Heorhy KRIUCHKOV: The Communists will never agree to let actions like Ukraine Without Kuchma open to Yushchenko the road to power

The habitual visage of an ideological Bolshevik rebel obviously does not fit Heorhy Kriuchkov, a leader of the Communist fraction in Verkhovna Rada. Rather, he assures us that the party is constantly on the go as the times change, that the Communists, while describing the current regime as “anti-people,” favor a dialogue; that those in power do not want a dialogue with the opposition. In any case, this is what he said while at The Day’s round table. In fact, he believes that only his party constitutes the opposition and all others are for a restoration of capitalism. The next elections, he says, will take place in 2002, as scheduled, and the Communists are prepared for the regime to do its utmost to make his comrades back down. He feels positive about the coalition government idea, but he sees no basis for such a coalition now.

SOURCES AND MEANING OF UKRAINIAN COMMUNISM

The Day: Is the Communist Party of Ukraine evolving? If so, precisely how? Is there any debate concerning recent events, reflecting changes in the parliamentary majority and the possibility of a pro-Cabinet majority?

H. K.: Generally speaking, the party largely consists of middle- aged individuals devoted to their lifetime idea. They often understand this idea in the form in which it was carried out previously. However, there are quite a few members of the party striving to perceive everything that has happened over the past decade in a sober-minded, deep-reaching, and unbiased manner. This gives one hope that the said approach of the party will deepen. There are also forces within the party playing Gapon and Azef (tsarist provocateurs — Ed.) roles, inciting radical actions and declarations.

Party debate has received fresh impetus recently, due to the fact that the party failed to win the presidential campaign, although the scenario assigned it and which the party allowed left it no chance. However, despite all the work done against the party, 40% voted for the CPU candidate. The party’s failure during the elections was a heavy blow. Another equally heavy blow was dealt by the referendum, primarily because there was no people’s will. Recent events have enhanced radical sentiments in the party. The media has done their best to portray the Communists as participants in a conspiracy with the government and President. This is particularly evident in the case of the prosecutor general. For me personally and for my comrades it is perfectly clear that Ukraine needs a different prosecutor. Actually, we haven’t had a normal prosecutor since Hlukh. In other words, we understand that we have the wrong kind of prosecutor, but who can replace him? Haisynsky? Obikhod? We don’t want the current prosecutor replaced only because of the Gongadze case. We want to hear a report not just on that case. In parliament, we have made it clear that we want to hear such a report. The newspapers made us look as though we had bungled the case. Untrue. We want an informative and thorough discussion of how the law is upheld in this state. We want to show that neither the Constitution, nor the laws are being observed in Ukraine. In this context, the prosecutor issue is derivative and of minor importance, because whoever replaces him will take orders from the head of the state under the present system.

I agree with the head of the State Administration and head of SBU that there are people in Verkhovna Rada that need not be there. Yet I am surprised to see that no names are mentioned. Can you recall when the parliament refused to strip a member of immunity after being presented convincing incriminating evidence? It never happened simply because no such evidence has been provided.

The Day: Talking of the Communists in Verkhovna Rada, what do you criticize, and what do you propose? Is the opposition we have so irreconcilable that it refuses contact and makes no proposals, just biding its time to take power by means of some miracle?

H. K.: Yes, we criticize the regime. Nor did it seem coincidental when the president said that the most serious criticism came from the Communists. In his speech at a conference on November 16 he repeated what the Communists have been saying these past ten years. What Kuchma said on November 16 provides a basis for serious generalization and conclusions. In one of my articles I suggested why such a presidential speech could appear. The social situation is exacerbating, so one can’t help but respond to it. Part of the presidential entourage is aware that some radical changes have to be made. These people took advantage of that speech, the more so that he usually broaches a lot of subjects that are at times incompatible. They wanted to show that our President is a man who sees everything, understands everything, and assesses everything. But they just said so and then forgot about it.

Our stand does not mean that we reject everything being done by the current regime. They are in power, no denying the fact. The charter of our party reads that the party shall act in accordance with the law. We are asked sometimes why we are doing nothing to make the people stage a revolution. We have to make people aware of the need to campaign to protect their constitutional rights in a conscious and organized manner. I read somewhere that our people trust no one these days and do not want to get involved. Take the Gongadze case. Did it really affect the bulk of the population? At one point in the campaign of compromising materials we heard that the President accepted five million dollars as a bribe, a very precious gift and more. Yet even this didn’t seem to interest anyone. Or take implementation of the referendum. It just didn’t work. Did any of the architects of that “people’s will” make a statement anywhere, anytime? No, they remained silent and waited for instructions.

The Day: Both those in power and the opposition are working to destroy all the rules of the game. Those speculating for a fall know that with chaos they will be kings. In a situation like that the lawful methods used by a civilized opposition will be totally ineffective. No philosopher or pragmatist will win an argument with a drunken washerwoman. What stand do the Communists propose to take in this confrontation? The leader of the Odesa regional CPU organization said we will not discuss the situation at this point, because we are against the presidency as such. Is this another move to lower the stakes?

H. K.: We had the referendum. Evidence is submitted to the Constitutional Court, and the Constitutional Court issued its ruling. We saw that ruling as an opportunity to take a step forward, if not toward the elimination of the presidency (this doesn’t seem realistic under the circumstances), then at least toward a presidential republic. We proposed a constitutional way to implement that supposed “people’s will.” We prepared a document and presented it to the Chairman of Verkhovna Rada not as an ultimatum, but as a basis for dialogue. We asked to set up commissions [committees] on which we could work, precisely so that we could find a way out of the trap into which the president had fallen thanks to the incompetence of his advisors. The document was forwarded to the president. But then nothing happened.

Also, we passed a bill on political parties. The President hasn’t signed it. We offered our vision of the situation and went through the required formalities. Again, nothing.

We proposed a bill on the majority and opposition. Do you think that preparing an opposition bill without inviting anybody from that opposition to take part in the discussion is normal procedure? After all, they should know better than anyone else what being in opposition is all about. In other words, there is no dialogue with the regime, at lest not with that part of the opposition to which I and my political force belong. And it’s not our fault.

Our stand is that, even under an anti-people regime, everything must be done for the good of the people. Lenin said that the working people are the most important force; if we save the working people, we will have everything.

The Day: Could Lenin have said that the banker must be saved?

H. K.: I don’t think so, not under the circumstances.

The Day: Do we have to save a person selling things from a kiosk by the Polytechnic Institute subway station?

H. K.: We came out in support of street vendors when it came to enforcing cash registers on the market, because we realized that this would destroy a business involving tens of thousands.

The Day: Then you should correct Vladimir Lenin, although this would be extremely blasphemous, of course. Add a comma to his statement and write that you must save also the kiosk vendors and those selling on street markets, petty shuttle merchants, and bankers.

H. K.: We must save those working and keeping this country alive.

The Day: Doesn’t a hard- working banker keep this country alive?

H. K.: Well, if that banker is an honest man, perhaps we should also protect him by making proper decisions and passing the right kind of laws to stabilize the situation to some extent. I had an interesting conversation with Oleksandr Karpov (leader of the NDP faction — Ed.) after he was elected majority coordinator. He asked whether we could contribute something to our society in order to entirely alter the course of events. I told him we could. We had to discard the confrontational approach, primarily that of the president. Because the confrontation we have is continuously aggravated by the president. Before answering Karpov’s question, I asked him in return whether the president was interested in making peace in our society and whether the regime was seriously interested in effectively combating corruption. I told him that if he replied in the affirmative I would keep talking. I explained why answers to my questions were so important to me. I thought the president was not interested in peace and avoiding confrontation in this country, because the situation in society is going from bad to worse, so scapegoats have to always be available. Karpov said nothing.

The Day: Do we have dishonest working people?

H. K.: Yes, we do.

The Day: It seems we are revising Vladimir Lenin after so short a time. And you say there is no dialogue and it’s not your fault.

H. K.: Sorry, but I have been in Verkhovna Rada for the past three years and the president has never even tried to meet with the opposition.

The Day: Have you suggested such a meeting?

H. K.: I was chairman of the National Security and Defense Committee. What we did while I was chairman was to settle defense problems they are just planning to do in Russia, in the next couple of years. I sent several letters to the president and three times asked him in writing to meet with the committee. He never did, just because it was presided over by a Communist.

The Day: The regime could be interpreting the issue of political expedience quite narrowly. Yet the very practice of the Communist Party or its leaders also in a way show just how far one can go to deal with them. Political reform could be carried out with Communist help. But at the first and second elections the Communists often worked for the conservation of ongoing trends. Forces clashed and polarized this society. Simultaneously we supported the idea of a broad range of constructive opposition. A market society will narrow the Communist Party’s field of endeavor the way it is now. And so we ask what new mechanism, apart from meetings and consultations, reform-minded Communists can propose. Perhaps they don’t want to propose any, realizing that they will get their 20% of the votes during the parliamentary elections, so why not let things stay the way they are?

H. K.: Indeed, the opinion is being broadly disseminated in this society that the Communists benefit from the stand they take, because they will get what they want anyway. This is not true. We have always insisted that Ukraine must not always take orders from the International Monetary Fund. After all, we have our own experts and they offer altogether different approaches. But the president admits this only now. We said that the state must not be isolated from the management of economic and social processes, because this will damage this state. We proposed realistic transformations even before 1991. Yes, maybe you are right on some points and wrong on others. What makes our stand different from that of the regime is that we the opposition can only talk or mobilize people, while the head of state can actually solve problems. However, if the head of state does not consider it necessary even to conduct a dialogue, what can we expect? What kind of sentiments will thrive in the party? If you don’t want to see or hear us, neither shall we. For this reason, we have to proceed from the weight categories we and the regime have. They’re different. Just as Charles de Gaulle was President of the entire French nation, so our President should be one for all Ukrainians.

The Day: Perhaps one of the reasons is that your party has done much to make this President fail to represent the entire people, constantly stressing that the regime serves the interests of one part of the population and the Communist Party does those of the other part.

H. K.: The party leadership has proposed various approaches to urgent problems, but they were all rejected out of hand. For this reason I cannot agree that the party is to blame for the absence of a dialogue between the regime and opposition.

NO ONE IS LISTENING

The Day: What can you offer an ordinary young man that does not read your newspaper, Komunist ? Everybody says he wishes Ukraine well. We believe it is high time someone spoke not of what should be done but how . How do you actually propose to increase the working people’s living standards given current realities?

H. K.: The thinking part of the younger generation wants to understand what is going on, so these people attend public appearances by Communist leaders. They ask the same questions and we honestly reply that it is impossible to change everything overnight, that every problem must be solved step by step, yet a lot of things can be corrected even today. For example, there are ways to suppress corruption.

The Day: How?

H. K.: By taking real steps. Watching individual corrupt officials shot with all the others getting away, people won’t believe that this struggle is being waged for real.

The Day: In all honesty, can you say that there was no corruption during Soviet times?

H. K.: There was, but never on the scale we have. It emerged at the last stage of the USSR’s existence, after perestroika began. Back in 1985, I was transferred to the CPSU Central Committee in Moscow. And then I was in Odesa and sometime in 1990 returned to Kyiv as a pensioner. I could recognize the people. A staggering transformation had occurred in five years, nothing we had ever had before. I’ve been involved with a lot of things. Woe unto a district party committee secretary getting an apartment ahead of the waiting list, anywhere, anytime; he would quartered and then dumped. And now we have the Tymoshenko case. Did nobody really know nothing about what she is being accused of today when they nominated her? It was the talk of the town. I’ve been fighting for almost six months to voice my dissatisfaction with the Prosecutor General’s Office and its response to the parliamentary inquiry about the corrupt conduct of one high official. I have been unable to exercise my right as a deputy for almost half a year. What kind of struggle against corruption is this?

So much for corruption. Second, even with the current cadre shortage we can form a top political leadership that no one will suspect it of any malfeasance. Until we have honest people running the country we won’t have anything to talk about.

Third, whether we like it or not, we have to face specific economic issues. Of course, there will be certain gradual economic growth, because our economy has reached its lowest possible ebb, so it has to start rising. But will this improve industry? No, never, because an economic structure is being preserved and deepened which is underdeveloped and unacceptable for a European state like Ukraine.

In other words, we have concrete plans and we know where to get the money, but no one is listening to us.

The Day: Has it ever occurred to you that what you describe as an anti-people regime is playing into your Communist hand better than anyone or anything else, by providing you with a constituency? If the regime were all right, you’d be somewhere on the margins.

H. K.: We are not so cynical as to act by the principle the worse for others, the better for us. Our opposition is backed by millions. Life itself has refuted the formula that Communism must be built and capitalism only allowed to exist. Strange as it may seem, capitalism is being built in Ukraine. What is the agrarian reform? It is the assertion of feudal latifundia relationships in the countryside. The peasants were told that there would be no collective farms left before April 1, 2000. This is construction, albeit destructive.

The Day: How do you feel about your former comrades currently in what they call the Left-Center camp? They claim to be the real opposition and refer to you as collaborators playing a game of solitaire according to rules assigned you by the regime. Is it possible that you enter a bloc with Left or Left-Center allies? Simple arithmetic, adding up the turnout of the previous presidential elections, shows that Kuchma would not become president given a bloc of Socialists and Communists.

H. K.: I see that previous election turnout differently, even if the Socialists and Communists did combine their efforts. I am sure that Moroz would get more votes than Symonenko in the second round. Just as Symonenko was left alone, about a million voters supporting Moroz and Vitrenko wouldn’t cast their ballots for Symonenko. Now if Moroz won, the Communist electorate, being the more disciplined one, would give him all of the votes. And so Moroz would get more, but he would never win.

As for the prospects of Communist cooperation with other forces of the Left, I am not overly optimistic about the possibility of our rallying closer together at this stage. What is happening prompts one to suggest a pessimistic scenario. Neither I, nor my comrades will ever agree to let actions like Ukraine Without Kuchma open to Yushchenko the road to power. We believe that Yushchenko is even more dangerous in that he would conduct an even more pro- American, pro-NATO, anti-people policy than Kuchma. We are for a regime without Kuchma and without Yushchenko, for changes in the political course. They say that, to topple Kuchma, we must liquidate all parties and create a new one, a National Patriotic Front, that supposedly all kinds of concessions can be made, but on two conditions: (a) a single leader and (b) liquidation of all parties. We regard this as an attempt to erase the very notion of the Communist movement from the political map of Ukraine. We shall never agree to this.

We are witness to the creations of pseudo-communist structures meant to weaken our party’s positions. I would not be surprised if something compromising were used against our leaders. And so predicting any real alliance is difficult at this point.

The Day: The French Communists have discarded Leninist ideology. Do you think that the Ukrainian comrades should follow suit?

H. K.: What they did is their business. They practically destroyed themselves precisely because they disowned Leninism. Leninism is not a set of skeleton keys to access and solve any current problem. Leninism means method and tactic. At times our political adversary applies the Bolshevik tactic even better than we Communists do.

The Day: Do you think early parliamentary elections are a possibility? Are the Communists prepared for such a contingency? H. K.: We are not afraid of any contingencies whatever, even if the elections start tomorrow. It’s the press that’s frightening the population with all those ratings, saying beware of what will happen tomorrow. All but the Communist Party will get 1-2% and Ukraine will receive a Red Parliament. For all the president’s impulsiveness, I haven’t seen any signs of his determination to dissolve parliament, not in any of his speeches or statements of late. Most likely, the elections will take place in 2002.

The Day: What do you think are the chances of forming a coalition government?

H. K.: Given our condition, I think that a coalition government will only make things worse. Ukraine needs a professional government above all. When they start talking coalition they will start haggling over seats; each will want to have a bridgehead and administrative reserve. What good would such coalition government do Ukraine? Squabbling will start between and within parties. In fact, we don’t have real parties, just groups intended to implement the ambitions harbored by individuals coveting leadership. It would be hard to blame anyone for all this, it’s just a peculiarity of our society at this stage of its evolution.

The Day: Mr. Kriuchkov, precisely what makes you dissatisfied with the majority and opposition bill?

H. K.: The bill actually confines the opposition to a reservation, tossing it a bone; 10,000 characters (less than a page in A2 format — Ed.) a week in the printmedia and three specific committees. And there is one other interesting point. They propose the following arrangement: parliamentary majority, parliamentary opposition (provided at least two-thirds of those left out of the majority agree to join it). What about the rest? Just as there are “non-nationals” in the Baltic states, so we will have non-deputies in the parliament, who have deputy status but no deputy rights. My stand is that the Constitution should have a provision to the effect that the law guarantees political parties a possibility of opposition endeavor. To this end, the law on political parties should be amended by a clause providing this guarantee and opposition guarantees must be included in all other pertinent laws. Again, no one is listening to us.

The Day: Don’t you think that part of the electorate radicalized the opposition’s methods demonstrated during recent events? Others, however, feel less convinced that such methods will help the opposition establish its reputation in this society. They say it’s bad enough when people don’t trust those in power and even worse when they don’t trust the opposition. Do you see any encouraging signs, that there are changes for the better in the people’s attitude to the opposition?

H. K.: Considering the relationships between the regime and opposition, neither is likely to improve its image. Dialogue, getting all political forces involved in various projects, is the only solution.

The Day: Everything relating to Leonid Kuchma’s first term as president is very well illustrated inThe Day ’s electronic library. However, he weathered the most devastating paralyzing verbal attacks in his second term, just as he tried to take some constructive steps. Doesn’t this strike you as strange?

H. K.: The first thing the “new” president did was his edict on the agrarian reform. There is nothing positive about the edict. His next step was toward dictatorship: the referendum with all its consequences. In his speech of November 16 the president admitted that deregulation was a mistake; all hopes that the IMF and consultants would help have proven unfounded, and all those 1991- sired bankers had turned into oligarchs. Why didn’t he come to any conclusions? In view of all this, saying that we have a new president is very difficult.

The Day: The president’s steps can be assessed differently. However, we must bear in mind the actual situation in which the regime has to operate. Take the majority idea. It was not conceived just like that. Despite all negative aspects, the majority is there and it has had some effect. Perhaps those left outside will object, but we should remember what it was like when there was no majority.

H. K.: Of course, it is good to have a majority, but only if this majority was shaped naturally.

The Day: Indeed, it would be good to have all those collective farms created naturally, but they were made the way they were and for some time provided for our horrible or excellent existence (depending on which attitude one adopts toward the recent past). In any case, we have to break out of the vicious circle.

H. K.: That’s right and we think so, too. But no one wants to listen to us, even to the reasonable things we have to say.

COOPERATION WITH EUROPE IS IN UKRAINE’S INTEREST

The Day: Perhaps the very logic of the Communist Party’s existence should be revised? Many in Ukraine want to know that our Communists have finally become a truly Ukrainian party that has reconsidered its historical biography and come up with its own social program without Communism and other things that disorient intelligent people. Could this be a package for a new dialogue?

H. K.: Some criticize us for not abandoning our positions, others for having allegedly abandoned them, particularly for not campaigning for the Soviet Union. But we must take a realistic stand. How can we propose to immediately revive the USSR now that there no Soviet or socialist republics left? That would be naive. Yet doing everything to spoil relationships with neighboring countries with which we were connected by fate for decades on end is unreasonable. We are criticized for having little contact with Russia. But what did they expect us to do? Conduct talks with Yeltsin’s Russia?

The Day: What about Putin’s Russia?

H. K.: We have to learn more about him. I think that few in Ukraine can be sure about him. One thing I know; he will fight for a greater Russia.

There is also the controversial issue of NATO. After all is said and done, it is an aggressive bloc, as evidenced by recent events in Yugoslavia.

The Day: Yes, but we should not trade horror stories. The Communists passed a resolution in Verkhovna Rada, ordering the Ukrainian peacekeeping contingent withdrawn from Yugoslavia, all NATO services deported from Ukraine, Ukrainian representatives recalled from the NATO headquarters, and so on. Now just imagine there is Communist-led Left majority and this majority makes such decisions. We believe that such decisions are possible only when they cannot be carried out and are needed to raise one’s own popularity. Or maybe they would be possible if you were in power?

H. K.: We would have to make an appropriate statement. I am afraid it will get so that we will have to recall our contingent from Yugoslavia. We consciously supported that action, but if, God forbid, something happens in Ukraine the way it did in Russia, I mean people contaminated by depleted uranium, then not only the Communists but Verkhovna Rada as a whole will make this decision.

The Day: Yet your resolution has a much broader range of demands and this can only indicate that every operator on the market of party technologies trades in whatever commodity he can manage: illusions, horror stories, administrative resources. But when we talk European context and that Ukraine has waisted ten years, according to Jedrzejczak, the responsibility for such waisted time should be shared by not only those in power, but also that resource for slowing things down, a resource that within every political force.

H. K.: Cooperation with Europe is in Ukraine’s interest. Yet we must not overestimate our capabilities. Europe doesn’t need us, and not only the way we are now. I mean, maybe it needs us precisely the way we are. But when our countryside starts getting better our [agricultural] products will trample everything in their path.

THE PROBLEM OF THE LEFT IS THE PROBLEM OF ITS LEADER

The Day: How do you see the next presidential campaign?

H. K.: The principal figures claiming a role in Ukraine’s current history have already taken shape. In fact, the presidential campaign started last year. Yushchenko was used as a banner by one political force. The oligarchs used another figure. No such figure is visible on the Left yet, although we have our own contender. However, I don’t see a real figure, one capable of heading our flank. Other figures are lurking, among them Yuliya Tymoshenko, if they don’t imprison her. She will also run for president. There is also Tyhypko, and he will work for on it. I think that some forces will bet on Ivan Pliushch. They will visit him and say who has a better experience as a politician, administrator, and lawmaker than Ivan Pliushch?

The Day: How would you describe the alignment of forces within the Left?

H. K.: The Left camp has the same problem as our state, the problem of having a real leader acceptable to all parties concerned. Unfortunately, I don’t see such a figure, not now at least. No promising names have appeared.

The Day: There are always names when there is movement.

H. K.: The alignment taking shape, given so many contenders, could cause such unpredictable turbulence that it would be difficult to exist. We have brought up practically nobody during the last ten years, just as we didn’t in the previous ten years.