Viktor SHENDEROVICH: Ukraine must assert the rules of the political game under Yanukovych
Assessing political events in Ukraine after the new government took office, one is reminded of a roundtable of Ukrainian and Russian intellectuals, back in 2009, entitled “Moscow-Kyiv Dialog.” It was there that Viktor Shenderovich, a noted Russian opposition figure and journalist, said, “The discrediting of the democratic process that ended in Russia with Putin coming to power is in full swing in Ukraine. This is clearly apparent from the outside.” What is this outside view all about? Is it actually possible to see a Russian scenario in Ukraine? Has the Russians’ attitude to Ukraine changed after new people took office in Kyiv? More on this in The Day’s interview with Viktor SHENDEROVICH.
Mr. Shenderovich, how correct was your political forecast?
“I predicted this political scenario based on my own analysis. It was clearly apparent at the time that the democratic idea was being discredited in every way possible in Ukraine. As a result, Viktor Yanukovych, who had to resort to falsehood and the so-called administrative resources during the 2004 presidential campaign, won it in 2010 without the slightest trace of lies or violations. That was fair play.
“What will happen next? Yanukovych will discredit his administrative modus operandi, but the big question is whether the new administration will bring about any long-awaited changes to the existing political system. If they do — and this will only be possible with a free press and free courts of law — Ukraine will have passed through a full cycle. In other words, whoever comes to power next, Ukraine will remain a truly European country, regardless of the rest. If and when Yanukovych refuses to step down, as befits a communist and/or ex-convict with a degree of authority in the underworld, then you will have another Maidan.
“In other words, it is important for Ukraine to assert the rules of the game under Yanukovych. I will repeat myself by stating that there must be freedom of the press. Regrettably, we’re receiving mayday messages from the media and other sectors. People must be able to exercise their right of assembly, so they can hold rallies on city squares to voice their grievances. Corruption must be fought against. Everything will be OK if and when Ukraine can pass through the following cycle.”
How likely is a Russian scenario for Ukraine, considering the measures being taken to improve Russia-Ukraine relationships?
“I can’t see this Russian scenario being played out in Ukraine per se. The point is that Russia is a country infected with the imperial virus, which has pervaded all aspects of life. At the same time, Russia isn’t divided like Ukraine, in terms of [Ukrainian-Russian] mentality, owing to its historical past. Unlike Russia, Ukraine doesn’t have a single Ukrainian mentality. Therefore, failing to take into account the opinion of either side may well lead to civil war, with the whole country falling apart. I believe that Yanukovych is aware of this on an empirical level. Your current president’s attempt to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds should be seen as traditional practice. I hope that the Maidan will continue to pressure all those in power, regardless of the leadership’s conduct.”
Previously you said Ukraine was about ten years behind Russia [in terms of progress]. If so, we’re now in 1999-2000, aren’t we?
“I didn’t say that [Ukraine] is behind or ahead of Russia. Sometimes the impression is that it is lagging behind, at other times it seems to be forging ahead. For example, when it came to the union of Belarus with Russia, the point on the agenda should have been regarded as Belarus joining the Russian Federation. Now it transpires that Russia has actually joined Belarus. We’re now living under Father Lukashenka’s laws, with no freedom of the press, with prisoners of conscience, and political assassinations.
“Naturally, our histories are different, but there are similarities. For example, the proverbial powers that be in Russia and Ukraine are part of our common Soviet heritage. This is especially apparent in Ukraine: a mix of former Komsomol functionaries and ex-convicts. Yanukovych’s being in office marks an apparent retreat from democracy. Yet the main point is how your society is prepared to cope with evolution. It is very important for the man in the street to be able to distinguish between democrats and to know what democracy is all about.”
You mentioned Belarus. What about the televised statements made by the Georgian and Latvian presidents?
“Alexander Lukashenka is keeping his nose to the wind; he knows when to befriend the right kind of politician, when someone who is the enemy of his enemy may become his friend. And so these countries are being friends while being Russia’s enemy. They have the right, and reasons, to do so. Of course, one ought to distinguish between the Latvian and Georgian heads of state, let alone the president of Belarus. The fact remains, however, that Russia is a thorn in their collective side.”
How would you describe today’s relations between Ukraine and Russia, allowing for the [Black Sea] Fleet, gas, clandestine agencies, and joint military parades?
“The problem is the degree to which the interests of the Russian and Ukrainian administrations coincide. The fleet and gas problems can be resolved, we know all about them, but the thing is to make such contracts serve the interest of both peoples. In actuality, neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have been allowed to have their say in the matter.
“This practice must be discarded, lest a new administration boost gas prices and the next one lower them. The same is true of the [Black Sea] Fleet. The new political leader’s name shouldn’t alter the existing political course. Regrettably, we constantly practice this to spite our political adversaries. Set procedures must come first and foremost. Leaving or withdrawing the [Russian Black Sea] Fleet isn’t the point. The point is the degree of rationality and understanding of this [top-level] decision. Russia is paying mind-boggling sums for its imperial hallucinations. As a Russian, I can’t understand the reason behind them.
“Hence the big question about the legitimacy of such decisions. In Russia, the picture is clear enough: no public choice with those in power having their seats contrary to the law, making their own decisions and leaving us to suffer the consequences. This practice is very dangerous, because when the administration changes, the ‘new broom’ rule applies, so that all the previous positive decisions can be canceled and the whole situation is turned on its head. Therefore, the established procedures — above all, the transparent decision-making process — must come first and the decisions next.”
Previous polls pointed to a large number of Russians harboring negative attitudes towards Ukrainians. Has this attitude changed with a new administration in Kyiv?
“No administration changes can sever the ties between tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians. These administrations can only aggravate the situation or change it for the better; there is no way anyone can alter these interethnic relationships that have taken shape over hundreds of years. Russians will continue to see Ukrainians as their brothers. You know, brothers can get jealous and fight, this is only natural. I always refer to soccer as a vivid sociological example. When our paths don’t cross, I know for sure that there are Russians rooting for the Ukrainian national team and vice versa, and that this attitude has nothing to do with Yanukovych or Tymoshenko. I can’t see any reason for worrying about our friendship.”
