At an October 6 news conference in Parliament Natalia Vitrenko and Volodymyr Marchenko declined to answer questions about the possible course the election scenario could take. They rejected the allegation that the attempt on the Progressive Socialist leader would serve to boost her popularity. Mr. Marchenko declared that her popularity ratings were the highest, and to win the campaign she needs “a nervous gait, touring the regions” and an undisturbed campaign atmosphere. Ms. Vitrenko still hopes that no one will succeed in bullying the people.
Nevertheless, the PSPU leaders refused comment on versions of possible sequels to the tragic scenario. Version one, stated in Parliament by Oleksandr Moroz the previous day boils down to the strong likelihood of the next attempt being directed at President Kuchma, whereupon he will have sufficient grounds for declaring an emergency and calling off the elections. Another version, confirmed by Oleksandr Moroz on October 6 was the possibility of a real, fatal attempt on the Socialist leader, to be portrayed as an act of “vengeance” by Natalia Vitrenko's zealots.
Ms. Vitrenko declared that the act of terrorism in Kryvy Rih was not simulated but very real, meant to physically kill her. She was saved by sheer chance, adding that her party, the PSPU, is the best organized political structure, so any uncontrolled acts by any “zealots” are out of the question. From what was said at the press conference it transpired that the PSPU leader does not trust the official investigation and even less the parliamentary commission headed by Deputy Zhyr set up without the victims' and PSPU fraction's consent. However, She believes that Internal Affairs Minister Yuri Kravchenko should be fired not because he violated all procedural and professional rules, divulging the only lead in the investigation, but because he failed to prevent the act of terrorism.
As for that one lead, Natalia Vitrenko and Volodymyr Marchenko would not wish the situation used against their political opponents. On the other hand, Vitrenko, “as a scholar” accustomed to analyzing a process in its entirety, does not rule out the possibility of Oleksandr Moroz's confidant being involved in the attempt on her life and that this possibility should be thoroughly investigated. Also, she could not help mentioning Oleksandr Moroz as a “burnt-out political figure,” adding that she no longer cared about what will become of him one way or the other.
Asked by journalists, she declined comment on Leonid Kuchma's exact whereabouts at the uranium mines after her victory, but predicted that the Zhovti Vody uranium miners could use another fourteen workers (meaning perhaps all the presidential candidates except herself).
In conclusion, Volodymyr Marchenko recommended that the journalists remain unbiased in their coverage of the press conference. This sounded quite topical, considering that journalists from six editorial offices — The Day , Vechirny Kyiv , Khreshchatyk , Ukrayina i Svit , Inter Television, and Radio Liberty — were barred access to the conference. Actually, the PSPU leader said there was a court action about to be brought against The Day and personally against Tetiana Korobova. Comrade Vitrenko stressed that there are millions of the article's Xerox copies being spread all over Ukraine by Moroz's and Marchuk's campaigns (incidentally, Progressive Socialist stalwart Lymar told the journalists cleared to enter the audience that Tetiana Korobova should know her place, and that she would never be allowed near Ms. Vitrenko). As for other newspapers, the PSPU is monitoring their coverage of the Vitrenko campaign and the party's attitude to them will depend on what they see. When asked whether the disloyal part of the press will be closed after she becomes President, Comrade Vitrenko replied that time will tell.
COMMENTARIES
Members of the parliamentary committee on the freedom of expression and information displayed a tragicomic response to the “incident with the press.” Some said, “Vitrenko must have tasted power and become intoxicated,” while others that they would not get involved with a “wounded individual.”
“Strange, isn't it, that candidate Vitrenko, telling everybody about her and her party being under an information blockade, should not use any opportunity to break that siege? After all, she did not allow those journalists to a wedding party but shared with them her views as a politician. The Constitution orders information to be provided those wishing to have it. Perhaps in this case one should talk about excessive popularity; there is no one like Natalia Vitrenko. She has no matching rivals, so she figures she can select journalists,” The Day's Iryna HAVRYLOVA was told by Ivan Chyzh, chairman of the freedom of expression and information committee. Regrettably, he went on, “there is no express legal rule using which the PSPU leader could be sued for turning Parliament's conference hall into a party rally. In principle, she is free to invite whomever she chooses, but treating parliamentary journalists like that was highly improper... It is also true, however, that journalists are the only ones really capable of punishing Ms. Vitrenko by launching an information boycott.”
“Can you imagine the absurd situation in Ukraine with Vitrenko winning the elections?” was the emotional response to the Progressive Socialists' sorting out of journalists by Communist Viktor Ponedilko. “Official response? We often refuse to battle Vitrenko for the simple reason that we don't want to dirty our hands. And from the legal standpoint, Natalia Vitrenko is protected by her parliamentary immunity. How can you get her except by public censure?”






