Mudslinging  or Arguments: Which is Society Ready to Accept?

The Day has invited representatives of various political parties and scholars to try to answer the following questions: Will the current quality of society's political culture allow it to make a conscious choice in October this year? Shall we drown in the tide of political invectives and compromising materials? What shall we expect from those in power, who have already conducted a "reconnaissance in force" on Lazarenko? What is in this case the role of the media? We offer our readers the opinions of the participants of a round table held recently at The Day which discussed these key points of the current political year.

OCTOBER 1999: MASS INSANITY OR CONSCIOUS CHOICE?

  Larysa IVSHYNA, The Day:
"Has the time come to speak the language of arguments during election campaigns and discussions? Has society shifted toward a line when it is divided by barricades and only recognizes such arguments as a brick or weapons, or shall we hear any new ideas? Will the arguments be accepted, is there anyone to hear to them? And if we are talking of Roosevelt and de Gaulle, are we able now to understand a person of this magnitude and this argumentation? What does it depend on, what should experts and the media do, how should the candidates organize their campaigns, what do representatives of different political forces think about this?"

Yosyp VINSKY, People's Deputy, Socialist Party of Ukraine:

"In a society thoroughly permeated with deceit, arguments cannot work. There will be both arguments and compromising materials thinned out with arguments for effect. The opposition will, of course, prefer arguments. What will the regime defend itself with under the current collapse in the country? With lies. And if lies do not work, with a brute force. These are, to my mind, the two tendencies of this political year.

"As to the compromising materials, Pavlo Lazarenko is a glaring example. I am not defending anyone, but he hasn't been Premier for a year and a half. Over this period, an estimated 30 billion cubic meters of gas have been stolen under society's very eyes. 24 Verkhhovna Rada fact-finding commissions have presented arguments to take legal action against specific persons. They are at large, but Mr. Lazarenko on everyone's lips because somebody needs this. In other words, compromising material is a mixture of the truth and lies coming up at the place and moment needed."

Larysa IVSHYNA:

"There is a nuance here: those in power also say there will be an exchange of compromising materials, and they thus defend themselves from the truth they might otherwise have to face. Hence, from the viewpoint of the accuser, this is a compromising material, but society needs true information; these are absolute facts nobody reacts to. I wonder what experts think about the adequacy of compromising materials. Was it a classical situation to use them in the parliamentary elections?"

Heorhy POCHEPTSOV, professor,head of the section on international communications and public relations at the Institute of International Relations, Kyiv Taras Shevchenko National University:

"From the standpoint of world experience, there is nothing wrong in compromising materials. As a rule, a Western election campaign contains 50% negative information. This is natural. What worries me personally is not compromising materials but the fact that we do not have any other ways of expressing legitimate negativism but in elections. Negative information is a good thing. A society only needs ways to air it, otherwise this may lead to a colossal accumulation of negative tension - as happened in Ceausescu's Romania, when authorities refused to accept a list of demands. From this angle, compromising materials are even good in psychological terms: they give vent to negative emotions in mass consciousness.

"We lived so long in a society of positive information. We have a very strong past and a very weak future. And this future governs us very weakly, while in the past our system of governance was 'good,' that is, hierarchic and understandable."

  Mykhailo MISHCHENKO, Candidate of Sociology, Ukrainian Institute of Sociology:

"Model conflicts and the usage of compromising materials is here an instrument of political survival. An example of model overt conflict in Ukrainian politics might be the issue of joining the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly. This issues, whatever representatives of various political forces say, decides nothing per se. But the conflict over it creates an illusion of political action. So does compromising material: the flow of it disguises the absence of positive actions and any vision of prospects for societal development. The conflict between Left and Right reflects a particular political mentality of our compatriots."

Larysa IVSHYNA:

"Do you think we really have a conflict between Left and Right?"

Mykhailo MISHCHENKO:

"Since there are advocates of both Left and Right ideologies, this conflict does exist. On the other hand, participants in the Ukrainian political process often see no other way of ideological interaction than conflict."

Yosyp VINSKY:

"There is so much confusion in the notions of Left and Right in this country. I believe what we have is a party of power, not Right-wing parties. It pursues a Right-wing conservative policy which has not yet jelled organizationally."

Volodymyr ZOLOTARIOV, The Day:

"Those in power pursue a Left-wing policy..."

Yosyp VINSKY:

"What are you talking about? What about liberalized prices and privatization?"

Volodymyr ZOLOTARIOV:

"Formally, there is privatization, but there is no owner. Prices are also subject to strict control, but this time by different mechanisms. The Left-Right spectrum is inapplicable in this country because of the lack of a civil society, while the policies pursued by the authorities are undoubtedly Left-wing. As to the topic of arguments or compromising materials, I think it is much more important to speak today about arguments and non-arguments. The parliamentary elections showed that society is not prepared to accept arguments. The success of the Greens, in fact an anti-party that made its way to Parliament thanks to purely emotional reactions, is very indicative here."

Mykhailo POZHYVANOV, member of the executive committee, Reforms and Order Party:

"A group of Reforms and Order members spent two weeks in Washington by invitation of the National Democratic Institute. They had a rather interesting meeting with political scientist Anders  ыAslund at the Carnegie Endowment, where he gave nothing but a brilliant assessment of the state's condition today.

"'Today's Ukraine,' said Mr.  ыAslund, 'is a limited-liability company owned by as few as four clans: Rabinovych - Volkov, Bakai - Holubchenko, Surkis - Medvedchuk, and the successors of Alik the Greek. This is a society without any development. We, Americans, have made Kuchma a reformer and now don't know what to do with him. For, after proclaiming in 1994 certain reform theses, he in practice did not make even a single reform step and has remained a criminal-Left president.'"

Larysa IVSHYNA:

"I would like to get back to the problem of the system of coordinates. We travel all over the world and see the way political parties and Parliament ought to be. But seven years have already passed, and we seem to have come unstuck. Our Parliament should have been structured during the last elections, but this did not happen, so Parliament has not become a mirror reflection of processes and sentiments taking place in society."

Oleksandr RIABCHENKO, People's Deputy, faction of the Green Party of Ukraine:

"Structuring did take place, but it may be not how we wanted it. Somebody may have hoped the structuring of Parliament would change things for the better, provide new chances, and, finally, save Parliament itself. But it didn't produce any results. I think it was a somewhat coerced, sometimes even criminal, structuralization. But this is typical of our state now."

Yosyp VINSKY:

"The parliament of previous convocation made a major step toward proportional representation. But the President did not allow taking this step to the end. An inadequate proportional/first-past-the-post system of elections was programmed for an inadequate result. And the alternative - societal structuring based either on political parties or on criminal clans - is still urgent.

"Besides, society proved unprepared to vote by party lists. There were many instances of paradoxical voting in the same constituencies for proportional and district candidates. Today Parliament has brought into play the machinery of shadow structuralization. What we see is the strangling of political pluralism on the basis of party system and the reinforcement of shadow influence on Verkhovna Rada by way of faction splitting. It even comes to the backstage adoption and falsification of already adopted decisions. In essence, Parliament is turning from an institution of democracy into a beachhead for shadow groups. By all accounts, we must moot a re-election of Verkhovna Rada. Otherwise, in a one-and-a-half or two-years' time the country will have all conditions for purely criminal rule."

Larysa IVSHYNA:

"But the parliamentary leadership is concentrated in the hands of the Left: the first Vice-Speaker is a Communist, and the Speaker is Mr. Tkachenko."

Yosyp VINSKY:

"He is undoubtedly responsible for these processes. Everything started with splitting the united Socialist-Agrarian faction, then came hearings in the Constitutional Court, then other factions began to split. The Verkhovna Rada Speaker, of course, bears personal responsibility for this."

  Yevhen HOLOVAKHA, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences:

"About compromising materials: any politician, even in well-developed democracies, passes through this Judgment Day. For democratic election systems, the 'exchange' of arguments and compromising materials is a totally natural process which knocks out the weak and holds back the strong. But we have a somewhat different situation. Firstly, this 'exchange' is uneven: the authorities have more opportunities primarily due to their control over law-enforcement bodies.

"The opposition, on its part, as a rule relies on emotions. But, as a result, both lose out in the eyes of the public opinion. 'Our' compromising materials have a boomerang effect. The point is people do not trust the authorities now. This is why even objective information about concrete political personalities is accepted with mistrust. As an example, let's remember a well-known Kyiv entrepreneur with an odd political image. If the authorities had not harassed him, he would have hardly made it into Parliament. The compromising materials had a boomerang effect. The opposition, while emotionally criticizing those in power, also negatively affect society's psychological setting. People also try not to accept negative information. As a result, the opposition is looked upon as 'the same guys who still want to grab power.' The prevailing reaction of public opinion to politicians - both in opposition and in power - is negative: 'Tarred with the same brush...' Accordingly, mass political consciousness knows two basic types of voting: traditional voting and negativism, i.e., voting 'against' rather than 'for'. Traditional voting exists in a lot of countries. But while in the developed election systems it is based on a rational choice - the elector reflects: 'The Left in power will give fringe benefits, the Right will give economic freedom,' while in this country tradition means the Communists.

"In addition, why are ineffectual authorities being constantly reproduced? Precisely because of traditionalist and negativist choices: 'They have already lined their pockets,' reasons the voter, 'if others come, they will pocket the very last crumbs. We are eking out an existence under these guys, but what will happen if those come? Maybe, they'll kill us once and for all.' On the other hand, who do we elect? There is no Left-Right conflict in Ukrainian mass political consciousness. What we have is like in Moscow NTV's Puppets 'There's an ice-floe, with Left ones: the outside Left, the inside Left, and a general picking at the floe from outside.' There are our Communists, who have not at all understood the horrors of the past, and those called Right who constantly talk about enhanced social security of the population. This is our 'spectrum.' If we want this country develop a rational, not traditional and negativist, choice, politicians themselves must seek and suggest new systems of argumentation. This is their professional duty. The electorate's business is to assess these arguments. Look what kind of lull is now reigning in this country in this sense, a country with a decisive election six months away! Where are the arguments?

"Now on the so-called Mafia: all public opinion polls show the population is convinced the country is run by the Mafia. But in reality things are much more complex: we must draw a line between the fighting of Mafia-type groupings and the flow of rational processes. And if politicians, instead of showing the voters forms of political and economic life other than totalitarianism and the Mafia, keep on reproducing a negative mass political consciousness, the people will make a traditionalist choice - totalitarianism. They will simply vote for the Communists who always have a program. I would like to caution against this. I am sure competition between several political groupings is still better than totalitarianism."

Yosyp VINSKY:

"I absolutely disagree that the opposition criticizes the regime using only emotions. The Ukraine Palace, the Black Sea Shipping Company, Khreshchatyk, arms trade, 30 billion cubic meters of stolen gas, wage and pension arrears - are these not facts? In a law governed state, the President would have resigned over any of these facts."

Yevhen HOLOVAKHA:

"These would have become facts had they been proved in court provided there were an independent judiciary."

  Roman ZINCHENKO, Reforms and Order Party:

"We have no culture of dialogue nor culture of conflict. Compromising materials in the Ukrainian conditions make it impossible to answer arguments. This is precisely the reason why they work here. The culture of conflict is not embedded in our political culture: participants in the political struggle do not speak to each other; they shout for effect with their backs to the opponent and his arguments."

  Mykhailo POZHYVANOV:

"I tested on myself the efficacy of compromising materials. What was being hurled at me before the parliamentary elections on March 26, 27, and 28 were not arguments but mudslinging. All I could do was to go on the air from a local TV station and say: 'My dears, I've got ten minutes now, please believe all this is not true...' Law-enforcement bodies were also involved: a newspaper published an interview with the Donetsk oblast procurator.

"That interview was reprinted by other regional newspapers with a total press run of about 700,000 copies. Those newspapers were being handed out free. The mud worked: the results of public opinion polls on March 24 were diametrically opposed to those of the elections. Public opinion was reversed.

"Incidentally, about responsibility. Three months later, the same person literally said the following in a Kyiv newspaper: 'No, I didn't try to blame Pozhyvanov for anything. Why was the press so biased to shift everything at Poshyvanov's door, naming his names - it isn't fair, after all. My words may sometimes have been too emotional. Maybe. I offer my apologies for this.' This means he apologized three months later, and I was told in court: 'Look, he apologized, after all.' I am only too well aware such things will be used during the presidential campaign. In 99 out of 100 cases, it is the current authorities that will be doing it, using all their available resources."

Oleksandr RIABCHENKO:

"The last parliamentary elections showed an example of a compromising material with an unclear source of origin: the regime or the candidate himself. In a constituency next to mine, the candidate was approached by armed, masked, and camouflaged thugs who had come on armored personnel carriers. They came to collect documents from the collective farm office. They faced a crowd of about two hundred women. By the way, the candidate visited by the camouflaged boys with automatic rifles polled 40% of the vote. Nobody else got more in Dnipropetrovsk. True, after the armored personnel carriers dropped by, a trip to Dnipropetrovsk was made from the collective farm. It was the time when the city was visited by the presidents of Ukraine and Tajikistan. Moreover, although it was in winter, it was possible to find about three hundred units of serviceable and fueled equipment, and there was not a single mishap during the raid. I don't know who was behind all this. But it is obvious you can win an election if you know how to turn to good account the mudslung aimed at you. We may see something of the kind during the presidential campaign."

THE MASS MEDIA: ONE-WAY STREET OR INFORMATION?

Larysa IVSHYNA:

"Now I suggest we discuss the role of the media. Journalists may be able, irrespective of their political attitudes, to influence the information field, the more so the latter is not foundering on intellectual production in this country.

  Heorhy POCHEPTSOV:

"I think we exaggerate media clout. I don't even mean the constant power-outages which keep our citizens from watching TV. With a 50-million population, print media press runs have now fallen to the minimum, and newspapers have ever-decreasing influence. What is more, each of them enjoys its own specific readership. The Day also has a specific readership. I know from my own experience: when I get published in the newspaper Fakty, everybody will read me there and then tell others that he read..."

Larysa IVSHYNA:

"Mr. Pocheptsov, of course, there have to be newspapers for various tastes. In principle, we are not going to exaggerate our importance. All we have to do is attend to our own business.

"We do not now have a popular newspaper like The New York Times. And not because the quality is so poor but because who can afford to read newspapers like this? What will they do with their great minds afterwards? Where will they use this information?

"Our problem and the fault of our analysts, experts, and the elite is that the latter is so scornful of the people it has to conquer. And this mortal sin will then tell in the presidential elections, the way it did last year in the parliamentary elections.

"Of course, where one publishes is one's own business, but it seems to me that there has to be a certain delicacy in terms of politics and world view. I am absolutely convinced of this."

Yosyp VINSKY:

"The role of the mass media in shaping political culture is tremendous. Television is now an empire of lies by force of the total control it is subjected to. The only ray of hope among the media are newspapers, for they belong to different owners. It is today the only channel through which alternative viewpoints may be aired. As to the formation of political culture, the Ukrainian media are now simultaneously hostages, manipulators, and providers of information."

Natalia LIHACHOVA, The Day:

"The current Ukrainian authorities are keenly interested in having a dependent and ineffectual press. This interest is being realized by economic means, such as blocking the free flow of capital, on the one hand, and on the other, by all kinds of ideological suppression of any attempts to express opposition viewpoints on newspaper pages and especially on TV screens. The fate of the Fifth Angle program is a vivid example. Many journalists have to balance between objectivity and the opinion of the viewer number one. Of course, much depends on the professional level of the journalists. It is harder to dictate conditions to a highly-skilled professional, for he/she simply has a broader choice of newspapers or TV channels."

Larysa IVSHYNA:

"The figure of silence has become a weapon in the information space. For journalism has a rule: facts are indisputable, comments are arbitrary. But we don't have this. Whole sectors and people fall out if they are especially dangerous for the authorities. Who do we see on UT-1? Those who are only considered political adversaries. All others are absent. Thus, if we manage to create some centers of gravity around the newspapers - for intellectuals or simply people who are not indifferent - this will also become a fact of political life. I would like us to appreciate this and suggest to each other more possible options of involvement in such processes.

"Let us recall the role played by the Russian media in managing the crisis after August 17. They presented everything: Ziuganov and Ilukhin were always on TV. So society got used to the thought: yes, they are people with strange views, but they are here, and we have to try to come to terms with them, we must learn to coexist in one state. I think the idea of social reconciliation and political concord over our historical past is extremely promising. And this is where new arguments might come from."

  Oleksandr RIABCHENKO:

"I think those in power should be interested themselves in having an independent media. Political life is not motionless. The Lazarenko affair, by no means the last in the history of Ukraine, is going on. Political life change very fast, and many will soon find themselves out of power. Tomorrow they will be declared state criminals and promptly arrested. For our society does not respect the former authorities. On the contrary, I think it will cultivate resentment of the latter. And if not this, then the next regime will understand that it needs an independent press as protection when out of office."

Larysa IVSHYNA:

"We have practically no good analytical programs, but there are good international programs coming up. We already know how to fish out useful information. For example, on Somalia. This is a very good and favorable information that shows what may happen to us if there is no constructive action."

BRIEF SUMMING UP

Heorhy POCHEPTSOV:

"Ours is a country of incomplete actions. This is a colossal burden to hang on a person. We are in a situation that introduces us into a state of certain psychological and political shock. All human actions yield no results, which contribute to the accumulation of negative tension."

Mykhailo MISHCHENKO:

"The media and public opinion are mutually dependent. The media may be closed here only to the extent the public opinion allows it. Otherwise, the situation would resemble the one in neighboring Belarus. So we may say we have the media we deserve."

Yevhen HOLOVAKHA:

"It is no accident that all the our discussion pivot around the state. By force of tradition, we still live in a state, not a society. And the main opponent still is the civil servant whom we either hate or fear, but not a sociopolitical opponent.

"As to the media, I am rather an optimist: we have several serious opposition newspapers which also perform educational functions. On the other hand, civic consciousness, including that of journalists, is being formed very slowly, as is out political culture as a whole. Moreover, the latter has even degraded in the past few years: from declarative democratic to declarative Communist. I think we will still spend a long time in the wilderness."

Yosyp VINSKY:

"I am convinced all negative tendencies in political culture and the media stem from the current Ukrainian authorities. Only after lawfully removing them shall we retain chances of remaining a European state. If we elect the current President for another term, the comparison of Ukraine with Somalia or Latin America will be quite apt. Today we are facing a choice: either to stay in Europe, with a greater or lesser share of socialism (a debatable point), or decline to the level of the underdeveloped states. I think we may unite various political forces and the responsible part of intellectuals on the basis of a crucial choice in this situation."

Valentyn PUSTOVOIT, The Day:

"A question was asked here why the authorities treat the free press as they do. An unhealthy state does not need free press. It needs the press as a distorted mirror showing irresponsibility and ugliness as noble and beautiful. As to understanding that the free press is the only thing that can protect those in power when they are no longer in power, this requires a certain level of culture not yet achieved in this country.

"In general, the level of political culture of our authorities may tell in most negative terms on the political life of Ukraine in this election year. Wielding a high degree of control over the most penetrating - electronic - media, the executive could be tempted to achieve a situation like in a well-known joke: all around are filthy but he alone is all in white. But, unlike in the joke, the consequences of this approach will be sad. For the pre-election political struggle, during which society is offered a choice between different models of further development in the shape of the programs of various candidates, is being replaced by mud-slinging where the winner is the one who has more means with which to sling it. In this case the choice itself is also being substituted: what is chosen is not the best of the offered but the lesser of evils. In our situation it is quite easy to predict which candidate will be all in white while all the others will be filthy."

Larysa IVSHYNA:

"In a normal society, compromising materials give a certain shot of political adrenaline in the arm. This may be not so bad, but only if opponents can respond. And we are most likely to have a one-way street, i.e., total brainwashing on all the TV channels. And will any of those compromised have a legitimate opportunity to demand a live slot of the same size? Incidentally, the relevant parliamentary committee is controlled by the Left. Yes, we can speak and write about this, but the idea of fair elections needs legislative safeguarding by Parliament.