Road that leads nowhere

Spin doctors appear to be the only winners of last Saturday’s pro-government and opposition rallies. The political parties in Ukraine are so absorbed in engineering political events, with an eye to the presidential race, they are losing their sense of reality and limits.

What conclusions can one make from these rallies? Number one, the opposition continues in the same vein, often making a lot of noise but failing to get actual results. Hardly anyone had expected the opposition to come up with a single presidential candidate, yet proclaiming a candidate mayor of Kyiv would demonstrate that Batkivshchyna, UDAR and Svoboda mean business. This never happened. The opposition continues to fail to learn from its own mistakes. Candidates apart, the opposition should have considered the fact that the so-called antifascist rally could become a very dangerous spin-doctoring technique in Ukraine. They shouldn’t have borrowed their opponents’ rhetoric and accused them of “fascism.”

The “antifascist” rally is conclusion number two. The president delivered a proper and pertinent speech on Victory Day, stressing two key points: Ukraine’s contribution to the victorious end of WW II and the necessity of reconciliation. Later, however, the head of state must have seen on his desk another action plan, by different authors, that proposed to launch an “antifascist” campaign. This plan is a road that leads nowhere. Back in 2004, an attempt was made to divide this country into various kinds of Ukraine. The Regionnaires’ campaign, along with all those “antifascist” slogans and statements, will only marginalize their electorate. Natalia Vitrenko tried it. Where is her Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine now?

The loud discordant note struck by the president mentioning two totalitarian systems – Nazism and Stalinism – in his speech and the portrait of Stalin displayed during the “antifascist” rally should be studied by Regionnaire analysts.

“I wouldn’t associate all events in Ukraine with the president’s name. To begin with, we have a ramified party system and these parties also think about their stand and their electorate, so they plan such events accordingly. Therefore, I’d rather describe what happened as an initiative on the part of the opposition and the Party of Regions,” says Regionnaire Volodymyr Zubanov.

In that case Viktor Yanukovych appears to have tried to position himself separately from the Regionnaires as head of state, not just the PoR leader. This may result in Yanukovych distancing himself from his party’s actions.

Questions, of course, could be asked of Svoboda. There is reason enough, including Ms. Farion’s call for war during the opposition rally. Another reason for the Regionnaires to struggle on. The whole thing looks like a training bout, with Svoboda acting as a sparring partner of those in power. Says political analyst Vadym Karasiov: “Many of those who took the floor played into the presidential spin doctors’ hands, with Tiahnybok vs. incumbent president in the second round; a national socialist and radical vs. the current head of state, a pragmatist and centrist who signed the Association Agreement with the EU and who epitomizes progressive forces in Ukraine. People will be scared to hear what some opposition members will have to say. They will have to choose the lesser evil. Considering the media and spin doctor resources of those in power, supporting any candidate who makes it to the second round will be risky.”

Regionnaire Serhii Tihipko’s speech during the rally was also informative. He complained that MPs are not allowed to address the Ukrainian parliament in Russian, whereas “anyone can speak one’s native language in a European parliament.” He stressed that the “threat of fascism in Ukraine” is common knowledge and that the Party of Regions is the only one capable of countering it. So there are still problems with languages in Ukraine, even after fighting over and passing the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko bill!

The Regionnaire and opposition militant rhetoric cannot but affect Ukraine’s reputation. Nor was it helped any by the brawl between Svoboda men and hired “athletes” – something many had predicted. Provocative acts, wherever they came from, served their purpose. The whole affair could have received less media coverage but for the beating of Olha Snitsarchuk, journalist with Channel 5, and Kommersant photographer Vlad Sodel.

“When Olha and I asked law-enforcement officers for help, they said physical threats were no obstacle for journalist activities. Our militia don’t know what can serve as an obstacle for journalist activities in the first place. Then the threats turned into acts of violence. We were spat at and then doused with water. Someone grabbed my camera and tried to smash the lens. Standing next to me were a militia lieutenant, colonel, and a number of other officers. We asked them why they weren’t doing anything about what was going on. They simply turned away. We have photos of these people. They should be relieved of their ranks and positions at least, although they deserve to be criminally prosecuted for inaction.”

Even though the attackers were quickly identified (some journalists and bloggers have their personal data), the militia are still looking for them. Oleh Tatarov, deputy head of the chief directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, told a journalist rally of protest in front of the ministry: “Criminal proceedings have been launched over physical assault against a journalist on May 18 of this year. A task force has been formed, made up of experienced investigators. About 70 eyewitnesses have been interviewed over the weekend… A person who may have been involved in the crime has been identified and his place of residence visited. His next of kin and people living next door have been interviewed. The person in question has not been apprehended and I have no right to disclose his identity. The presumption of innocence is still in effect in this country.”

Journalists gathered in front of the ministry, demanding that the case be investigated and the guilty parties meted out punishment. The minister of the interior never showed up. Says Viktoria Siumar, director, Institute of Mass Information: “This situation is proof that the law-enforcement agencies are heavily politically involved, that this political struggle is getting brutal, with all signs of abuse of office. We saw videos with people physically assaulting a journalist not because they were brutalized, but because he was using his camera, putting on record the manner in which they organized those provocations. Apparently, media people are the first to suffer in such situations. That’s what makes journalism a dangerous occupation. The fact that law-enforcement men make no attempt to interfere is proof that these provocateurs act hand in glove with the militia. The inferences are very sad: if this criminal case is not solved, if whoever is guilty is not punished, this will mean that there is no law-enforcement system in Ukraine, that the existing system protects the political interests of a group of people instead of protecting every individual. This group often abuses its possibilities in order to make very dangerous provocations. Our journalists ought to learn to be consistent and help each such situation reach its end when the guilty party is meted out punishment.”