Volodymyr YALOVY: “Ukrainian state building requires important changes”
Among the nearly 50 participants in the current parliamentary election race, the Yevhen Marchuk-Unity bloc is primarily distinguished by being perhaps the only political formation that has concrete and quite successful experience not only in high politics but local government, where it championed the interests of Kyiv and its residents. Besides the Party of Freedom and Solidarity of Ukrainian Women, the bloc includes the Ukrainian Party of Unity, which differs from many other parties by the fact that it essentially controlled Kyiv’s executive authorities, who prepared the city for the successful outcome of the Orange Revolution and allowed the people to make a free choice of this country’s further development. Now we are facing new tests and, judging by the current political situation, they are difficult ones. This is the subject of an interview with Volodymyr YALOVY, Deputy Mayor of Kyiv, Secretary of the Kyiv Council, and leader of the Ukrainian Unity Party.
“Mr. Yalovy, what factors led to the formation of the Yevhen Marchuk-Unity bloc in this shape?”
“First of all, it was largely a desire to actively influence this country’s political and economic life. It was a realistic assessment of our possibilities that prompted Unity to ally with other parties. But the main factor that shaped the current pattern of our bloc was the similarity of our views on Ukrainian state building. This option was discussed during talks with the head of the Freedom Party, Yevhen Marchuk, and the leader of the Solidarity of Ukrainian Women, Valentyna Hoshovska, and the final decision was made at the 1st inter-party congress of the Yevhen Marchuk-Unity bloc, which elected Mr. Marchuk as its chairman. The bloc leaders are well aware that in order to ensure high living standards for Ukrainians, you must first of all radically change the current system of power. For one of the greatest disappointments that followed the Orange Revolution was the change of individuals who were in power, not the system of power itself. So we reached the conclusion that we should try and go to all the levels of government in order to change it from the inside. Believe me, we have no alternative but to struggle wholeheartedly for a victory in these elections.”
“In what way is the bloc going to achieve this?”
“We consider it our No. 1 task to promote the unity of Ukrainian society and implement the idea of people’s power in our country. I am absolutely convinced that genuine economic prosperity in Ukraine is only possible if power is demonopolized, and we are going to do this by actively reviving and establishing local self-government. It should be noted that our bloc is the only Ukrainian political force that can offer this kind of local government concept. The authorities must be brought as close as possible to every individual and every local community, while the latter should exercise ample control over and have a real impact on the former. In addition, both sides must bear equal responsibility. When winners fail to rise to the expectations of voters, the latter put the blame on everyone but themselves. Small wonder! Although we are living in the 21st century, we are still somewhat romantic and inclined to believe that someone else will do the thinking for us. So our voters should take a much more responsible and conscious attitude to making a choice about our near and distant future.
“As you see, even some politicians find that the upcoming proportional-representation elections pose a lot of threats to democratic suffrage. What about the rank-and-file voter who goes to elect local councilors and has to be guided not by the professional qualities of a parliamentary mandate seeker but by a purely spontaneous choice of a party boss, as a result of which this elected body will only lose out on efficiency? So the situation is far from simple, and there are things to think through.”
“And what is the way out of the current situation?”
“It is unity. Our society can only rally together on principles that do not raise a shadow of a doubt.”
“That is, around the national idea?”
“In general, yes. But, for some reason, no one can clearly spell out or express this idea. Some even claim that it does not exist at all.
“For me personally, the national idea is a living thing that can vary in form and content over time. In my personal view, the national idea today lies in uniting Ukrainian society on the basis of improved local self-government. By decentralizing the government, radically changing the system of public administration, and bringing the authorities closer to every concrete individual, every citizen of Ukraine, we must consolidate Ukrainian society and thus achieve a much higher level of democracy. This is realistic because all the regions, including Donbas, long ago became ready for this.
“The unification of Ukrainian society is undoubtedly the No. 1 item on the agenda. Leonid Kuchma once asked in surprise, ‘My dear, tell me frankly what kind of society we are building!’ We should have said honestly that we were going to build a bourgeois-democratic republic, whereas in fact we are building a bourgeois republic with oligarchic capital stolen from the common people, which to a large extent is still not legalized and is hidden in the shadows. Very often it is shadow capital that propels our society. This is why there are unexpected obstacles on this path. Society, too, is becoming unpredictable. This is what is most dangerous for society and our country: many of the powers-that-be are behaving in a way that is impossible to foresee.”
“Are you surprised by this?”
“No, I am not. The point is that we have not dropped the authoritarian model of governance in Ukraine. We’ve just tried to dismantle it. We have removed the roof, leaving everything else intact. The current government also made some nice declarations about democratizing the public administration system but in fact it has done nothing here. Take political reform, for instance. The resulting redistribution of power among the president, the Verkhovna Rada, and the cabinet is resolving absolutely nothing because it is not accompanied by the enhanced role of local self-government or any essential amendments to laws. This shows that Ukraine still bears the hallmarks of an authoritarian state, albeit in a weakened form.”
“What are your conclusions?”
“I assert in no uncertain terms that we must develop self-government in Kyiv and decentralize the municipal administration in order to minimize related losses. Naturally, there must be directives from above, but all matters of gentrification, public services, and housing maintenance offices should be tackled by the population itself. Incidentally, housing maintenance offices should be turned into public-utility facilities that work on a contractual basis. The authorities that deal with the immediate interests of the people must be as close to them as possible, and the people themselves must participate as fully as possible in this government via housing and street committees. If this idea finds a sure way into the minds of Kyivans and this system of administration finally materializes, no Kyiv City Council will ever ruin it. But this requires time and professionals.”
