On September 19 the United Social Democrat leadership held a closed enlarged plenum (such plenums are always closed).
Although Leonid Kravchuk explained the closed doors by citing purely organizational problems (preparations for the 13th SDPU(U) congress among other things), the presence of changes in and amendments to the party statute on the agenda made it clear that cadre issues would be focal. That date marked a crucial point in Vasyl Onopenko’s confrontation with the leaders on the party roster. Considering that this party “currently faces an acute problem with its political identity,” the key argument must have been the SDPU(U) leader’s warning that “changes in the party leadership will inevitably imply alterations in its ideological and political platform.” Cadre rotations could place SDPU(U) in a vague ideological position; unsure of what to expect from such “floating course,” not a single political force would form a lasting alliance with it. Mr. Onopenko’s opponents tried to refer to the “masses.” Volodymyr Perkach, head of the Lviv SDPU(U) organization, told The Day that his Lviv comrades saw the “young and promising politician” Viktor Medvedchuk as the new party leader.
Most regional organizations, however, agreed that electing a new leadership would “harm the party’s image” which perhaps foiled the Kyiv group’s plan to topple Onopenko. In fact, regional leaders reproached the party’s upper echelons for wanting to “solve their own problems using local organizations and buy everything while sitting in Verkhovna Rada.” This was a vivid demonstration of how different were the views on the political situation at the grass roots and the summit. The party was kept in one piece largely due to the local leaders’ independent critical stand. Characteristically, a member of the Luhansk organization told The Day: “We understand that our party does not need the top leadership; they need money. And that is why they are so displeased with the opposition.”
Still, sensationalizing SDPU(U) cadre shifts would be premature. Leadership changes are quite normal in any developing party. This “normalcy,” however, is secure only when the replacements serve to further unite the party. On the one hand, Mr. Medvedchuk will now have a better opportunity to assist the party (precisely what some of his comrades are demanding), and on the other, the party at this crucial stage will demand its leader’s undivided attention, something easier said than done when combining two posts. There is little doubt that the cautious and battle-hardened Vice Speaker is fully aware of this. And he knows how to bide his time, as evidenced by his not insisting on replacements in the party leadership.
The regional stand also proved dominant when demanding that the party’s opposition guidelines be made absolutely clear, particularly with regard to its presidential candidate. Remarkably, 25 out of 27 regional organizations participating in the enlarged plenum supported Yevhen Marchuk. The reader should be reminded that after the 12th SDPU(U) convention most regional affiliates also showed solidarity with Mr. Marchuk when he declared that the party had to be in opposition to the current regime. This local radical trend may have been largely due to their relative independence and awareness of pressing problems, while the upper party echelons have to balance on the verge of loyalty to the existing government, in keeping with their political and business interests. Thus when one of the local party leaders stated that “if we want to show understanding, we will have to choose between sympathy and politics,” it was graphic evidence of the general realistic attitude.
It is also true, however, that party support of a presidential candidate is not likely to play an important role in the coming marathon, so banking on it seems premature. On the other hand, shrugging it off would be unreasonable, at this stage at least.






