The alignment of forces supporting one candidate or another has already taken shape in the Crimea. While the Slavic Council of the Crimea, recently recreated on the basis of the Crimean branches of the National-Democratic Party and the Slavic Party, is urging its supporters to vote for Viktor Yanukovych, the Kurultai of the Crimean Tatars is backing Viktor Yushchenko. The Russian Bloc of the Crimea, which earlier quit the Yanukovych coalition, announced that it is returning after the latter’s statements on his position on the Russian language, dual citizenship, and his promise to construct a bridge across the Kerch Strait.
Meanwhile, experts believe that Crimean residents are far more indifferent to the coming elections than residents of other regions. At a press conference in Simferopol, president of the Ukrainian Press Academy Valery Ivanov, citing the results of local mass media monitoring, said that the local media are taking virtually no part in covering the elections. Data compiled by the Crimean Committee on Monitoring Freedom of the Press show that in June and July, 40 to 60% of the few existing pre-election publications were devoted to Yanukovych’s activities; nearly 10% for Petro Symonenko, with only 1 to 3% devoted to other candidates. The press has virtually ignored the Crimean tours of candidates Natalia Vitrenko, Oleksandr Moroz, Petro Symonenko, and Anatoly Kinakh. The local television channel had to replace pre-election interviews with some candidates who failed to contact the Crimea State Television and Radio Company, with a caption featuring an apology reading, “Such-and-such a candidate failed to appear for the show.” Further evidence of Crimean society’s unmistakable indifference to the coming elections is the fact that about a month ago the Council of Ministers of the Crimea announced the creation of a hotline on media coverage of the election campaign. But so far there have been only five calls to one phone number and one call to a second number, say hotline experts, lawyers Larysa Opanasiuk and Iryna Demetska, in an interview with The Day’s correspondent. Perhaps the Coordinating Council of the Social and Political Forces of the Crimean Tatar People had its reasons when they decided at last week’s conference to refrain from supporting any of the candidates so far, since none of them have any clear stands on Crimean problems in their programs.
At the same time, Crimean society and active social and political forces are pinning rather specific hopes on the presidential elections. A group of Crimean public figures recently published an address in the local press, whose main idea is expressed in the title, “Crimean Residents Should Gain From the Presidential Elections.” The analysis of the situation in the Crimea shows that it is more calm and tolerant today than ten years ago, although this doesn’t necessarily mean that the problems in the peninsula have become any less acute during this period. On the contrary, a number of urgent problems have emerged, although so far the Crimeans don’t believe that a new head of state can solve them. The Crimea wants to put an end to the land conflicts and solve the situation with the Russians, Crimean Tatars, and Ukrainians in the Crimea, because each of these communities has its own reasons for being disgruntled. They also want an answer to the question about the character of Crimean autonomy, language, economic independence of the Crimea, etc. The authors of the address state, “The Crimeans need a president who not only shares the cultural values of Crimean society, understands and supports the need for economic development of the Crimean region, but who also does not dodge the democratic mechanism of responsibility toward Ukrainian and Crimean society.” They claim that in the new circumstances the Crimea needs to formulate and approve a new Constitution of the Crimea, taking into account the role of Crimean society in republican and state processes; expanding the autonomy’s economic rights and powers; reducing the property gap between the richest 5% and the poorest 5% to European standards; forming the republic’s authorities directly by Crimean society; and ensuring their accountability to and control by Crimean society, not only the central authorities in Kyiv.
Unfortunately, none of the candidates’ programs include any clauses on resolving the Crimea’s problems. According to Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of the Crimea Ilmi Umerov, the formal existence of these clauses isn’t necessary. Many in the Crimea hope that if the elected president observes general democratic principles, he won’t be able to ignore the “Crimean challenges,” and somehow or other will address them. Meanwhile, in Mr. Umerov’s opinion, there is a risk that the central government, preoccupied as it is with global issues of state building, won’t find any time for Crimean problems, which will only lead to their persistence.
In the opinion of Volodymyr Prytula, head of the Crimean Center for Political Research and Journalism, the Crimea is becoming increasing similar, in political terms, to other regions in Ukraine, and thus seems to require no special attention from candidates. For instance, candidates are for the most part welcomed here in the same way as in other regions. When Natalia Vitrenko came here, 300 persons attended the meeting, with an equal number turning out in Melitopol or any other place; Anatoly Kinakh had meetings with work collectives and was received the same manner as in Central Ukraine; Viktor Yanukovych enjoyed the same welcome as in eastern Ukraine, and Viktor Yushchenko, who has quite a few supporters here, was received the same way as in western Ukraine. In addition to general questions, the Crimeans have been asking the candidates a number of questions that wouldn’t be asked in other places: the land problem, status of the Crimean Tatars, economic independence, etc. Answering them requires a specialized background and superior qualifications that not everyone has.
In the opinion of experts, the problem is that many questions pertaining e.g., to land allotments to expatriates, registration of private hotels, whose number already exceeds 2,000, etc., cannot be solved on the basis of existing legislation. Thus, a fundamentally new approach is necessary, along with coordinated actions by all government branches. On the other hand, the above-mentioned address issued by Crimean public figures demonstrates that the Constitution of the Crimea is also outdated, having been written in the days when the Crimea was part of the so-called Red Belt, and the Crimean Verkhovna Rada hadn’t yet abandoned the old Bolshevik approach to state management. Today Crimean society is demanding solutions to a variety of issues in other ways than those defined by the Constitution. For instance, the practice of forming a government without including the indigenous population is certainly outdated. The Crimean Constitution is also inconsistent with respect to language questions, a result of ignoring specific national features of the region, etc.
The Crimea is special even in terms of its ecological problems. As a result, Green movements wield considerable authority in the peninsula; recall that the construction of the Crimean Nuclear Power Station was stopped precisely at their demand. According to their information, the death rate in Simferopol is 1.8 times higher than the birth rate, and the cancer rate is twice Ukraine’s average. The Crimean branch of the Green Party of Ukraine reports that public green spaces in Simferopol account for only 8% of the city’s total area, while in the so-called “concrete jungle” of New York City the figure is 30%. Taking advantage of the situation, the local branch of the Green Party, the republican Ecology and the World organization, and the Crimean Charity Fund have begun preparations for a referendum in Simferopol. The Green’s leader Vitaly Kononov, who later withdrew his candidacy from the presidential race, said in Simferopol that holding a referendum is perhaps more important for the Crimea than even the elections themselves, since a head of state will be elected anyway, while ecological problems will remain unsolved. Meanwhile, Kononov’s departure from the election campaign has in no way diminished the importance of the Simferopol referendum, which was supported by twelve public political organizations participating in the elections and four initiative groups. The ecology issue is uniting organizations of opposing political views. The referendum was backed by the local branch of the Communist Party of Ukraine and the ‘For Ukraine! For Yushchenko!’ Union, as well as structures supporting Viktor Yanukovych. On election day, Simferopol residents will answer nine questions in the ecological referendum, three of which annul previous City Council decisions to reduce public green spaces; the remaining five questions demand that the City Council close the city dump, which fails to meet ecological standards, conduct an inventory of green spaces, and maintain and develop them.
