Quote: “Regular demarches of Yulia Tymoshenko, supported by PR campaigns from her followers from Western capitals, to most observers’ opinion — is an act of desperation, because she is still in prison, and her ability to influence her companions-in-arms decrease”.
If this comment wiggles between condescension and condemnation, the next one leaves no doubt: “She does not realize that her personal problems, including vulgar assumptions of “peeping in the shower” are not even a factor for mobilizing her supporters”.
Personal problems? Since when politically motivated conviction and jailing of a former prime minister and leader of the opposition can be properly called “personal problems”?
There is much more, but nothing about why Yulia Tymoshenko is in prison. Since this question is central to any debate about allegations of her missteps, it seems that the quoted article is deliberately masking what has been very obvious from the day one since Viktor Yanukovych was elected president, and was predictable beforehand — the destruction of human rights and democracy in Ukraine by his regime.
There is also no shortage of offered advice: “To really maintain or even increase her influence, besides repeating the mantra “release me and I will make you happy” – she should offer the public at least some socially important ideas and messages”.
Apparently some people have been hard of hearing.
Tymoshenko’s messages have been loud enough to land her in jail. And her ideas had and continue to have the right sound — or they would not have a mesmerizing effect on Yanukovych’s delicate hearing and on his remarkably plutosonic crew.
Her “socially important” message was and is that the oligarchs are stealing blind from the people and from the country which they see as their personal property.
There is more marginalizing of Tymoshenko in the same article:
“Even with the victory of opposition candidate in the next presidential election, Tymoshenko will be released – but rather as token, not influential person.”
Victory of opposition candidate in the next presidential election? No one should hold his breath that there will be an honest election. And no one should assume that Tymoshenko will be alive to witness it. Insidiously revolving hounding with new fabricated charges, and manipulated medicinal control has infinite possibilities to facilitate an end of her life while in jail.
Being alive she speaks for an entire semi-conscious nation held captive by a criminal enterprise.
The decisive battle is in the confrontation of ideas today, not in “the next election”. The mafia would love nothing better than have Tymoshenko fade away as quickly as possible, one way or another. Dealing with decapitated opposition would be so much easier. Here’s how the opposition leadership dilemma is painted in the quoted article:
“Other opposition leaders are doing their best trying not to lose the trust of the electorate, and are maximally dissociating themselves from the heritage of “The Orange Revolution”
(note quotation marks), which now Tymoshenko represents”.
Are they really “dissociating themselves” from what Tymoshenko represents? Or is it a wishful thinking in the making? And there are more flies in the ointment, such as:
“Cogent victory of the Svoboda party in the elections and taking over the political initiative from large national-liberal opposition fractions shows the emergence of a very strong public demand for political violence”.
Strong public demand for political violence?
It is not clear which television channel in Ukraine regularly shows violent movies. It is conceivable, however, that the government would not look askance at incidental excuses to clamp down on any real-life whiff that could be pictured as violence or “terrorism”.
What is really happening in the opposition camp is the maturing cooperation between the three parties, including Svoboda. Keeping all of them on track with coordination and strong commitment to democratic values and social justice to gain numerical advantage over the support base of authoritarian regime is the right course.
A strong populist pro-democracy wave is the only weapon feared by the ruling clique in charge of government and of its coercive resources. A wave that can take control of the streets and split the government’s control over its various security forces – as it had done in the Orange Revolution — is the regime’s nightmare.
This strategy of a broad-based populist buildup also makes room for participation of the segments of the existing established elite at some level, given that the oligarchic structures are open to fragmentation from a growing economic stress, and some of them are not in perfect harmony with Yanukovych family’s expanding dominance, wealth and his personal power.
Knowing that opposition unity is essential, Yulia Tymoshenko has called on the country’s opposition forces to establish a united party, “because the steam roller of the Regions Party can be stopped only by a powerful opposition force, which will enjoy unquestionable support in society” ( Kyiv Post, January 22).
Opposition parties had a coordinated strategy in last October’s elections. However, the results in the single-mandate districts were disappointing for Batkivshchyna and especially for UDAR party – where parliamentary elections were lost. Someone needs to give a good reason why these two parties are not one party
Leaders’ faces seem to be the only difference between these two parties. Goodwill is no substitute for a unified leadership when it comes to grooming the candidates’ images and financing their campaigns in single- mandate elections.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
