When it comes to governing themselves, the outcomes for Ukrainians appear to be somewhat worse than ambiguous. Yes, imagination is still there, but it is mostly in the realm of politicians’ payoffs, crime drama in real life, and the making of new political parties.
The top prize for creative national harakiri goes to the election of Viktor Yanukovych of the Regions Party as president. Turning knowingly by voters’ choice the whole country into the claws of mob and crime bosses, renowned for their anti-social record and Ukrainophobic twist, was an event that will live in infamy for generations.
If events continue to develop along the ongoing slide of libertyand decency in Ukraine, the long-term result of that election will be catastrophic — leading to re-imposition of the Kremlin’s historic political and cultural yoke.
It would be life under foot of the same aggressive power that has been scorned, if not challenged, by its own citizens. In the words of poet Mikhail Lermontov, who wrote in 1841 upon his last exile from Russia to the Caucasus, "Farewell, farewell, unwashed Russia, The land of slaves, the land of lords."
What is being done to change the course?
Besides the courageous resistance of Yulia Tymoshenko and other political prisoners, the only major action seems to be the attempt to consolidate the democratic opposition strategy for the upcoming parliamentary elections. Specifically it is the effort to sign up the opposition parties to a single electoral list. Such a binding agreement has already been made, on April 27, by Tymoshenko’s Batkivshchyna and Arseniy Arseniuk’s Forward for Change parties.
This is not the same as recruiting for an open revolt and the storming of the Bastille. It is not a challenge that with some goodwill cannot overcome habitual bickering. It would be a momentous success in terms of maximizing the prospect of winning the majority vote in parliamentary elections — which could not be concealed even if the outcome is falsified, and it could lead to regime change in ways that cannot be foreseen at this time.
A major surprise came when the heavyweight Vitali Klitschko has declined to have his party join the unified electoral list. The main effect of Klitschko’s self-segregated campaign is to draw votes away from other opposition groups and thus weaken a unified effort, while accepting the risk of being shut out completely by missing the 5 percent threshold.
The logic of his self-assurance is somewhat opaque. Klitschko made a political splash in 2011 by defining himself as defender of persecuted Yulia Tymoshenko. It carried a symbolic and moral weight. That image has now faded, superseded by his new party politics.
These politics are not much different from the stance of other opposition parties. It does not catch fire, with their agendas usually consisting of a wish list ignored by skeptical voters as puffy malarkey. In a country beset by poverty and ravenous robber barons, missing is a true radical statement of war on palaces. It should be articulated as the primacy of public interest over private gain, with re-nationalization of the largest holdings that are strategic national assets.
Yes, it would be tantamount to reopening the issue of criminal privatizations that was derailed by President Viktor Yushchenko when Tymoshenko as prime minister attempted to give it daylight in 2005, and was dismissed. The legacy of gangster privatizations is at the root of social dysfunction and lawlessness today in Ukraine. That root needs to be extracted.
A genuine radical program can be framed and phrased as a direct hit at the existing kleptocracy which is having a long run in Ukraine under the aegis of economic freedom. Its right-of-center fig leaf is carried by almost all political wheeler-dealers.
A “united plan” presented by opposition forum on May 12 is mostly hot air.
In the present state of Ukrainian protoplasm, jails can be filled with political prisoners before the disillusioned masses will stir – if they will at all. This is a historically entrenched paradigm against which the 2004 Orange Revolution flashed as if it were an unsustainable fluke that is now receding into the neverland.
That’s why the word consolidation usually falls on deaf ears when it comes to organizing a real political power block. And that’s why getting onboard more people with some unblemished track record is so important. Klitschko fits that image at this time.
On the international scene, Klitschko’s statements last year condemning Ukraine’s “tyrannical regime” widened the much needed worldwide publicity and contributed to a growing isolation of Viktor Yanukovych. To Klitschko’s credit, he spent time and effort for his new cause, whichever way he chooses to articulate it.
However, what he does or doesn’t do in terms of specific steps concerning the opposition’s unified strategy can determine the success or near-miss of his best intentions, as well as influence the outcome of a historic confrontation between democracy and autocracy in Ukraine.
Perhaps he needs to re-examine his stance relative to the common democratic front, and offer an answer to the question: Quo vadis, Vitaliy? Where are you headed?
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
