Disillusioned Ukrainians might enjoy posing these pointed questions to any number of their political leaders. Former President Viktor Yushchenko probably tops that list.
But these vitriolic accusations were not originally directed at Yushchenko, ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko or any other Orange revolutionary. They came from an open letter addressed to the now historically unimpeachable first U.S. president, George Washington. It was written by Washington’s former friend and ally, Thomas Paine.
The point: Revolution is often a thankless, isolating job, and its leaders are unappreciated by contemporaries. Usually for good reason. It took Americans some 200 years to forget most of Washington’s flaws as a general and a leader – traits that historians are only now rediscovering.
This Halloween, Yushchenko talked about the local elections, his term in office and the legacy of the 2004 Orange Revolution, in which Ukrainians rose up and non-violently overturned a rigged presidential election in favor of current President Viktor Yanukovych.
I expected an interview with the vampire of Ukraine’s democracy: a man corrupt and self-deluded. Instead, the man proved capable of evaluating his time in office with balance and perspective.
Yes, his bitterness toward Tymoshenko was on full display, and sure, there were a few partial-truths. But Yushchenko was also ready to admit to personal shortcomings. To Yushchenko, the Orange Revolution was only the latest step in the 300-year-old march of Ukrainian independence. It’s a journey he feels certain his children’s generation will take up.
Since the Biblical times of Moses, the first generation rarely makes it to the promised land. Yushchenko certainly didn’t. He expects that Ukraine’s journey to democracy will take much longer than five or six years.
“Every generation has its Maydan, its revolution,” he said. “Twenty years ago it was our national self-determination.”
In his opinion, the Orange years were the closest Ukraine has come to true democracy. But he thinks deep-seated societal attitudes are still holding his country back. Democracy is viewed by many as weakness.
“Very often it is confused with permissiveness,” he argued. “Very often democracy and demagoguery are confused. There is no feeling that democracy means legitimacy.”
Yushchenko admitted that in its final years, the movement’s progress became weighed down by out-of-control populism and mutual destruction. He didn’t rule himself out of that equation.
Indeed, Yushchenko’s political mismanagement and pettiness toward Tymoshenko proved a significant factor in the fall the Orange Revolution.
“He came to power with a huge number of expectations, many of which were impossible to fulfill,” said Taras Kuzio, a top Ukraine expert at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins SAIS. “I suppose that’s the case in many revolutions. But Yushchenko failed to fulfill even a small number of Ukrainian expectations.”
Among the major disappointments, Kuzio says, were Yushchenko’s movement from central Ukrainian patriotism in 2004, to the more radical Galician nationalism that emerged around the 2010 elections. Yushchenko also failed to reform non-democratic structures like the security service. And he was unable to advance Ukraine’s European integration, which Kuzio connects back to the Russophobic direction of Yushchenko’s later years.
However, the former president’s biggest mistake was his inability to stand above the fray. Kuzio believes this was politically fatal. “He took an active part in the squabbles, which belittled the role of president.” Yushchenko proved that he was a banker and cultural activist, not a politician.
Young, Western-looking Ukrainians don’t see Yushchenko as an intellectual forefather. Certainly not as the George Washington of their country. One Kyiv student seemed puzzled about the purpose of my interview. When I told him that I found Yushchenko’s message refreshing, he was incensed. He considered mine another name on a long list of those who have been bamboozled by the former president’s smooth talk. He would have explained my folly in more depth, but alas he had to meet with his teacher’s assistant. He had failed an exam and needed to pay a bribe.
Yushchenko understands such hypocrisy all too well. He sees it at work in the manipulation of last week’s local elections:
“We can call those in power undemocratic, but frankly it’s cliche. We can talk about the harm caused by individual politicians or political parties. But on the other hand, what we need to address is public responsibility. The citizen’s responsibilities. The voter’s responsibilities for the election process and its results.”
Yushchenko didn’t live up to expectations. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. Given his background and disposition, the odds were stacked against him. But that doesn’t mean the ideas that he and so many others championed on the Maydan are discredited. Nor should his failures excuse future generations from trying to achieve them.
William Schreiber is a Boren national security scholar based in Warsaw, Poland. He can be reached at [email protected].
