• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Zinovy KULYK: “I think the national emblem should be a rake instead of a trident” Information Minister talks informally about the freedom of the press in Ukraine

13 November, 2012 - 00:00

Ukraine learned about Zinovy Kulyk, the current Minister of Information, after his famous interview with Mikhail Gorbachev. Later he was a major figure on Leonid Kravchuk's team and would act as host during the televised debate between the two presidential contenders, Kravchuk and Kuchma. After Leonid Kuchma became President Kulyk's retirement came as a matter of course, but then the new Chief Executive thought he could use the man as well.

As for Mr. Kulyk, he says he is not one of those public servants who believes in and using every occasion to stress their indispensability, and nor is he one to treasure his office. He is a professional, sober-minded, and fully aware of his own advantages and limitations. Add here his singular intuition. Hence probably his ability to keep afloat in all nomenklatura storms.

It looks as though Mr. Kulyk would be required by anyone in office. The Ukrainian bureaucratic Olympus has always lacked individuals prepared to work not only for purely pragmatic personal reasons, but also who are satisfied with their jobs, enjoying not so much the end result as the very process when one's ability to move in harmony with the fluctuating “general line” is just one of the chips used in the game. When by the same token cunning, knowing when to lay low and wait, is referred to as flexibility and elastic conscience as the ability to quickly develop oneself and timely sense the need to make changes. As for being useful, Mr. Kulyk has been quoted as saying that he is prepared to steer a middle course if it can benefit an important cause, but here, as in all other things, there are certain limits...

The Day invited Mr. Kulyk for its traditional roundtable and the guest proved very true to the above profile, sketchy as it is; he avoided univocal formulations, sometimes speaking at length but saying very little, then getting very frank when least expected, leaving everyone convinced that there is more to the man than meets the eye.

The Day: Mr. Kulyk, how in your opinion is the freedom of expression implemented in Ukraine?

Z.K.: This freedom consists of democratic legislation and the media people's ability to abide by the law, on the one hand, and the state as a coercive body (for every government machine, even one most democratically elected, is coercive) to see that everyone – journalists, information consumers, and sources – adhere to set rules, in other words the laws currently in force. In this case there is a relative harmony and a complete illusion of the freedom of speech for the masses. Why illusion? Because information outflow is regulated in any state and society receives only the amount allowed. It's simply that this amount can be bigger or smaller, depending on the degree of democracy. Our information laws were openly copied from the latest Canadian laws and Canada is a prestigious Western democracy, but our realities do not correspond to our laws, mildly speaking.

The Day: Could it be that the state is simply and utterly not interested in the development of an independent and opposition press?

Z.K.: Today one can talk about any kind of press, except an independent one. Today we have government-run media in which power structures act as cofounders. We also have party- and clan-affiliated periodicals. And party and clan affiliation is not the same thing. For instance, Hromada does not have an official organ, it is just now being registered.

The Day: Do you think it normal that the state, using taxpayers' money, is financing newspapers and television channels which voice only what the authorities want to hear?

Z.K.: You won't find a single country, even a democracy dating back two hundred and more years that does not have such government-controlled media. The latest BBC strike is evidence that they do not want to go private. They want to stay under state control.

The Day: There are countries and there are countries. Let's face it: we have periodicals under absolute state control and not only ones with the government acting as a cofounder. Many publications are at its beck and call because the state can strongly influence certain commercial structures.

Z.K.: One can talk about economic influence only when all budget funds are duly implemented.

The Day: Mr. Kulyk, you know better than anyone else that this is not so. Most private economic structures in Ukraine cannot exist without have guardian angels on high. In other words, they must in some way or another yield to the state's influence – well, if they don't they just disappear. Why, for example, the number of pro-President periodicals is increasing and opposition ones declining?

Z.K.: Objectively speaking, I would agree that the number of clannish periodicals is decreasing, but not the party ones. You see, genuine opposition is in criticizing specific individuals, not in lashing out at all those in power or the regime. If we had a regime, there would be no opposition. The very possibility to criticize on such broad scale means that there is no regime.

The Day: Maybe, but then a regime is taking shape. We no longer have the opposition Vseukrainskie vedomosti and Pravda Ukrainy. And what about the subtle pressure being exerted on periodicals trying to carry out independent policies using tax levers and so on?

Z.K.: Maybe, but if you have absolutely clean money – sponsor's and suchlike – and if you pay taxes and carry out contracts, you just don't care. Let the Tax Administration go through your books with a fine-tooth comb a hundred times. Now clannishness is precisely the way by which the authorities can use such inspections to pressure a given periodical's decision-makers. Today we are drawn in an absolutely opaque information business which is true of not all but most periodicals. We all know that not a single newspaper can exist at the expense of its founders only. Even if some make no secret of their sponsors (as is the case with The Day), all the others use their journalist collectives as a front. The state fights such practices and we cannot forbid it to do so. Back in Strasbourg, when we broached the subject of the Pravda Ukrainy, I asked my colleagues, “Say, if you received a certain amount from an offshore haven and if someone wanted to use this money to start publishing an opposition newspaper before elections in France, Germany, Britain or Holland, how many issues would he be able to have come off the presses?” They said not a single one. Talking about big-time media owners, we know Hurst, Berlusconi, and others. They make no secret of owning newspapers and television channels, nor do they conceal their political views. In this case there nothing the state can do about them.

The Day: We do not support the Pravda Ukrainy's modus operandi. When Yuliya Tymoshenko was our guest here we told her that such methods discredits the very idea of an opposition press. But the closure of Pravda Ukrainy created a precedent of using government levers, including the tax authorities and resulting in the loss of many jobs.

Z.K.: I see what you mean, but there are journalistic ethics and media people must make up their mind whom to serve.

The Day: Most importantly, the economic laws you have mentioned are the ones allowing dirty money into the information space, and they were effected by the authorities. Thus, our next question to the Minister of Information is whether after all we have an opportunity to secure the freedom of information and complete information. Also, do our media represent all political viewpoints, all political leaders – opposition, clans, whatever they are called? Why not let them voice their ideas?

Z.K.: Why not, indeed? Who is stopping them?

The Day: In other words, the Minister of Information is for this freedom?

Z.K.: Absolutely.

The Day: Will anyone consider your stand an automatic directive?

Z.K.: No one will. Even the government-run media. There are too many people between what the Ministers of Information says or directs and the way this directive is carried out. And all these people have their own world views and party affiliations.

The Day: Your ministry was mentioned as a negative example in conjunction with a tragedy, Vadym Hetman's assassination and his losing to Mykhailo Onufriychuk during the elections. Mr. Onufriychuk was one of your deputies. Mr. Hetman said that the whole Ministry of Information acted against him. Also, you did not make any public statements to refute this allegation. Why?

Z.K.: The Ministry of Information was not supposed to make any statements under the circumstances, because it did not nominate Onufriychuk. He was nominated by his people in his constituency where everyone knew him. Linking Hetman's death to Onufriychuk's election would be ridiculous. He won even though he had considerably less financial backing than Hetman. And the latter (we were on very good terms, incidentally) lost just because he had won previously and was sure of his victory. In a way, it is a significant example. In fact, one of my conclusions after the elections is that many politicians were sure their money could buy everything and everybody. They were wrong. The main thing is to communicate with people, to get across to them. And so there was no public statement made and none will be made in this sense. Now the whole thing is in the hands of law enforcement personnel.

The Day: How do you personally feel about executive structures suing periodicals and claiming millions worth of damages?

Z.K.: I am not on their side. At the same time, I do not favor newspapers provoking such lawsuits. I am against emotional criticism aimed, among other things, against government officials who, like all citizens, have a constitutional right to privacy. I am for evidential criticism. And I think that ungrounded abusive criticism should be punished.

By the way, I am surprised that those who control the mass media do not seem to realize a very simple thing: our society is developing, and our audiences are just tired of negative information. The people are used to it.

Given certain proportions, aware to today's public attitudes, one can achieve a great deal in society, using the media. Regrettably, we have very few full-fledged educated periodicals. I mean ones whose editors understand that power structures and political parties should be taken seriously. Rather than calling names and sticking labels, they should seriously analyze their strategies and their leaders.

Photo by Oleksiy Stasenko, The Day

 

Rubric: