Will resolute steps be followed by political ones?
On March 1, at 8:45 a.m., police detachments carried out a blitz operation to remove the tents from Khreshchatyk: the men guarding the tents could not even have their photos taken by correspondents who were carefully committing to celluloid the act of violence over the people perpetrated by Kyiv’s finest.
After this both sides seemed to have breathed a sigh of relief. The authorities at last removed the source of protest ideas from the capital center, while the opposition not only received a weighty argument in their political struggle but were also saved the trouble of looking after the empty tents that have already played their role.
We will return to the political consequences of the event later, but now let us consider the takedown of the sidewalk tents in legal terms. A few ours after the police attack, co- coordinator of the Ukraine Without Kuchma (UWK) campaign Yuri Lutsenko and People’s Deputy Serhiy Holovaty tried to prove, documents in hand, at a UNIAN press conference that the police, which was carrying out a Starokyivsky Court ruling, were acting in a completely illegal manner. Messrs. Lutsenko and Holovaty’s reasoning can be accepted to some extent. But if their logic is to be followed to the end, there is no legal way at all to actually remove the tents from Khreshchatyk. Whoever has had to deal with the official services at least once knows it is sometimes impossible to fulfill even a perfectly lawful court decision, especially when the one who is supposed to obey the court order is knowledgeable in juridical matters. There are endless loopholes to postpone the execution of a civil ruling indefinitely. Hence, the removal of tents by police can be construed as illegal in any case without argument. Having repeatedly scoffed at officers of the court and proclaiming the tents the property of people’s deputies, the UWK leaders must have had another dozen of quite legal ways to evade the removal of “small architectural forms.”
The authorities had only two options in this case: to negotiate with the protesters or act in the framework of what was once called “revolutionary expediency.” And they acted they way they did. Now let us try, for impartiality’s sake, to assess the actions of the UWK organizers from the viewpoint of current legislation. Lawyer Holovaty cannot help but know that if he suspects Leonid Kuchma of committing a crime, he should turn to the competent bodies for a proper investigation and if need be a trial of citizen Kuchma.
Both Mr. Holovaty himself and even less bright citizens of contemporary Ukraine understand that to go this way means reaching a dead end. While the UWK knows about 400 ways to evade the court ruling to remove the tents, our prosecutors know about the same number of ways to absolutely lawfully hold back the investigation of Mr. Kuchma for 700 years or so. For this reason the incumbent president’s political opponents decided to act out of “revolutionary expediency,” accusing Mr. Kuchma of crimes unproved by court or investigation, rather than act within the framework of admittedly imperfect Ukrainian law. But what you get depends on how you go after it.
The authorities can also profit from the situation, already profitable for the opposition, after the police raid on the UWK tents. For the unlawful, according to Forum of National Salvation leaders, police actions against the Khreshchatyk tents is a good pretext to demand Internal Affairs Minister Yuri Kravchenko’s dismissal for the same lack of professionalism that President suddenly spotted in former SBU Director Leonid Derkach not long ago. This would satisfy both sides: the opposition will celebrate yet another victory, while the authorities will show their democratic spirit and impartiality. And then?
This proves again that the UWK campaign, directed only against some individuals, has in fact no real action program. Will our authorities cease to be criminal as the opposition defines it overnight if they replace Potebenko with Shyshkin and Kravchenko with Holovaty? Funny, but it would have happened exactly like this. For if you go by the opposition’s outcries, our authorities simultaneously are clean and noble (Yuliya Tymoshenko), inspire hope for the future (Viktor Yushchenko), and indulge in lawlessness and arbitrariness (Potebenko, Kravchenko, and Kuchma). Moreover, these appraisals, as well as the view of the state of affairs in this country, are being molded depending on the situation in a diametrically opposite way - from complete downfall and collapse to the steady progress of reforms.
What raises no doubts is that no force should be used in these conditions. By setting the police against peaceful citizens, even if they are called UNA-UNSO fighters, the authorities only humiliate themselves and lose the remnants of respect they still have. So force was used, and now it is the time to think. The quicker, the better.
INCIDENTALLY
President Leonid Kuchma has supported the actions of Kyiv city authorities to remove the Ukraine Without Kuchma downtown tent town. He noted that the law enforcement bodies had acted in compliance with the law, emphasizing that the opposition should also work within a legal framework, Interfax-Ukraine reported on March 1.
