“Transparency” with a Subtext
Last week’s upsurge of “informal diplomacy,” with Ukraine playing host to several Western delegations at the same time (from the US National Democratic Institute, German Bundestag, and France), made up of people not burdened with the dictates of protocol, showed a clear trend: studying the election campaign and drawing up findings that would help the observers on the election date, and subsequently determining official relationships with Ukraine. There is little doubt that NDI delegation led by the head of the institute and ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made the most noticeable, important, and memorable visit. At a press conference summing up her visit, Mrs. Albright several times repeated that she has always considered herself a friend of Ukraine. She made it perfectly clear that US-Ukrainian relationships will depend on the 2002 election turnout. Her address to the All-Ukraine forum of volunteer organizations “Society Prior to Elections” was nonetheless significant. She explained the role of such organizations as a necessary component of a civil society allowing fair and transparent elections and, more importantly, making it possible for the citizenry to develop a mechanism of control over the government. A remarkable statement at a time when Ukraine is swept under the tidal wave of information attack against nongovernmental structures, and when US Senate is pondering a draft resolution saying that Ukraine will be considered a full-fledged partner only after it implements the traditional rules of democracy, primarily securing a transparent election campaign with equal access to the media, transgressions being brought to courts of law and guilty parties meted out deserved punishments. All this is nothing new, since the same subjects were broached during the 1998 parliamentary and 1999 presidential campaigns, yet the scope of current international coverage is unprecedented, as are such straightforward statements — that literally everything will depend on the election turnout as a step toward democracy.
In general, the US delegation’s visit was assumed to be on a truly official mission, collecting information in Kyiv and regions, as well as conveying an unequivocal message to the powers that be (the delegation met with people representing different political force as well as with President Kuchma and Premier Kinakh), considering that the highest VIPs of the American establishment — the president, vice president or state secretary — could not visit for obvious reasons.
The message brought from the United States to the Ukrainian political leadership was made public knowledge. According to the NDI delegation, the 1998 and 1999 elections were marked by what is described as political motivated violence and bullying, biased attitude on the part of the media, abuse of office, legal and administrative collisions. The integrity of the 2000 forum causes particular doubts, considering falsified signatures, transgressions in the course of a long-term vote, and overstated electorate attendance indices. The delegation expressed concern over perfectly traditional things: media criticizing the government and “business structures” are subjected to hard pressure, journalists are bullied and physically assaulted, government-run media show a biased approach. As for the administrative resource, the US delegation defined it as abuse of power and unlawful spending of government funds by government institutions. Mrs. Albright said that they know perfectly well who is using the administrative resource. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether the March 31 elections will be a step forward, with Ukraine moving further toward a democratic future. People in high offices must adhere to the letter and spirit of the elections law and transgressions (Interfax Ukraine reports that Oleksandr Moroz supplied Mrs. Albright with a list of transgressions detected to date) must be timely investigated. In addition, CEC and pertinent nongovernmental organizations must double their efforts during training sessions and when assisting commission members and observers. When asked about Leonid Kuchma’s reaction, Mrs. Albright replied that the president ought to answer that one himself.
The tone set was quite rigid. Perhaps everybody would have been better off if the same tone had been set and similar frankness practiced four years ago. At least. The West, however, has always greeted democratic transformations in Ukraine and the democratically elected president (who they wouldn’t shake hands with later). Over the years people of the Ukrainian establishment has had enough first-hand experience to realize that there is actually nothing to fear; Ukraine’s international isolation did not pose any special threat to them personally. Meaning that the state did not and would not show an interest in the development of and close cooperation with all those nongovernmental organizations. In addition, Ukraine has never practiced volunteer organizations’ involvement in the decision-making process or analyzing such decisions at an expert level, so these organizations can hardly be regarded as full-fledged members of the cast on the Ukrainian arena, especially during an election campaign.
A civil society, freedom of the press, independent judicature, fair elections — all this has long been regarded as a standard set of issues. Also, drawing standard parallels with Russia does not work these days, one of the reasons being that Putin and his team are ate least trying to build some elements of a structure that may eventually become a civil society. Also because Ukraine had a chance to become an example for Russia — without obeying instructions from the West! — by using the existing experience and accumulating its own. Instead, we have to listen to lectures and receive directives saying unequivocally that either we do as we are told or Ukraine will lose the last chance to be regarded a normal polity.
