A coalition of four opposition political parties (the Front of Changes, Civic Position, European Party, and the Ukrainian Republican Party “Sobor”) does not exist yet, but it is already doomed to fail. Volodymyr Zastava, expert of the Horshenin Institute, recently sent a very symptomatic statement to UNIAN (leading domestic news agency — Ed.), maintaining that the announced merger could adversely affect the Ukrainian opposition. He said such a merger can well be described with the old saying: “Wherever are two Ukrainians, there are three hetmans.” Each of the aforementioned politicians began a solo political career some time ago, distancing himself from Our Ukraine. Thus, this coalition could be called “the union of four hetmans.” As an example, Zastava cited the “Kaniv Quartet” created during 1999 presidential campaign by Yevhen Marchuk, Oleksandr Moroz, Oleksandr Tkachenko and Volodymyr Oliinyk, adding that “some experts believe the ‘Kaniv Quartet’ to be a technological project of the staff of the then Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.”
Viktor Nebozhenko, political scientist, director of the Ukrainian Barometer sociological service:
“Comparing the current integration processes among national democrats with the ‘Kaniv Quartet’ of 1999 is wrong, and perhaps provocative. The ‘Kaniv Quartet’ was the first genuine attempt to unite and choose the strongest and best among politicians. However, it ended with outright betrayal by one of its members, with the direct participation of the government. If we consider the ‘Kaniv Quartet’ as a political tool, it was rather a tool used by the government to divide and destroy. That coalition’s start was very promising, but then at the last moment, a banal betrayal occurred. The government applied the principle ‘divide and conquer.’ In general, comparing the current unification attempts among the opposition with the ‘Kaniv Quartet’ is simply unprofessional. It is difficult to even call this analysis. On the other hand, initiators of such statements are, maybe, willing to say that any unification process has no future, that is, to discredit the very idea of coalition.
“And now, let’s turn to the unification attempts. There are three factors. The first is connected with the principle of repression. Each member of the national-democratic camp is in a different status in relation to the government’s policy of criminal persecution. Some people go to the prosecutor’s service’s office like to their daily job. Some other people are being blackmailed, while others are being bribed. There are those who criticize the authorities, and there are those who flirt with the government. The second factor is that the question arises: who will represent the four forces? Who will be authorized to do it? The third factor is that all of today’s coalitions are nothing more than attempts to privatize the national democratic electorate. All this creates some problems in the negotiations. Nowadays, coalitions should not think about elections, they should strive to formulate appealing agenda. Mere preparation for elections in hope of getting the support of other destroyed national-democratic forces’ voters is a dead-end strategy. Its only result is a deterioration of the relationship between voters and politicians. If current unification attempts are made with possible early elections in mind, and the authorities only think about how to divide the national-democratic camp, it means that neither the government nor the opposition has learned anything. On the other hand, if the opposition figures are negotiating to solve the national crisis, then this will have good outcome.”
