L. K.: Members of parliament have this immunity in most countries, so Ukraine is no exception from the rule. Usually it is categorized as immunity against criminal prosecution, arrest, and detention. Personally I think that there should be no immunity against criminal prosecution, for we are all supposed to be equal before the law. And the courts should determine whether a Deputy should be detained. Now they want to strip us of all immunity. I cannot agree to this, and the point is not so much the President wishing to pressure the legislature. If this happens executive bureaucrats at all levels, all the way from the center down to districts and oblasts, will begin to get even with legislators, in which case those wielding more power will always be right. Now we all know that real power and all law enforcement agencies are controlled by the executive.

The Day:  People who are not versed in politics and its nuances may have the impression that the President wants to strip the People's Deputies of their immunity so he can combat corruption more effectively, while the lawmakers are opposing this for their own selfish reasons. Do you think public opinion could come round to this view?

L. K.: I do and this is precisely how public opinion is moving. Take our sensational political exposОs. Actually, only two such cases have caused the biggest commotion, focused on noted political figures. Look at all the publicity. The implication is obvious: no one can avoid answerability. Those in power direct the campaign so as to draw public attention to precisely these two cases, presenting them as serious efforts aimed against corruption at all levels.

Of course, combating corruption is no fiction, because our society is thoroughly corrupt. But instead of using legal methods there is a political game, aimed at uninformed people who really want to put an end to corruption and who are used to the idea that the government should do everything necessary to do so. Over many years our people have become used to the authorities taking and putting someone in an isolation cell, and that this is the right thing to do. This is how most people think.

In fact, talking about repressive measures and their results, in 1994 Parliament urged by the executive passed a resolution On Preventive Detention. Several months later thousands had been detained, but the effectiveness ratio was only 15.7%. In other words, only 16 out of every 100 detainees were held for more or less valid reasons. Many of those groundlessly held died in detention. This is not just my fantasizing; I have the facts.

The Day:  Are there arguments to convince our readers that Deputies should not be stripped of their immunity?

L. K.: There are many. One is that it would be impossible for a lawmaker to carry out his duties properly, like voicing his views (even if sometimes wrong) from the Verkhovna Rada tribune, let alone take any more or less principled stand regarding the state. We have already had the situation where someone said "applause" and everyone stood up. Deputies would become absolutely obedient, they would be in the executive's pocket. This means People's Deputies simply cannot be stripped of their immunity. Even the most benevolent regime with the most benevolent desires cannot do it.

The state can only be truly effective when it abides by the law. If it ignores any of the laws it means that it is attempting to get state power, that they are on the road to state power, but that there is no state power the way it is understood elsewhere in the civilized world. In Ukraine we waste so much time precisely because no one actually adheres to the Constitution or other laws. And this is true of both the parliamentary leadership and executive. This is nihilism resulting in chaos in the legal domain. The point is not who wields how much power. State power must rest on the law and people's support. Without any of these components there is no real state power.

The Day:  The President and the rest of the executive are only too well aware of what lies in the offing if they have to step down, that their life afterward will be a far cry from what they have now. Hence their resolve to hold fast to their posts. How would you describe this phenomenon?

L. K.: There are those who want to have a second and even third term of office. We have such examples in other CIS states. There is also a peculiar mentality in some areas: clannish, religious, and spiritual. There is also a feeling that once in office, it's forever. They want to pass on power as an inheritance. And yes, the desire to stay in power is truly irresistible.

Power is a tremendous temptation. They say that when man takes power he sells himself to the Devil. This is really not strange, for people like being shown respect, to have the attributes of power: brass bands and armored stretch limousines. Under such circumstances a person becomes immensely important in his own eyes. He begins to think that it really is like that. Power gives a person tremendous advantages, including material benefits. Others take good care of his body, the best treatment and world's most effective treatment methods and medications are available, so this body can perform the required functions, sometimes even sing and dance, so a person is transformed into an important figure. If you take into consideration the extremely low cultural level of our political elite, all this assumes an absolutely grotesque character.

And of course there's the entourage. In fact, it is considerably more influential than the nominal carrier of all this power. Moreover, a change in power is very dangerous to all these people, because they may well find themselves in the prosecutor's hands afterward. Day in and day out they tell their leader that he must stay in office, otherwise everything will go down the drain, every precious selfless effort wasted, while brainwashing the electorate, saying over and over again: here is the only worthy candidate.

On the other hand, I would not want anyone to develop a frivolous attitude toward the presidency and think that anyone could carry out its functions. I want to assure you of this. It took Leonid Kuchma not less than three years to understand what it is to carry out the functions of the presidency, and sometimes he still doesn't fully understand them.

The Day:  Do you think that Boris Yeltsin did right running for the second term?

L. K.: I think he didn't need to do it. If he hadn't he'd have gone down in history as the man who created the Russian state, despite the cataclysms like Parliament bombardment and the Chechen war, which would eventually be forgotten. Running for President again, knowing he would not be able to take Russia ahead any further, he lost everything. I am afraid that his second term has eliminated his role as President of Russia.

The Day:  What about you? You ran for President again, but maybe deep inside you felt that you did not actually need it?

L. K.: I thought at the time that in the interim the President should be elected for only one term, so that the day after election he didn't become a candidate again. I mean with only one term he would feel free to act as he thought necessary. Otherwise he would think OK, I'll do this but I won't do that, for it could damage my image in the next campaign. And then he would have absolutely no resolution.

The Day:  Then why didn't you prepare a successor? Or maybe you saw Leonid Kuchma as your successor?

L. K.: I thought about it. I still had almost two years. But the elections were held ahead of time.

The Day:  Because of Ivan Pliushch?

L. K.: Yes. But quite frankly, I didn't think Leonid Kuchma would run for President. I didn't consider the possibility while he was Prime Minister, and I'm sure he didn't either. Well, he did, and that was his right.

The Day:  What was the biggest mistake you think you made while in office?
L. K.: I trusted those around me too much. I ought to have to have parted company with most the next day after inauguration.

The Day:  During the last presidential campaign there were posters all over Kyiv with portraits of Kravchuk and Kuchma. The caption under yours read "Words" and under Kuchma's "Deeds." Huge letters and the clear implication that if and when Leonid Kuchma came to power everything would be fine and that, unlike you, he had a solid action program. Now five years later everybody realizes that the situation has become much worse.

L. K.: The situation certainly has got worse, but I always approach the problem not only in the context of names, but also, so to say, within the historical framework. I think that the new President will not change the situation for the better.

The Day:  Do you mean that Ukraine has no choice?

L. K.: We have sunk very deeply into our problems.

The Day:  And who do we owe all this to? Are we to understand that there is no use electing a new President, because our politicians are so incompetent they start learning the job only when they sit in the President's chair? Does this mean we ought to leave in office the person under whose leadership we have sink so deep?

L. K.: You are absolutely right to speak of the responsibility of those in power for our life being so bad. But we have to talk not only about the presidency but of the state as a whole. I don't think we should hold only one person responsible. If the Verkhovna Rada does not work properly, if there are no laws - and we all know this, for during seven years of independence our Parliament has not passed the most important laws - can we hold just one man responsible for all this bedlam in Ukraine (and bedlam is the only word I can think of to describe the current situation)? I say no.

But one also cannot absolve the President of this responsibility, either. Leonid Kuchma is indeed responsible for the situation throughout the country, together with Verkhovna Rada and Cabinet.

The Day: But perhaps the President's responsibility is greater?

L. K.: Of course it is, because he has more power.

The Day: Suppose we approach this problem from the standpoint of an ordinary voter. He votes for the President for five years, and then he sees that over this period the situation has become worse, not better. He says no, this time I'm voting for somebody else. Is he alone to blame? No. He also votes for a certain party in the parliamentary elections and sees how it performs in Parliament. If he doesn't like it he says no, you people haven't lived up to the promises you made during the campaign, so I'm going to vote for a different party. This is the only way the man in the street can influence the situation. Now from what you have just said follows that we must put up with what we have. Everything is bad, but there is nothing we can do to make it any better.

L. K.: No, I certainly don't mean that we should put up with what we have because there is nothing anyone can do. I would never agree with this approach. However, the fact remains that the current lamentable condition of our economy is caused by a number of objective factors. They often ask me how come they managed to carry out reforms in Eastern European countries in a matter of 2-3 years and we are still where we started.

First of all because Ukraine is one of the few former Soviet republics that were of crucial importance to the USSR. I worked under Shcherbytsky and Shelest and both always said that our only goal is working to strengthen the Soviet Union's might. And we did just that. Ukraine operated 1,400 enterprises of the Soviet military-industrial complex and made 35% of all military industrial products that no one needs now. In other words, we have not make good things bad, we have made bad things even worse. That's the main reason for a lot of our problems.

Secondly, we have not completed deciding what our political course should be. The Eastern European countries from the very outset decided on their political and diplomatic strategy, while we are still trying to jump both ways.

Also, I would never say let's just up and change our system of power. I would say let's change this system if I knew that this change would be for the better. Many shouted about changing the system when I was in office. So they did. So what? Has anything changed? Nothing. As one who has gone through all this, with first-hand experience, I cannot support mottoes like Let's Change the Government and Everything Will Be Fine! Remember, they said it was all Kravchuk's fault. Kuchma will come and things will get better. But it didn't work. Let me tell you quite frankly: I am afraid that someone might come and make things even worse, not only economically, but also politically.

For example, I hear from ranking officials that we should join the Interparliamentary Assembly. One would expect to hear things like that from people who know absolutely nothing about politics.

The Day: Mr. Medvedchuk said this also, didn't he?

L. K.: You see, joining any international organization is a purely political matter. Given certain circumstances, this matter becomes especially important for the country in question. So let us decide for ourselves: what are we going to enter? There was the Almaty Statement later nullified by the Minsk Convention. While in Almaty the document was signed by the Speakers, in Minsk it was done by the Presidents. Besides, we are talking not about an interparliamentary but intergovernmental organization. So what are we going to accede to? The Almaty Statement or the Minsk Convention? Two different notions. Also, all member countries of intergovernmental organizations protect their national interests by equal representation and consensus. France is dubious about its CE membership so everybody waits for its referendum. Now the Interparliamentary Assembly's basic instruments have it in black and white: equal representation, unless otherwise determined. Each decision to be put to the vote taking turns, unless otherwise determined. And mind you: Russia orders the music in every case. So why humiliate ourselves? It is the right of every politician to expose his personal dignity to humiliation, but no one has the right to let the whole nation be taken hostage. The Russian Parliament still lays territorial claims to Ukraine, conducts an anti-Semitic policy, and wants the latter to become national policy. Yet our politicians say why hesitate, joining IA is just a political matter.

I am horrified to analyze speeches made by presidential candidates. I am afraid, afraid for Ukraine. What can you say about the Ukrainian Speaker flying to Moscow and acting like a slave? He can't raise himself to the level of normal human dignity. Or when the Russian Speaker visits and some of the Ukrainian legislators applaud and take every word as some kind of call to action.

The state now lives according to the laws of trade. That's the most terrible thing! They bargained over the Speaker's post. It was commerce, not a vote, just ballots put up for sale. Now they are bargaining with the people. They are ready to bargain and vote for anything you like. The representatives of political power have begun to live by the laws of mercantilism, of trade. "You give me your vote and ballot and I'll give you mine." The result is obvious: we have a system of venal offices. The March elections presented the same picture. Parties and officials sought not to be elected but trade. Now if people allow themselves to be sold for 10 hryvnias apiece, what am I supposed to tell them?

The Day: You mentioned bargaining and IA as an example. Are we to understand that Mr. Medvedchuk, leader of SDPU(u) and Deputy Speaker, championing Ukraine's accession to IA, something you object to so fervently, made a deal with the Reds in Parliament and his campaigning is part of that deal?

L. K.: I can say that his public stand is not well-argued. As for his making a deal, I have no such facts. My position is to talk about only what I know about for sure.

The Day: Have you ever told him that you think his stand is not well argued?

L. K.: I have tried to explain my views on the matter.

The Day: Unsuccessfully?

L. K.: Well, everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

The Day: Do you think that those in power are aware of the results of their "work?" Do they realize the pernicious nature of such political bargaining? The results are obvious. Take, for example, that "false mirror of society" in Parliament. This is not just politics but moral impulses transmitted to society. Will they continue to bargain, pushing us farther down into crisis?

L. K.: Yes, they will. A criminal becomes professional after stealing once and getting away with it. This is what I have in mind when I say that those in power are trading in offices. Everything can be bought for money: switching from one faction to the next, getting posts. When everything in the state is for sale, when elections are turned into a farce, then the most negative things become possible. The master of a house is only someone who works on that house, for his family. When he starts taking things away from his house it means the end of everything.

The Day: Here you mentioned the moral impulses the state fosters in society. Take this problem: power and the intelligentsia, power and culture. I am strongly convinced that there is no interaction here. I cannot think of a single case where the state has done anything to enrich the national cultural heritage.

L. K.: You tell me what kind of influence the state has on people when the government-run UT-1 channel propagates lesbianism and homosexuality? I have visited many countries and I know that sexual minority problems exist. They are reflected by television and other media, but as a problem of equal rights for people identifying themselves with these minorities. I watched UT-1 on January 2 and the way they did it the whole thing looked almost like something superior in the development of society, like some superior spirituality. In fact, this has become standard practice on television, and our screens are full of sexual problems. I consider this a tactic aimed at moral debasement of our youth and our nation. I telephoned someone in the Cabinet, asking if they watched that program. They said no. I told them and spoke my mind. They said I was perfectly right. That same week I saw they were playing a rerun, supposedly in response to numerous viewer requests. So who really cares for the nation's culture, language, tradition? No one.

The Day: To continue the problem you have just touched upon, power and culture, let's move on to power and the people, the state's responsibility to the people. During the 1991 referendum most people voted for independence. Of course, at the time contacts between Ukraine and Russia were much stronger than now. You were in power. People trusted and followed you. Now the Communists say we should join IA and claim that in case of referendum most would want to reunite with Russia. In other words, there was one President and we got independence. Now we have another President whose rule could well result in the loss of this independence.

L. K.: People live their everyday lives not according to ideas of some kind of grand geopolitics. They just want to see how to live today. I often meet with people and they say they can't feed their families. They are not paid pensions and wages. They say they are not living but just surviving. This is the main reason for their disillusionment. The Communists play on this when they call for a return to the past. But they have no right to deceive the people; it won't get any better.

The Day: If the people lived better it would be hard to fool them, wouldn't it?

L. K.: Those in power are to blame for failing to make life any better in Ukraine. We are not following the road we chose during the 1991 referendum. We are just marking time, without going forward or backward.

The Day: In other words, is the main result of Leonid Kuchma's efforts as President paving the way for Communist revenge and restoration of the USSR. If so, how can one discuss the man's candidacy as an alternative to the Communists?

L. K.: The alternative is that he is against the Communists.

The Day: Verbally. But don't you think that the social basis of people's attitudes preparing them to follow the Communists was prepared during his presidency?

L. K.: You may have a point there, but he can't be blamed for doing it on purpose. And that's important.

The Day: What role does chance play in a person reaching the political summit?

L. K.: Considering today's cadre reshuffling, coincidence and subjective factors play an important role. However, there is a certain determinant: one has to be prepared to carry out certain duties. If one is not prepared, things will happen and he'll simply burn up.

The Day: The Communist Party of Ukraine was banned and then suddenly it transpired that no one had banned it and that it had a lot of sympathizers. Moreover, we appear to be electing people from among the Communists, don't we?

L. K.: That's right.

The Day: It follows that power these days does not belong to the democrats but to those ranking Communists who were quick on the uptake. By the same token the model of the next campaign, Kuchma vs. Communists, is none other than a contest between Communists who kept their noses to the wind and turned democrats just in time, and lower-ranking Communists who were not that smart. What do you think?

L. K.: Well, your logical assumption cannot be denied a certain rationality.

The Day: But why could the Communist Party not be banned once and for all?

L. K.: At the time we followed in Russia's footsteps. I was surprised (and told Yeltsin so) to learn that they had acquitted the party and allowed them to resume their activity. And so Ukraine, after banning CPU, had to follow suit, otherwise we would not be able to keep the situation under control. Besides, one must not forget about all that great many people still believing in the Communist ideals. Finally, back in 1991 it was physically impossible to dismiss all Communists from their administrative posts. Most people had always had Lenin poking his beard at them from countless portraits, telling them how to live. And the political elite was all party-affiliated. Most of these people are today's political functionaries who brought their teams with them. All thoroughly brainwashed, rooted in party ideology, party approaches, and party life. This is still a very difficult problem for Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.

The Day: Talking about Belarus. Do you maintain contacts with Shushkevich and how do you assess the situation in that country?

L. K.: I saw him last about four months ago. He came with a group of Belarusian legislators. He told me a lot about what was happening in Belarus. I think that what has become of its democracy and law is a real tragedy. Suffice it to remember that Starodubtsev, 75, chairman of a collective farm, twice Hero of Socialist Labor, is still in prison. That's what I call disaster. All the way back to totalitarianism.

The Day: Was there anything Shushkevich could have done to prevent such a course of events?

L. K.: The man is a real democrat, but there was nothing he could do, because he had no majority in Parliament. While the democratic process was still underway Shushkevich had a lot of support among the people. Then came the transition period with its problems and he was made scapegoat. Belarus was the last to decide on presidential elections. They did not want a presidency at first, but the local Communists pushed through the bill and eventually put Lukashenka in office.

The Day: Would you say that even in the USSR, when under Masherov, First Secretary of the Communist Party of Belarus, there was more democracy than under "Father of the People" Lukashenka?

L. K.: Under the Soviets everything was controlled by Moscow and that control was so rigid and everything was followed so closely that no local functionary would have been allowed such unlimited authority as is currently vested in Lukashenka. There is no Moscow control and no one to control him in Belarus.

The Day: Except maybe IMF.

L. K.: Well, maybe. But now there is this man occupying the highest position in the state, and he can do whatever he pleases, rather than what he should do under law. For him the law is what he wants to do. That's the tragedy and that's the crux of the matter. Not one bit of responsibility before man or God.

The Day: Almost a year ago, when joining SDPU(u), you said that you would be in opposition until a Social Democrat became President, and that the Social Democrats saw their task in nominating a candidate in the next presidential campaign. Have you changed your views?

L. K.: No, I haven't.

The Day: Then what do you think of the government-run media reports about the December SDPU(u) convention and its main result being allegedly that the party would support Kuchma?

L. K.: I did not attend the convention because I was ill, but I read all the minutes and speeches. The main emphasis was not on backing Kuchma, but on supporting a political course aimed at strengthening the Ukrainian state, its independence, democracy, and reform. We will support whoever is capable of maintaining this course.

The Day: And then you joined Zlahoda (Accord, a pro-presidential political alliance - Ed.)?

L. K.: Zlahoda was my idea.

The Day: The form or the essence?

L. K.: The essence. Back in 1991 I was aware of the confrontation between the western and eastern regions and even
then I said they had to come to terms, for accord was what society needed above all.

The Day: But today one gets the impression that Western and Eastern Ukraine are rallying against official Kyiv. We visited Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk not so long ago. You know what they say? "It's your power over there." In Donetsk we heard the same from coal miners, although in much stronger words: "Your so-and-so Kyiv power!" So people have apparently come to terms in their own way.

L. K.: I hope to God you are right. For my part, visiting the Crimea, Lviv, and other areas I still feel that some part of the people is hostile toward the other. Well, maybe something has finally changed, maybe some sort of unification has taken place in the central government. You see, power is not the main problem. The main problem is the nation's ability to defend its interests, so the nation must elect people to power who can do just that. That's all. That's the key idea.

The Day: But now the state itself has become the main problem. When moral authority has become distorted and people see the state as being better than bandits, when law enforcement ministers sit at the same table with those who ought to be sitting in prison, such accord seems directed against the interests of the nation itself.

L. K.: Zlahoda to me does not mean living in accord with those in power. It does not mean that its members must love their government. When I say we need understanding and accord, I mean that our people must be true masters of their land; they must be aware of their being a nation regardless of ethnic origin, and that their number one task is reorganizing, improving Ukraine. Those who think that my being on Zlahoda's presidium means that I suddenly fell in love with our top officials could not be farther from the truth. Not on your life! It is not our attitude to all those in high offices that must change. Those in power must  change theirs and do so in a way that will satisfy our demands.

The Day: There are two aphorisms ascribed to you that are generally known. One was "slipping between raindrops." At the initial stage of your presidency these words designated a tactic of tolerance and genuine democracy. All things considered, you succeeded in a carrying out bloodless transformations in Ukraine, preventing political extremism and the splitting of Ukrainian society. It was a very serious accomplishment and it is still to be properly evaluated.

There is a tangible linkage between the first aphorism and the second one, "We have what we have," which is often quoted in many other CIS states. After you stepped down as President many expected from you an honest appraisal of radicalism. As the first President of independent Ukraine, you had every right to assess the moral aspect of those currently in power, but you never did. Not even now that most people live such that things could not be worse. Especially considering that most people refuse to doubt, even for a moment, that the new President will change the situation for the better.

Of course, one can try to blame today's critical economic condition on the USSR, but how can one explain the efforts the powers that be are exerting to build their own fortunes? Don't you feel like speaking your mind as not just another politician, but as the first President?

L. K.: Yes I do. In fact, I do speak about these problems. I do it at party conventions and when meeting with people. I say that those in power are not doing their duty. They act contrary to the basic rules of laws. And the difference between my statements and others on the subject is that I refrain from using expletives.

The Day: Have you ever felt like becoming the moral banner, moral authority of civilized opposition, just because you were at the cradle of an independent national Ukrainian state?

L. K.: Let's start with why I did not make public my attitude toward the new government. If the new President were a Communist and the Cabinet turned red, I would instantly declare myself in opposition. Believe me, I would have no fear of doing that. But Leonid Kuchma is not a Communist. So opposition to whom? Opposition can be only against those in power. There can be no other opposition.

The Day: Let's be precise: opposition to the executive. Regrettably, many, the President included, do not seem to understand that opposition is directed precisely against the executive branch. There can be no opposition to Parliament.

L. K.: Precisely. Thus, being in opposition, the Communists stand against the executive, as are the Socialists, and Hromada. And Kravchuk is also supposed to be opposed to the executive, is that it?

The Day: Yes, but at the start you could have a democratic opposition rallied round you in Parliament as a tribune of the people.

L. K.: There is something I'd like you to understand. As soon as I would declare my opposition to the executive they would brand me as a Communist and say see, he is back to his role as Central Committee Second Secretary.

The Day: Maybe you were scared that not only your bodyguard would have to serve two years, but you, too (God forbid!), would face prison sentence if you dared say what you really think about the performance of all those in high offices?

L. K.: No, I was sure that they would not do that. There is a difference between a bodyguard and President. Please try to understand my position. I was elected to Parliament from Ternopil oblast. I collected 92% of the votes. Yet I would not have passed muster had it not been for Oleksandr Moroz and his stand. Guess who passed judgment? The Communists. You call this normal?

The Day: Perhaps this was normal from the Communist standpoint.

L. K.: They are in pitched opposition to the executive. They hail buckets of dirt at me in their newspapers, calling me their number one enemy, then suddenly here I am saying I'm also in opposition. I took the floor when we debated the bill On Power and said that the problem could not be solved by delegating more or less power, and that the President should think about the Constitution, not the law on power. The Communists applauded and it was very symptomatic. I banned the Communist Party and this was a mortal sin, condemning me and my history.

The Day: You know, there is a kind of logic based on the principle "Everybody does it." People following this logic are asked, "If everybody starts jumping off the roof will you do the same?" You seem to be following this logic.

L. K.: What do you mean?

The Day: You shy away from bad company.

L. K.: That's right. I want nothing to do with the Communists.

The Day: There are different types of opposition.

L. K.: At the time there was only a Left and a Right opposition. The only choice I had was join Rukh or the Communists.

The Day: Rukh can hardly be described as a Right opposition.

L. K.: They are the way they are and we all know this. Looking back, perhaps you are right about that tribune of the people opportunity. At the time it was the only acceptable stand I could take in opposition. But what is one man in opposition?

The Day: A man of your caliber would mean a lot.

L. K.: I know I could have taken a sharper stand toward the executive. I might have changed something. Maybe I did wrong, but I thought if I could establish a constructive relationship with the executive and make suggestions (and I did on more occasions than I can remember). I thought they would listen to me. They didn't.

The Day: This should probably be regarded as a principal inference by all those saying they want to work not for the executive but for the good of the state. This would be the correct attitude provided the ruling ideology and its principles stipulate the interests of the people and state in the first place. However, given current serious deviations, one ought to take a more principled stand and act like the wolf as a valuable predator in the food chain.

L. K.: There was another question I faced then. There are things those in power can do and things they can't. That's one approach. Another approach is trying to ruin this regime, but will this be for the people's benefit? And will this serve to improve the power structure?

The Day: All right, but will the state benefit from all non-Communists having actually surrendered the opposition idea to the Left? Now that those in power are, in fact, implementing the Leftist action program? Considering that the government has practically done nothing in terms of reform and has discredited the very idea of reform?

L. K.: I agree that we made a mistake. We ought to have built a constructive opposition. At the time I thought that if I added my effort to the opposition (which was by and large neither constructive nor uncivilized) I would stand in the way of state rather than help it take the right path.

The Day: It could be added that we all still have a chance to correct our mistakes.

L. K.: Absolutely correct.

The Day: Using your aphorism, we may have to slip between the raindrops of ineffective government and the threat of Communist revenge in the next election campaign.

L. K.: Yes. And Communist revenge is a real threat precisely because the authorities are ineffective. Communist revenge cannot come out of the blue. It is true that our government has created the prerequisites. The question is what is to be done? The Right is not strong enough. They cannot unite. We are faced with the problem of radical changes in the power structure, and the Left is just waiting for the chance.

The Day: So what's the alternative? Let this regime continue for another five years, so that next time the Communists are sure to win?

L. K.: We can say that mistakes have been made, but the fact of the Left threat remains. What do we do now?

The Day: The least we could do under the circumstances would be not to allow the protest vote being taken by the Communists. You can't say that we've had reforms.

L. K.: You're right, especially in the mass media. They keep talking reform, reform, and nothing happens.

The Day: "Only a blind man cannot see the economic changes that have taken place in this country." This is what our President Kuchma said.

L. K.: Well, I'd like you to understand that the President - how shall I put it? (Laughs.)
Personally, I am strongly aware of my responsibility for everything I do (maybe I am oversensitive in this respect), so much so that I am afraid to take certain steps as they could damage Ukraine. I am haunted by this fear.

The Day: Aren't you afraid that Premier Pustovoitenko will try to use Kravchuk in Zlahoda? This may sound cynical but we all heard him declare that he will do his utmost to help Leonid Kuchma win the campaign.

L. K.: How could he possibly do it?

The Day: Simply by using the name of the first President of Ukraine.

L. K.: You know, when someone says he'll do something it does not at all mean that he'll do it. Let me tell you this: I can't thing of a single instance when our politicians did everything precisely the way they said they would. It's their mentality.