IS BANKRUPTCY OUR CHOICE?

«The closer the election date, the more interesting become the words spoken and written in support of one presidential candidate or another.

From the standpoint of the current President's election headquarters, the best words could be something like «economic growth,» an «increment in the residents' incomes,» «growing investment,» etc., registered over the years of Mr. Kuchma's presidency. Ideally, all this could be qualified as the Ukrainian economic miracle. If this were the case, Leonid Kuchma's political rivals would have a hard time, for nothing succeeds like success, to cite the old cliche.

However, no such words are uttered or written. What image-maker would put into his sick head to use such arguments in view of the Ukrainian economy appearing to be down for the count?

And so the President's campaign leitmotif at this crucial stage will be something like «Leonid Kuchma the candidate is not responsible for what Leonid Kuchma the President has done.»

Moody's Investor Service, for example, published its findings in The Financial Times , reading that Ukraine might soon declare default on its public debt. Moody's experts explain the possibility of default by weak domestic support of the government, dropping export revenues, and restricted access to the international capital markets.

Proceeding from this disheartening fact, members of the Our Choice: Leonid Kuchma! Bloc would seem to be calling on us to vote for a man who, as President, has led Ukraine to the threshold of bankruptcy.

Not at all! They claim that presidential candidate Leonid Kuchma is the only one capable of continuing the course of reform that will lead this country out of the crisis.

Leonid Kuchma further declares that the opposition «cannot be limited in any way, but it must assume responsibility for the situation in this country.»

This gives rise to several questions at once. First, who is actually going to levy any restrictions on the opposition?

Second, opposition is generally defined as a group of persons not being in power. So how can they be held responsible for what those in power do? The only answer is in the negative. (Try to picture the Labour Party ruling Great Britain and declaring that the opposition is to blame for the economic situation.)

I can understand Mr. Kuchma campaign strategists feeling nostalgic about the year 1994 when candidate Kuchma criticized President Kravchuk and made so many promises. But gentlemen, look at the calendar. It is 1999, not 1994. Of course, candidate Kuchma cannot criticize President Kuchma. A Russian proverb has it that you have to wait three years for promises to come true. Here change that to ten. The trouble is that, unlike the voter still in the habit of waiting, a habit firmly implanted over the decades of Soviet rule, eventually dying with a belief in the mythical yawning heights of the radiant future, today's Ukrainian economy simply cannot wait any longer. Lurking behind all the campaign verbiage is the sinister word default — or just plain bankruptcy.