People occupying Ukraine's highest posts seemed to have entered some kind of conspiracy last week, focusing on their mores.
Speaker Tkachenko, addressing the gala meeting commemorating Independence Day, declared that he considered "immoral" any further references to disagreements between the branches of power. An interesting statement, perhaps best interpreted in the sense that once criticism is cut short, a given problem ceases to exist. What is really interesting is what the Speaker promises by way of retaliation: Mr. Tkachenko is obviously fond of the good old Soviet methods of "immoral conduct" for which People's Deputies can be subjected to administrative dressings-down or even get expelled from Parliament on charges of "irresponsibility" and "attempts to pretend to act while doing nothing to justify one's position" (all this being good old Communist Party terminology, dating from the 1970s when the USSR said it had built a "developed socialist society" and then adopted a "Food Program" recognized by every economist elsewhere in the civilized world as an attempt to cope with the next famine...)
By contrast, ex-Speaker Oleksandr Moroz made a statement to the effect that it is "immoral to receive awards in conditions of economic crisis and the populace suffering from poverty which is getting from bad to worse" Like his Parteigenossen, Comrade Moroz, together with his friendly Communist forces, considers it necessary for Parliament to come up with a certain status of government awards. The man should be expected to accept one himself, all things considered, in which case the Verkhovna Rada's Agrarian Committee's unwillingness to receive the government award is a way of saying no to President Kuchma's attempt to come to terms with his number one political opponent, and a round-about way confirming Oleksandr Moroz's intention to run for the presidency in 1999.
It is also true that the ex-Speaker's approach can only be considered as unethical. Kyiv Mayor Oleksandr Omelchenko declared that it would be "immoral to run for the presidency along with Leonid Kuchma." Probably as much will be explained to Leonid Hrach (who had the nerve to compete with the current President in the forthcoming campaign) during his meeting with the Chief Executive in the Crimea. The situation looks funny, but it is also tragic: steps will have to be taken not only with regard to the "unorganized" Crimean Communists, but also with regard to Lviv's Rukh branch, representing a political party that has been loyal to the current Ukrainian administration. Lviv's Rukh suggested support of a list of presidential contenders lacking Leonid Kuchma, offering instead Yevhen Marchuk, Oleksandr Moroz, and Yuliya Tymoshenko. Traditionally backing "constructive opposition," Rukh leader Vyacheslav Chornovil, panicked and admitted to the possibility of a split. Granting this possibility, who will back a "single national democratic presidential candidate"?
Remarkably, Yulia Tymoshenko, one of the leaders of "non-constructive opposition," offers her own opinions about moral standards. She thinks it inadmissible to violate the Constitution to allow certain social payments and believes that this is precisely why the President should be impeached. But then she could join the presidential race herself.






