wages on time; consumer prices are increasing, the same for public transport fares and gas prices are soaring. In other words, whatever effective positive steps the new government may have taken have failed to yield tangible results; they remain unnoticed. But the unsuccessful ones are very noticeable: the things that I have already mentioned, and local cadre policy, where nothing has actually changed except the cancellation of privileges in the free economic zones, and, for example, a local problem that is very painful for Donetsk, the freeze of financing for the subway construction project. I’m sure that similar local painful problems exist in every Ukrainian region. That’s why it is hard to discuss and assess concrete steps because they haven’t reached their logical conclusion. So far our feeling may be best described as betrayed hope.

Petro VOLVACH, academician, Ukrainian Academy of Ecological Sciences, Ph.D. (Biology), Simferopol:

I believe that Viktor Yushchenko took the right step in appointing Yulia Tymoshenko as Prime Minister of Ukraine; with her inherent reformist energy she is inspiring all politicians to spare neither time nor energy for the sake of this country. Secondly, we have to acknowledge the new government’s progress in the sphere of international politics and the safeguarding of Ukraine’s international image as a state that is aimed at progress and universal values. The new government has taken another good step with regard to Iraq in deciding to withdraw the Ukrainian peacekeeping contingent, which will allow Ukraine to make its cooperation with Iraq more comprehensive. It’s also very good that this progress is domestically supported by a socially-oriented budget meant to improve Ukraine’s living standard.

On the other hand, the new government is making obvious mistakes and delays, and showing an indecisive attitude to matters relating to the cadre policy. This is especially obvious in the Crimea. And this is leading to the preservation of Kuchma-style approaches and work methods. There are many cases where the old cadres are directly harming the new government, blocking qualitative changes in life. All this has already caused a great deal of damage; I believe that our government has lost control over consumer prices, so their tangible increase, which we are seeing now, will continue for God knows how long. In the first place, it will consume the central budget’s entire social orientation; secondly, it will cause a harsh negative response from ordinary people, whose moods are being actively directed by the old local authorities against the new president and his administration, telling them that these price increases are their fault. Our people wanted the regime to change to make their lives easier, but they can’t sense any changes for the better; they feel that the situation is worsening. This is much more important than paying visits to other countries and establishing international contacts, because if we remember, the local bureaucracy fought against both the reforms of Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev by means of artificially inflated prices. The same process is underway now.

Regrettably, there is practically no progress in the information space; we have the same TV programs and print media; our journalists do not engage in conscientious analysis and activity to help strengthen Ukrainian statehood and the rule of law. Since the old bureaucrats are running the local and central media, many programs, broadcasts, and materials have an anti-Ukrainian, anti-state focus. There is generally no Ukrainization in the information sphere. This is especially noticeable in the Crimea. The information sphere is where new laws, new cadre-training approaches, and new structures are especially necessary. It is strange but true that all those who had a hand in organizing the rigging of the elections have not been unexposed and have not been punished according to the law.

Contrary to Ukrainians’ expectations, especially in the Crimea, the new government has not set about developing a clear-cut policy on the national question; an interethnic and interconfessional concept also needs to be elaborated. Unfortunately, the new government has made no mention of the historical and cultural relics in the Crimea. For example, no matter how many times we have written to the new government about the crucial need to preserve and restore Levko Symyrenko’s historical legacy, we have not received any reply.

Taisiya OLIYNYK, schoolteacher, Vinnytsia:

Cardinal changes are taking place in the government, but mostly in our political system. It’s practically impossible to assess the performance of a political system that has been in existence for 60 days, and where certain issues must still be agreed upon.

The new government simply hasn’t had the time to show what it’s capable of accomplishing, but its decisions to introduce social items into the central budget, its efforts to ease the pressure of controlling authorities on entrepreneurs, and attempts to reform certain industries are praiseworthy.