“In signing the Kaniv Accord Yevhen Marchuk did not break with the idea of statehood”

The current election campaign is fundamentally different from the previous one. Practically all with whom this author has come into contact in recent months agree.

In the past five years the living standard of most of the electorate has deteriorated significantly. Unemployment and nonpayment have turned into a plague. For the most part people meeting with presidential candidates and their canvassers want an answer to the question of how we get out of this blind alley. People still believe in a Ukraine free of corruption and dictatorship, as evidenced by Levko Lukyanenko's trip to Rivne oblast. He is respected there, both by veteran champions of independence and those who do not share the views of the honorary leader of the Ukrainian Republican Party. None of the meetings this author attended ever fit into the set time-limit as there seemed no end to questions. People wanted to know about the Kaniv Four, Yevhen Marchuk's stand in the struggle against organized crime, especially about former prisoner of conscience Levko Lukyanenko's decision to vote for former KGB General Yevhen Marchuk. Mr. Lukyanenko replied that, if he abided by emotions only he would still live in the past. It was necessary to look to the future. The leadership of 14 national democratic parties, knowing Yevhen Marchuk since 1990 as a decent person and Ukrainian patriot capable of establishing law and order and getting the better of the racket, decided to support his candidacy. Mr. Lukyanenko believes that Marchuk is the man to unite the east and west of Ukraine and finally lead this country out of its endemic crisis. Many in Western Ukraine responded painfully to the Kaniv Accord of four presidential candidates. Levko Lukyanenko explained its idea, stressing that the document reflects the signatories' intention to preserve Ukraine's independence. By signing it Yevhen Marchuk never broke with the idea of statehood.

In general, the national democrats' stand in the current campaign is rather heterogeneous. I met with Mr. Lukyanenko between two meetings with the electorate and asked about his approach to Rukh. “I think that, starting in 1994, Rukh has adopted a conciliatory approach. This was especially evident when dealing with a number of issues of principal. This stand did not satisfy some of the Rukh leaders. I also think that Rukh's breakup could have happened much earlier. When Oleksandr Lavrynovych backed URP's proposal to start impeachment proceedings a breakup was avoided. But as the election date approached the part of Rukh supporting Leonid Kuchma rallied round Hennady Udovenko and the rest, determined to conduct an independent policy, joined Yuri Kostenko's opposition. In my opinion, this split only served to legalize the process underway within Rukh. I frown on Hennady Udovenko's stand. As for Yuri Kostenko, the situation is somewhat more complex. I talked to him two days before his nomination. I said I would like to have him by my side, together with the leaders of 14 national democratic parties supporting Yevhen Marchuk. We must be realistic about our actual possibilities and realize that none of our parties acting alone will have its candidate elected President. That was why we decided to find a candidate firmly adhering to the idea of statehood and a genuine patriot of Ukraine. I told Yuri Kostenko all this but he wouldn't listen and proceeded with his own candidacy. Later, he made an alliance with Vasyl Onopenko, saying they would possibly pull out in favor of a stronger candidate representing the statehood idea. I believe that Yevhen Marchuk stands a real chance to become President representing these forces, so I figured that Kostenko and Onopenko had him in mind talking about a stronger candidate.”

I couldn't but ask about former dissidents now supporting the current regime.

“That's a very painful problem. Some of the people not broken by prison camps and hunger now support the powers that be as a sign of gratitude for whatever little help they received. I talk to them and explain the situation. I believe that their conscience will prevail.”