Things politicians should avoid
Reflections on who will benefit or suffer from the scandalous failure of Our Ukraine’s convention in Donetsk (cancelled two weeks ago, owing to dirty political technologies) are interesting for analysts and journalists, yet the whole thing is as saddening as the rest of developments in that largest Ukrainian administrative region. Some say that Premier Viktor Yanukovych has suffered, considering that he and his son are responsible for running someone else’s show. Following this logic, Rinat Akhmetov has won the game, considering that his capacities in that region will become practically unlimited if and when the governor of Donetsk is replaced by a politician from Makiyivka. Many point to Viktor Yushchenko as the winner now that he could say out loud how undemocratic his enemies are. Still others are concerned about Yushchenko assuming more and more actively the role of the President of Western Ukraine, in which case Eastern Ukraine would have to elect its own President. Viktor Medvedchuk, however, is once again believed to have benefited most of all from the confrontation between Our Ukraine and the Party of the Regions, with undermines the positions of both leaders.
There is an actual threat that the next episodes in the scenario will leave all successful politicians and businesspeople of Ukraine on the losing side. Imagine a ship on the high seas, on board which long-smoldering differences between the captain and the crew erupt into a mutiny. The crew draws a line between bow and stern, not to be crossed by anyone, not even in the worst of emergencies. The officers wreck the ship’s radio, as some want to transmit a distress signal, hoping some of the ships cruising to the west will come to their rescue, while others use the public address system, trying to convince everybody that they have to get the situation under control, relying on their own resources. The leader of one of the hostile groups daydreams of throwing his enemy overboard after winning the battle. This, in turn, forces his key adversary to ponder scuttling the ship, should he turn out the loser. The big question is, Who will remain on the winning side after sinking the ship?
In view of the coming extremely costly elections, our politicians begin to play rough. There are subjects politicians should never broach unless they want to act like Hitler or Stalin. Try to picture a US Congressman trying to score points using the Civil War, the echoes of which are still rumbling in the minds of many Americans, or a member of the Bundestag accusing his opponent, because the latter’s father had served at the Gestapo.
One can understand why in previous centuries Russia and Poland actively used the split of Ukraine in their struggle for hegemony in the region. One cannot understand modern Ukrainian politicians once again invoking that horrible phantom.
At least they should think twice owing to political considerations. The stakes in the presidential race are high for every contestant and none will back down without a pitched battle. If the 2004 elections turn from a battle of politicians and their programs into a battle of dirty political technologies and their architects, the new rules of the game will be accepted by all, even if the best will have to act as the worst under the circumstances. The Ukrainian split will not be the only weapon used. It will be followed by the theme of combating oligarchs (meaning all well-to-do individuals), Zionism, anti-Semitism, etc. In that case Ukraine, including its elite, may face the horrors of a civil war. Talking about traditional Ukrainian passivity makes no sense. People anywhere normally want to live in peace, yet when tensions mount and leaders forget about the self-preservation instinct, it takes shedding very little blood to start an inferno that will kill positions and possessions of all those who are now thinking of how to preserve them.
Games like the one played in Donetsk are bad for every player; even the finals will not be the worst possible. Politicians that bend rules and professional standards simply show a bad performance; they must realize that their wages will be low. Negative public trust-distrust ratios in the ratings of absolutely all Ukrainian politicians are the best evidence. The easiest way is to present the Donetsk conflict as that between good and bad guys. In that situation no one acted as a professional politician, except that one of the heroes of the show added dark color to his demonized visage; another one damaged his civilized political image which he had spent a long time restoring. And the third made an excellent job playing a role he did not want. Of course, Viktor Yushchenko showed that he could endure any kind of pressure. Another question is whether he seemed a convincing politician. Indeed, politicians cannot brandish knives. Good for those realizing as much. It is also true, however, that politicians cannot walk around without wearing ties; those failing to realize this are not likely to achieve success.
What did Yushchenko have when setting off to Donetsk, a region with a tremendous so-called inner patriotic potential, and where Kyiv is distrusted about as much as Lviv? The Our Ukraine leader planned to speak about his presidential campaign in Donetsk. Naturally, he would be cheered by supporters arriving from other regions. How would the native Donetsk audience respond? Would he offer them solutions to political and economic problems haunting the Donbas? No one can tell. The only thing that can be analyzed is once again the form of Ukrainian politics, not its substance.
