“Golden Reserve”

“ANNOUNCEMENT”

Last Tuesday, after the Central Electoral Commission had announced The Day before the official results of the first round and set the date of the runoff election, the election campaign resumed de jure. As the headquarters of Yulia Tymoshenko and Viktor Yanukovych are engaged in a war of words, the two participants in the final electoral duel are bitterly fighting for the votes of those who supported Serhii

Tihipko and Arsenii Yatseniuk. And while the former pronounces contradictory statements almost every day, the latter is firmly standing his ground.

In an interview with The Day, Yatseniuk said why he decided to vote “against all” in the second round and turn down all kinds of ministerial proposals from both Tymoshenko and Yanukovych. Besides, the Front of Changes leader commented on the lessons of his participation in the 2010 elections and suggested a number of post-election scenarios.

As soon as the doors of polling stations closed on January 17, the two candidates who had qualified for the second round began wise-scale political bargaining, trying to obtain the “golden share” at the expense of those who had voted for their other opponents. You confessed the other day that you had met Viktor Yanukovych and told him that if he won he would be pining for the oppositionist Tymoshenko. Could you tell us what you are exactly going to do and what the Party of Regions leader in fact offered you?

“Let us clear up things. I ran for the presidency, offering a new course for this country, but, you know, neither Tymoshenko nor Yanukovych can be sighted on the radars of this course. Every time I met my voters at public rallies or appeared on television, I scathingly criticized Tymoshenko and Yanukovych because they share the blame, together with President Yushchenko, for reducing this country to the present-day situation: they served two prime-ministerial terms. And I don’t think I should elaborate about this situation – it is obvious for all to see.

“So what does it mean to negotiate with Tymoshenko and Yanukovych? This means I’ve lying. This means it was Yatseniuk’s election-time play-acting, not a political position.

“At the same time, whatever the political situation is, one should always behave decently. Yes, I really met Yanukovych, and we congratulate each other. But I told him at once: ‘My stand remains the same. Any support or merger in exchange for a portfolio is out of the question because you bare my political opponent.’ Moreover, I sad: ‘Mr. Yanukovych, should you become president, you will be really sad and pining for Tymoshenko.’ Why did I say so? Because I know only too well what kind of oppositionists Tymoshenko and Yanukovych are. In reality, they oppose each other on TV screen only, while their entourage continues under-the-table talks. I was the parliament speaker and saw this with my own eyes. Incidentally, I can remind these oppositionists that they more than once joined their selves in a political ecstasy.

“But no matter how hard Yanukovych plus Tymoshenko tried to ‘shoot’ Yatseniuk, they failed to do so. They had prepared a TV program which claimed that Yatsniuk could only poll 2.5 percent: so that’s all, there is no such a politician! Can you remember live broadcasts on the election night? The main channel had this kind of program – as ‘it should be’ all the way. They only omitted Yatseniuk’s two percent, for this would have been funny.”

And did you meet Yulia Tymoshenko after January 17?

“A proposal to meet her came two days ago. Yes, I am certain to meet her, but I will say word for word what I said to Yanukovych. I have more complaints about than questions to Tymoshenko because she is a record holder in the ruination of this country.

“And, in general, I am surprised with BYuT announcements that they are negotiating with Yatseniuk. How can they possibly be negotiating with Yatseniuk if they have been told people for ten months in a row that Yatseniuk is funded by Firtash, Yatseniuk is Yushchenko 2, Yatseniuk is a Russian project, Yatseniuk is a US project, Yatseniuk is Jewish and his wife is a Hassid, and Yatseniuk’s rating is falling? In a word, Yatseniuk is no politician at all… Then why are they holding talks with me? They have an extremely short historical memory, while I have a long one. So I cannot and must not make a U-turn in my position only because I have been offered a portfolio.”

Before this interview, I read a lot of comments of your followers on the Front of Changes’ website. They actively discuss the elections, making forecasts for the future and asking you to act, not to look downbeat. Nevertheless, the key point of discussion is your call for voting against all in the runoff. Some fully support it, while others say it is not a way out: one should choose the lesser of the two evils and request you to help them make a choice.

“Frankly speaking, I have not yet seen the latest comments on the Front of Changes’ site. But even when I read them, the position that I made public will remain unchanged in any case. Once I back either Tymoshenko or Yanukovych, this will mean I am losing ground. This will mean I have been lying for ten months, saying that Tymoshenko and Yanukovych belong to the category of evil. But does it really matter which of the evils is lesser or greater? It is evil, and that’s it.

“Is it really possible to make a choice at all in this format? This is why I will support neither of them. And if the people who voted for me understand that they voted not just for Yatseniuk but for a different, new, Ukraine, I hope they will make the same decision. But they can do what they please, for a voter is not a commodity. It is Tymoshenko and Yanukovych who view people as a political commodity.”

“ALL PLAY AGAINST ALL, AND THE ONE WHO MAKES A GOOD BAKSTAGE DEAL WILL WIN”

The current presidential campaign formally started on October 19, but in fact it had begun much earlier. And when the mark on the scale of electoral trust in Arsenii Yatseniuk began to rise steeply and observers began to speak loudly about your phenomenon and claim that you, not Ms. Tymoshenko, will qualify for the second round, you came under fire. Do you think this fact played a big role in that the “untouchable” Serhii Tihipko (neither the Party of Regions nor the BYuT criticized him) finished third quite unexpectedly?

“I took off the first, so I was the first to be shot at. I was in fact the only one who really criticized both of them, thus clearing the road. But, for some reason, somebody hid behind and then overtook me on the turn (laughs). Well, such are the political realities. For when Yatseniuk was blazing the trail with a bulldozer, others were easily riding in a BMW down a well-paved road. This is all I can say. No, not all… We should not forget that it is not the end of political life. I have already had my share and held my ground. Qui vivra verra.

“But you know that not only Tymoshenko and Yanukovych fought against me. There was also ‘help’ from Mr. Yushchenko who would shout from the housetops that Yatseniuk will be the premier under President Yushchenko. What signal did this send to my voters? The signal was: well, they have struck a deal, so we’d better vote for the current president because Yatseniuk will be the head of his government. Besides, word spread that Yatseniuk was going to withdraw his candidature. So I’d like to humbly bow to the 7 percent who supported me in spite of everything. These are high-principled people, you know. They saw so much mud slung on Yatseniuk, but still they supported him! So, in principle, they are ready, to plunge into fire and water, so to speak.

“As a matter of fact, these elections became a logical continuation of what is going on in parliament because the Verkhovna Rada bears the chief blame for the dirt that holds sway in Ukrainian politics. To tell the truth, presidential elections very little differ from the general political atmosphere in Ukraine. It is very simple: all play against all, and the one who makes a good backstage deal will win.”

It seems to me (and I think many will agree with me) that you have waged by far the most vigorous election campaign. Take, for example, your tours of the regions: you visited as many cities, towns and villages as Tihipko…

“…Yanukovych, and Tymoshenko combined did not? (smiles). But if I had not been touring the regions, I wouldn’t have reached out to people. Why? Because I had almost no access to television. As a matter of fact, I managed to make my way to TV channels just two weeks before the elections, when I had raised handsome funds by sponsoring commercials (it is, incidentally, about the much-hyped freedom of expression!).

“Do you know how much an hour of TV time could cost me? A million dollars. In other words, one of the Ukrainian channels values an hour’s TV time at eight million hryvnias! How do you like this kind of the freedom of expression and choice? If a candidate wants to grant a 20-minute interview at a tenth-rate channel, they have to shell out 300,000. You must write about this! So I am asking: what kind of a freedom of speech have we gained?”

I think we should mention here the “contribution” of media in the election process and, particularly, the absence of a national informational space in Ukraine.

“Yes, this is a major problem. But I’d like to single out the ICTV and Ukraine channels, as well as hosts Andrii Kulykov and Savik Shuster, who still invited me to their talk shows. Thanks to their efforts, millions of people could hear my position.

“Yet, on the whole, I had no alternative but to make extensive tours of the regions. To be more exact, the choice was: either I stick around in Kyiv and nobody hears me, or I go to see Ukraine’s regions, which I in fact did. I took ten GPS vehicles and thus communicated with the people of more than 600 cities and villages. What is important here? They could see me in the person. They saw with their own eyes that I was a real-life candidate, not a dummy or a phantom. These people have families and friends, and, therefore, the rallies helped muster a 700-800-thousandstrong electorate, even though there were a total of 200,000 people present.

“The saddest conclusion for me in this election campaign is that money talks in our society. So whenever I am asked about my result, I say: ‘Look, guys, I’ve got no oligarchs or billionaires. All that I have I have gained by myself. The campaign relied on party members’ contributions.’ But when you are fighting against two candidates who have billions and others who feed off these billions, you are, naturally, a maverick.

“Another amazing and interesting thing. Whenever I met my voters, they would say to me in surprise: ‘Mr. Yaseniuk, why do you shun away from TV programs? We thought you are not waging a campaign.’ People do not understand one thing: it is, of course, easier to come to a TV studio, sit there for a few hours, and ten million will see and hear you, instead of touring for four months in a row and gathering just 200,000. But when you are touring a region, you achieve an altogether different quality of communication with the grassroots, you get an opportunity to hear their questions and establish a feedback with the public.”

“ELECTIONS ARE NOW ONE MORE VARIETY OF BUSINESS”

What kind of Ukraine did you see when your toured the regions? A Ukraine “they” do not see from their high-placed office rooms? What are your impressions of visiting faraway towns and villages?

“Frankly speaking, I often asked myself: ‘Look, Arsenii, what are going to do with all this and are you capable of doing at least something?’ Potholed and unlit roads, abandoned houses, extremely poor people… But the main impression is optimistic. I could see that, in spite a difficult situation and the fact that many people have lost hope for as better future, the grassroots can still be ‘inflamed’ and the country can be changed. I not only think so, I am strongly convinced in this, and I will devote all my lifetime to this. After all, I would ‘inflame’ them at rallies – and quite successfully at that!”

Do you think it will take ten or, maybe, twenty years to really improve what you saw during your regional tours?

“I have always been saying 20 years. But the point is that people listen and think: very ‘nice,’ he will be 55 in 20 years, but what are we to do when Yulia [Tymoshenko] and Yanukovych promise a good life as soon as tomorrow? Some even say they will put things straight in three months’ time.”

But there are…

“Yes, they know that I am telling the truth, but they want to hear their own truth: it will be better if not tomorrow then in a few months.”

That Ukrainians are not aware of political realities is one side of the medal. The other is that people have regarded elections in the past few years as a good way to cash in rather than a civil mission on which this country’s destiny and their personal wellbeing depend. Nobody will be surprised now with put-up protest actions, sold election votes, etc. How can this process be at least slowed down, for we can see very soon the office of president being sold at an all-Ukrainian auction and people openly trading in votes? And, incidentally, it would be interesting to know a concrete figure: how many of your activists worked for money and how many of them were volunteers?

“I would like to thank all the volunteers who worked during this not-so-simple campaign: I mean thousands and thousands of people who canvassed for me and disseminated our ‘propaganda leaflets.’ Volunteers accounted for about 30 percent of all those involved in the campaign, such as observers, election commission members, campaign managers, etc. In general, it became clear in this campaign that there are millions of people who yearn for radical changes. Many of these people came to work for us as volunteers. Now about consumerist attitudes to the elections. People have so much corrupted themselves in the last few years that elections have become one more variety of business. I find it very hard to understand 60 percent of the Ukrainian electorate who voted for Tymoshenko and Yanukovych. Will you explain to me how on earth one can vote for the life we are having today? Yet, there are other statistics, too. Those who voted for Tymoshenko and Yanukovych account, in each case, for a mere sixth of the total number of voters. So there is also a reverse side of the medal.”

“THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A COMMODITY, BUT NOT ALL UNDERSTAND THIS”

Let us speak about publicity. In my view, the TV trailers (on medicine, the army, job-seekers, and educationalists) that you launched at the close of the election campaign are warm and intelligent: one can feel Ukraine and Ukrainians in every instance, every scene, and every detail. It is important that they do not even hint that everything is OK here and will be still better, but still this promo does strike a chord. Why did you nit begin the campaign with this? Then you would have perhaps reached out to people…

“You see, there are a few points here. On the one hand, the promo trailers could have been run off longer had it not been for a banal lack of money: it takes two-three million dollars a week to show trailers on a major TV channel. These are the elections we have. I do not think that promo clips should decide who will be the president. Advertising can promote commodity sales, but the president is not a commodity, which, unfortunately, not all Ukrainians are aware of.”

At the same time, Mr. Yatseniuk, you were often criticized for enlisting Russian spin masters who messed it all up with billboards, etc. The message is as follows: when the Russians take something up (taking into account that there are no elections in Russia), it is a bad sign.

“In reality, it is also spin. BYuT people spoke about Russians in my headquarters only because they knew that Yatseniuk’s main electorate is Central and Western Ukraine. As for billboards, they were made by Rzhanov, a Ukrainian artist who works at our headquarters. I personally approved these boards because I really wanted to blow people’s minds. Indeed, people would first stop in front of ‘Save Ukraine’ boards, then drive on, stop again, come out, and ask what it was. I saw it with my own eyes. But the point is that there is a billboard and there is Yatseniuk. If Yatseniuk appears on television, he explains to people what a concrete board means, but if there is no Yatseniuk on screen, no one else will explain the position. The latter happened.”

You moved a draft law in parliament the other day, which essentially changes the rules of a presidential election race. What are the key points of this document?

“First. If the turnout is less than 50 percent of the voters, the elections are considered invalid. Then another election is called, naturally. Second. If more than 50 percent have showed up but more than a half voted against all, the elections are also considered invalid. This is logical, for an individual who has polled 15 percent cannot be the president.”

Elections are likely to be the No. 1 issue this year because the presidential race is still underway and we are already in for the early elections of Kyiv’s mayor and the Kyiv City Council. Add to this the elections to local government bodies scheduled for May. Also likely are the early parliamentary elections (if Yanukovych wins)…

“I will first say about the early parliamentary elections in case Yanukovych wins. It is one more myth. Yanukovych is not going to call early elections. He does not need them. He will knock together a coalition in the current parliament. Why should he waste time and money for elections? The same attitude prevails inside the Party of Regions faction: they will attract the Communists, Lytvyn, a part of NUNS and even BYuT even without an election. In fact, the one who will be calling for early parliamentary elections, in case Yanukovych wins, is Tymoshenko. If she loses and is dismissed, this means she will be stripped of parliamentary immunity. If she enjoys no immunity, can you guess what Mr. Yanukovych will do? Everything is in fact very simple! So when Tomenko said that Yanukovych and Yatseniuk are allies in the question of parliament dissolution, it was a Freud-style slip of the tongue. I would rather be an ally of Tymoshenko as far as early parliamentary elections are concerned. But, to tell the truth, I am not going to bargain with either Tymoshenko or Yanukovych.

“Should there be early parliamentary elections, I will be taking part in them. If not, we will participate in the May local elections. Incidentally, I do not rule out that they will also put off the local elections ‘until a better time’.”

“AS YOU SEE, IT IS NOT SO EASY TO ERADICATE THEM…”

Let us get back to the presidential elections. What do you think prompted the public to “swallow the bait” and opt for making a choice between two candidates when there were almost twenty of them?

“This was the handiwork of some well-known spin masters…”

But, excuse me, do Ukrainians really need a magnifying glass to see things? They readily swallow what has already been “chewed” for them.

“Do you remember that we had three candidates – Tymoshenko, Yanukovych, and Yatseniuk – by June 2009? Let’s talk turkey. Yatseniuk was often invited to the top-ranking TV channels which also showed public opinion poll results. But when they smelled trouble, they made a very simple decision: to switch Yatseniuk off and tune this country to a different wavelength. So another, third, candidate emerged instead of Yatseniuk in addition to the two above-mentioned ones. That was the only possible thing to do because Yatseniuk is hard to deal with, when it comes to selling himself out. What can be discussed with him? A strange fellow, this Yatseniuk… He thought he could become a politician on his own? Dream on…”

It is perhaps the right moment to recall a lot of critical remarks about you on the part of national political scientists, which boil down to the following theses. The first and most pivotal one: having quickly secured a high public rating (applause), Arsenii Yatseniuk too quickly overestimated himself as a public figure: “It remains to be seen who will be inviting whom.” The “damning indictment” sounded as follows: in spite of serious and successful experience in public administration, you showed the “old school” some kind of political arrogance and cockiness.

“Actually, it is a different story. Let us begin with our political scientists’ critical remarks. Firstly, all our political scientists have been engaged by one political party or another. Will they ever dare to deny this? So, you know, the stand of a so-called political scientist in Ukraine is in fact the stand of a party. Secondly, they confuse a political stand with arrogance. Yes, they may be thinking: ‘Look, he’s only 35 and so aggressive! A lout of sorts. He is running for the presidency and doesn’t want to make deals with Tymoshenko, Yanukovych, Yushchenko, and oligarchs (grins).’ This is the real ‘depth’ of their thinking.”

Shortly before the first round of voting, as I was pushing TV remote control buttons, I saw Savik Shuster trying to reproach you for your age: is it not too early to fly so high at 35, look how old the president of Russia and other leaders are… I just thought at that moment: why did you not make your age your trump card? Why did you not say: yes, there have been too few deeds performed for the benefit of independent Ukraine, but, my dearest, please confide in young people, for I know how to plan and implement useful things for us and our children…

“I said this but, maybe, not so directly and categorically. I used to say: I am 35, I will not make mistakes; conversely, Tymoshenko and Yanukovych can make mistakes, for they have a political requiem playing for them. But, as you can see, it is not so easy to eradicate them.”

“THERE MAY BE A PAID-UP ILLUSION OF MAIDAN”

Do you think one of the two will formally concede a defeat after the runoff, without launching street and courtroom wars? For we can say, much to our regret, that judges are also registered in party offices and the situation may finally end up in absurdity and devaluation of the very idea of elections.

“Let me tell you about my vision of the second round. Even if there is a one-percent margin (which is, incidentally, almost 300,000 votes), the Central Electoral Commission will announce the results and no judges, let alone mass-scale protests, will reverse the situation. I think even some insular states will congratulate us on the results, and the whole election story will in fact grind to a halt. There will be no Maidan again! There may be a paid-up illusion of Maidan.”

A few words about the international assessment of our electoral process. In principle, in spite of many well-known “no’s,” the world concluded on the whole that the first round was transparent, democratic, etc. But still… I may be mistaken, so please correct me if I am wrong, for you once headed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The impression is that Europe and the world community as a whole is cool and indifferent to what is and will be going on in the course of the 2010 elections. Why?

“I agree. Yes, absolutely indifferent! My diagnosis is that the West is fed up and the East took a wait-and-see stance. For example, I can clearly see the tall tree on which Mr. Putin has climbed to see…you know who swim down the river. But, in general, we must take a deeper look into this. I believe it is easier for Brussels and Washington today to speak to Kyiv via Moscow. This is my diagnosis of what is going on. But it will not be so all the time!”

Incidentally, the results of January 17 show that you found support in all the regions of Ukraine. This is an encouraging sign. Was your election campaign rhetoric the same in Western, Eastern, Northern, and Central Ukraine?

“Absolutely the same. All the 63 rallies that I held were video-recorded, so it is easy to check. I said the same things everywhere. Other candidates waged virtual campaigns and evaded clear answers, whereas I said the truth in all places. I was the first to embark on this road and the first to receive blows from my opponents. But I managed to hold on. It is important, for this is only the beginning.”

You said earlier that the main conclusion of these elections is that money talks. Indeed, it is difficult not to agree to this, but if you apply this formula to the portfolio distribution field, you will feel grave fear for this country. It is no secret that some ministers have only one entry in their employment records – “minister.” How can we evolve a democratic formula of government continuity, so that well-trained people come to assume high offices?

“Even in the USSR, one had to work very hard to become secretary of the Communist party district committee (not to mention the oblast or central committee). Almost the same model exists in the US, where one must first work his way up from volunteer to a certain administrative office and only then contend for something more exalting. The main goal of today is to raise new political elite at the regional and national levels. A few months ago our party launched a project called School of Government. This is a permanent, not a short-term, project. This project is supposed to attract all those who are willing to change this country and will pass this test. It is a serious test. This does mean that you can just come, hear a lecture, and immediately become a party member. This test will show whether you can be a party member and assume responsibility for the destiny of a village, a district, a city, or the country as a whole.”