With whom will we “think in Ukrainian?”

The absence or drop in electoral support for parties that position themselves as democratic ones is no indicator that Ukrainian voters are disillusioned with the democratic idea as such. This has been conclusively proved by the latest opinion polls. According to surveys conducted by the Ukrainian Institute for Sociological Research, headed by Olha Balakirieva, 17% of respondents consider themselves proponents of various shades of democracy, while 16% of them are sympathizers of the national-democratic direction.

While an ordinary Ukrainian social democrat can somewhat rely on the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, it is increasingly more difficult for a national democratic voter to find someone with whom they can “think in Ukrainian,” despite the fact that Viktor Yushchenko characterized this direction of political thought as one “that stands on healthy state and national positions.”

Furthermore, the president even obliged the members of Our Ukraine to do their best to engage parties of this direction in closer political cooperation. Speaking at a recent Our Ukraine People’s Union (OUPU) meeting, he expressed regret that “after the elections such parties as the Ukrainian People’s Party of Ukraine (UPP), Pora, the Party of Reforms and Order (PRP), and many others have been left behind the active political process.” Therefore, in the president’s opinion, “Our Ukraine’s direct duty is to involve these political forces in a dialogue and form the logic of joint actions around general projects.”

According to this logic, it is enough to add the three abovementioned parties with a 1% rating to the six parties in Our Ukraine’s bloc with a total 6% rating to reach an encouraging 9 percent. Nevertheless, the president’s simple logic is unlikely to raise the spirits of his companions who are worried about their lack of definition and to elicit the trust of those for whom it is intended.

This is why the PRP is joining Tymoshenko, while Pora considers it best to walk alone, and the Ukrainian People’s Party has not abandoned its illusions about its center of gravity. With this goal in mind, according to its leader Yurii Kostenko, the UPP is “actively modernizing itself and conducting oppositional strategy of activity outside of parliament.”

But if the presidential “logic of actions” becomes a source of information at least for a while, so far Kostenko’s “strategy of activity” is barely noticeable. However, the creator of the Ukrainian national force is not giving up hope, even though he is acting according to a scenario similar to the presidential one.

During a recent Web conference held on the Obozrevatel Web site the UPP’s leader talked about the processes of “strengthening and unification” in the right-wing milieu, which are starting at the grassroots level. As an example, he named the merger that took place in Ivano- Frankivsk oblast of the UPP, Svoboda (Freedom), and Eco+25 parties. Kostenko also noted justly that “this unification of right-center forces has nothing in common with the new political project announced by Our Ukraine’s representatives.” Indeed, it is difficult not to spot the difference.

You have to give credit to Kostenko for remaining confident that “the Ukrainian cause will only appear once we start accumulating and updating what we have instead of constantly trying to start everything from scratch.” He even recounted an anecdote about this. “Do you remember the English lawns that the former communist authorities tried to grow in the Kremlin in one month? In Britain it took them 300 years; that is why they are so beautiful. The same goes for the Ukrainian national political force. It must be formed patiently and persistently on the soil that emerged in the late 1980s.”

Kostenko’s joke was right on the money, especially for those voters who keep a kind of “Macropoulos remedy” [to keep the body eternally young] in their first-aid kit and can wait for another 300 years until Kostenko grows his lawn. But most people cannot afford to. And while the “Orange” leaders continue to look for logic in their own strategies, their devoted supporters are starting to get light shivers from “their already improved lives.”

COMMENTS

Maksym STRIKHA, head of research programs at the Open Policy Institute:

“The results of sociological research are no surprise. For many years it has been registering support for the national-democratic movement at the 15- to 20-percent level, and sometimes even higher. But during all the previous elections national-democratic parties or parties positioning themselves as national-democratic did not acquire the number of votes even a little close to the number given by sociologists. Clearly, this is because the national democrats were not able to modernize themselves. Figuratively speaking, they are still wearing shoes dating to 1989 at a time when the situation in the country has long been absolutely different, with different social expectations. In this connection I think both Yushchenko and Kostenko’s options are impracticable.

“The proposal made by Yushchenko is careless in many aspects because the president has to focus on a wider range of voters, including those from the east and south, who support a liberal ideology but at the same time do not appreciate national democratic values. If the president adheres to national democracy only, he only enlists the support of voters from the west and the center.

“Kostenko’s option offers even fewer prospects because it is hard to expect something fundamentally new from a loser who suffered a resounding loss in the last parliamentary elections and the presidential elections as well. That is why one can only expect a reprise of what has already happened, with the same 1.5%. Unfortunately, now the UPP is in a very difficult position. It has a lot of deputies in local government bodies, but they are often forced to act out of fear and at their own risk because the party does not have representatives in parliament. In addition, they are often forced to join up with those forces that the headquarters in Kyiv would not like to see.

“It is clear that a third way proposed by Anatolii Matviienko, the leader of the Sobor Party, has better prospects. His proposal consists of uniting parliamentary and non-parliamentary national democrats and setting up another parallel national-democratic pro-presidential project that would not clash with the interests of Our Ukraine, which is basically a liberal party.

“In this case such a political project could have a chance, provided that it is headed not by a Kostenko but a bright, new personality who is not identified with failures, mistakes, and defeats in the public’s mind.”

Vladyslav KASKIV, leader of the PORA Civil Party:

“I understand the logic of many political entities that are trying to meet people’s expectations, such as the national idea, cultural heritage, liberalism, communism, etc. The task of these political projects, both old and new ones, is to stay in power at any cost. In our activity, we are seeking to rely on essence, not form. Therefore, our task is completely different — to implement our political vision in Ukraine, whose main point is the policy of national breakthrough. This liberal-patriotic concept envisages a specific plan of far-reaching and radical reforms. Primarily, they are system reforms including governmental reform, structural reforms, a reform of relations inside the government institutions, etc.

“That is why I do not want to comment on the logic of forming political forces, which is based on electoral expectations. Pora wants to become a political force that proposes its own vision of Ukraine’s development, without playing to somebody’s taste. Therefore, all these political procedures in the form of all kinds of unions, shifts, confederations can only be an instrument, not a goal. So if we are to enter the process of political cooperation, it will only be based on a concrete plan of action.

“As for President Yushchenko’s wishes, they seem to be a struggle for lost opportunities. Today’s task is not the unification of political forces but the drafting of an action plan that would unite people who share its content and essence.”