In this year’s Independence Day address, the president did not mention the situation with freedom of speech in Ukraine, nor did he touch upon the attacks and murders of journalists that have negatively affected Ukraine’s reputation worldwide.
Despite having proclaimed in his second inaugural address his commitment to create the conditions necessary for freedom of speech, Kuchma has driven the press into complete dependence on the authorities and oligarchs. In comparison, Leonid Kravchuk’s presidency was considerably more enlightened and more tolerant of press freedoms.
For regional and district papers, dependence on a single party has been replaced with submission to local administrations. The so‑called independent central and regional newspapers, as well as the most popular TV channels, have been taken over by the political and financial clans close to the president. Just a few independent publications are left, and they are desperately fighting for survival. They are able to maintain their independence only thanks to subscribers’ support. This is the case with the weekly Silski Visti (Countryside News), which has a circulation of 500,000.
A recent event from my personal experience highlights the situation. In an oped published in Silski Visti entitled “A bad rider can wear out the best horse,” I showed that the Lviv air show tragedy was just part of the national disaster caused by Leonid Kuchma’s regime over the last ten years. Shortly afterwards, a high‑ranking official from the Presidential Administration conveyed the following message to me via a friend: “Don’t forget what happened in fall 2000.”
He was referring to the attempt by the authorities, clearly following Kuchma’s orders, to crush Silski Visti. The State Tax Administration imposed a Hr 3 million fine, which amounted to a punitive confiscation of funds. As a result, the paper did not appear for three weeks. The main reason for this pressure was that the paper published articles sharply critical of Kuchma. I know who it was that set him onto the paper. That person remains in his close entourage. Now I have been given a reminder of what may happen to the paper if it goes on telling the truth about the president.
I am not surprised that a power‑happy bureaucrat would try to put such pressure on a duly‑elected Rada deputy. Nor is it surprising that the president should tolerate such bureaucrats – it’s been a long time since anything associated with Kuchma has surprised me. He was ready to suppress Silski Visti without a court order and without right of appeal, and later denied responsibility. Is it surprising that a president who was ready to say that he would strike journalists in the face, as he did during the last presidential campaign in response to questions and statements about his unfulfilled promises, should tolerate a person ready to lift his hand against free speech?
Kuchma was offended when the international journalistic community twice named him as an enemy of the press. But his record is probably unmatched in Europe. Kuchma has not only suppressed national publications and TV channels, but also district and city newspapers with circulations in the thousands, like the Kremenchuk Information Bulletin, which he personally ordered to be closed down at the end of 2000.
Attacks on pluralism have continued even after the elections. The authorities are persecuting not just opposition media but also those that merely try to be objective. Yutar TV company recently had its license withdrawn for the simple reason that it gave a platform to both representatives of the authorities and their opponents. Although a court ruled in favor of Yutar, the National Council for TV and Radio Broadcasting, controlled by Kuchma’s appointee Borys Kholod, ignored the court’s decision. Kholod did not bother to conceal the fact that he had the blessing of the president to neglect the rule of law.
Kuchma was also directly implicated in the closure of the Polytyka newspaper. Polytyka’s successor, the weekly Svoboda, is kept under permanent surveillance by the police and the Prosecutor General’s Office. Its editor‑in‑chief, Oleh Lyashko, has spent time in jail.
The Donetsk Tax Administration recently threw journalist Volodymyr Boyko into a cell after he raised inconvenient questions in the press about an STA decision favorable to the son of the oblast tax administration head. This time, it was clear even to Kuchma that his watchdogs had overstepped the mark, and he was forced to intervene after Boyko had been held illegally for 10 days.
Finally, the murders of Georgy Gongadze and Ihor Oleksandrov show that Ukrainian journalists can pay for freedom of speech with their lives.
President Kuchma has driven the press into the hands of his appointees and semi‑criminal clans. Meanwhile, the regime has tamed editorial boards and keeps their journalists on hunger rations. Many publications carry unctuous articles reminiscent of the Brezhnev era about the president, his family and local state functionaries. It has become customary to print deluxe volumes with titles like “The President” and “The Governor.”
There is complete freedom to shower praise on the bankrupt president. But there is no real freedom to tell the truth about the life of the people or to suggest an alternative to the destructive policy that is being pursued by the existing regime. Recent events at Sambir in Lviv oblast illustrate what happens if any publication questions this course. The Sambir newspaper was due to print a letter critical of local Rada deputies. The local mayor, without a court decision or other legal ruling, arrived at the printing plant where the paper was to be printed and ordered the complete press run to be destroyed.
In legal terms, there is freedom of speech in Ukraine. There may be room for improving the laws, but they do establish the basic principles of press freedom. But only those legal provisions that benefit the regime are enforced. Unfortunately, the situation has only got worse after the Gongadze murder. The authorities have seized the initiative, intimidating journalists and sowing fear, apathy and doubt about the possibility of improvement. There is little resistance to the assault on freedom of speech. Journalists’ organizations are stuck in conformity and servility. Facing economic and everyday needs, newsmen obediently fulfill the orders of publishers, i.e. the local executive bodies incorporated into the presidential power vertical. Only a few publications belonging to the political opposition offer a genuine alternative to this conformity, but their influence is limited due to lack of funds and professional personnel.
The international community should be alarmed at the present state of freedom of speech in Ukraine. Not only do the authorities crush any manifestation of free thinking, they are doing their best to preserve the status quo indefinitely. The authorities have beaten the fighting spirit out of Ukrainian journalism. Now our press may be co‑opted into backing the emergence of an autocratic criminal dictatorship in Ukraine, a development that threatens the security of both Ukrainians and the whole of Europe. Unfortunately, we are already far down this dangerous road.
Ivan Bokiy has 42 years of experience in journalism and is on the editorial board of Silski Visti. Elected to the Rada on the Socialist Party list, Bokiy is a member of the Rada’s Committee for Euro‑Integration.
