Rukh leaders believe a broad Yushchenko election coalition is still possible
In light of the latest Rukh congress, regarded by many as a conservative victory within the popular movement, and Viktor Pynzenyk’s statement about a congress unifying Reforms and Order (PRP) and part of Rukh, the press conference held on May 16 by Rukh leaders attracted considerable media interest. The audience was three times that which witnessed the “historic” signing of the documents setting up the Rukh Udovenko, Reforms, and Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists election bloc. Les Taniuk, acting as Rukh leader in Hennady Udovenko’s absence, was expected to comment on the behavior of his former comrades in arms Mykhailo Kosiv and Olena Bondarenko, as well as on Mr. Pynzenyk’s ambiguous statement. These expectations would have been rewarded but for Rukh being the kind of party it is.
In actuality, Messrs. Taniuk, the demonstrative withdrawal of two people’s deputies from Rukh and its faction in the parliament had only served to strengthen the party. And the fact that both dissenters joined the camp of Rukh’s best friends, led by Viktor Pynzenyk, was presented as two players that did not get on the major league team and were transferred to the minors. Naturally, the Rukh leaders understand the major league as their party; they declared that Rukh and Reforms and Order are in “different weight categories.”
Indeed, no Rukh organizations were transferred to PRP, contrary to Mr. Pynzenyk’s broad hints, and none could have been, because Ukrainian law provides for no collective party membership, meaning no collective transfer of party organizations from one party to another. Of course, individual members can change affiliation, but this is their own business. As for the strange forming an inviolable bloc with PRP and other national democratic forces. This phrase might remind some of a Soviet obituary. Sorry, but that was the kind of mood one felt after listening to Messrs. Taniuk, Kliuchkovsky, and Chornovolenko expound on the inevitability of democratic unity before the elections under Viktor Yushchenko’s able guidance; that Rukh had finally taken its stand in opposition to the “Communist-oligarchic majority” in Verkhovna Rada, which the president is fully aware of and which he even assists (naughty boy). Somehow, none of the Rukh leaders voiced his personal opposition to the president, although an inference to this effect could be made from their soliloquies.
Going from statements to reality, the Rukh leaders’ ritualistic assurances about the inevitable unity of the Right forces were aptance, that it will be quite some time before one gets “there.” Likewise, the more they talk about a broad democratic coalition, the less probable it becomes. Viktor Yushchenko keeps silent on the subject, and there is reason to believe that he will not make his stand clear before autumn. This is nothing new for the former premier. For more than a year he silently agreed to be anti-Communist opposition? Almost certainly the seance of invoking his leadership will last several months but to no avail. Thus, while ardently supporting the idea of a single election bloc, every party, including Rukh, cares primarily for itself.
In response to Pynzenyk’s intrigues, word spread about Agrarian leaders holding talks with where Rukh, relying on the Agrarian Party’s resources, could win the land-affiliated part of the electorate, looks much more promising than the operetta students’ barricades.
Meanwhile, Rukh is formally stepping up the effort to strengthen its alliance with PRP and other like- minded parties, even though sustaining manpower losses on the Verkhovna Rada battlefield. But what are those losses compared to the next elections where Rukh expects (not without reason) to receive reinforcements and allies?
