First President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk granted his last interview to The Day on the eve of the presidential elections in the fall of 1999. At that time, Mr. Kravchuk did not agree to many assessments of the domestic situation offered by journalists. Today, his standpoint is obviously different, perhaps because the then emerging problems have now not only become obvious but also caused a deep crisis in Ukraine, a thing hard to deny. This time, speaking to The Day’s editors, Mr. Kravchuk was critical of both the authorities and the opposition, viewing the March 9 events as a direct road to national destabilization. The remedy to rectify the situation Mr. Kravchuk suggested at our editorial office is a civilized dialogue rather than search for whom to blame. A dialogue like the one he once began with Rukh, when, in his words, “nobody lost his crown.”
Tellingly, Mr. Kravchuk believes neither in the “depoliticization of power” nor in Ukraine being unprepared for proportional representation elections.
NO SENSE IN CONDUCTING A DIALOGUE IN THE LANGUAGE OF ULTIMATUMS
“How do you view the March 9 events?”
“Currently some people are trying to force society to search for the guilty. Some will blame the opposition and others the authorities for what has happened. But we must find the root causes of these events. Why did this not happen earlier? I would love to see the number of protesters unchanged. But this requires a dialogue without any preconditions or personal sympathies and antipathies. In 1988 the Communist Party of Ukraine Central Committee opted for a dialogue with Rukh, and I fulfilled this task. And nobody lost his crown. Nobody set any preconditions. We have today government ideologists such as Mykola Zhulynsky or somebody from the President’s Administration. Let them come out to tell the people what the point is. But let them never attach labels or lay blame, for this is not a civilized way to solve the problem. It will only aggravate the situation. What is occurring now is the result of applying the old ideological standards: the authorities are always right and those protesting against them are bad. Yes, the opposition does have problems: it is not as civilized and constructive as we would like. But likewise, the authorities also have problems of their own. I don’t mean the President alone, although he is now in the limelight. There are some problems at the Cabinet of Ministers and Verkhovna Rada. These should be exposed to the general public. If we do so and try to solve these problems, the people will see we are trying to do our best. But now the parliament is putting labels on the president, while the president, prime minister, and speaker are in response attaching labels to the opposition. Some even call the opposition fascists. I can agree that there are the far Left and the far Right, but I would not say we’ve got something brown. But we can call something black only if it is really black.
“In general, it is difficult to foresee the political consequences of everything that has happened since early December not only on March 9. It is clear only that this is the path to destabilization. And, instead of solving the problem, both sides are resorting to laying blame and strong-arm tactics.”
“Mr. Kravchuk, you once began consultations and negotiations in Ukraine, when almost nobody in the CPSU Central Committee was able to speak with Rukh. At what stage do you think something broke down and we lost the ability to find political compromises?”
“I think it’s a question of human mentality. Perestroika brought along such slogans as We need Stalin and We need discipline back! The common opinion was that Kravchuk was a mild and spineless person. So the 1994 elections were held on the wave of craving for discipline and tough order.”
“Order and Decency.”
“Yes. And the word democracy was not used at all. Casting our votes in 1991, we said we were rejecting the totalitarian regime and methods of administration — everything that characterized the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire. And as soon as 1994 we began to speak about order. But what kind of order, based on the rule of law or that of the fist? The people began to yearn for strong authority. And since the people want this, here you are. This in fact set the trend toward the enhanced powers of the authorities. Verkhovna Rada, the president, and the cabinet each try to bite off more than the other. I agree that the governmental setup should be improved, but not in one direction only: there must be a balance of power between the branches of government. To quote Bulgakov, ‘If you had brought angels to power, they would soon have had horns growing.’ This is precisely why there are checks and balances and constitutional guarantees for them, so that nobody could see horns growing on himself. Incessant talk about the need for a strong power has never resulted in one, and various forces began to make use of different social sentiments to put the blame on somebody.”
“Many say the authorities are very weak because society not always adequately appraises even correct official steps. Have you seen President Kuchma to discuss frankly how to overcome the crisis?”
“Of course, I have. We often see each other. For example, before and immediately after the elections. So I expressed this viewpoint: you have won now, and we must seek ways to coordinate our efforts. I even warned against the nationwide referendum because it could aggravate the situation. I have also repeatedly called on the media to stop its uncivilized criticism of Verkhovna Rada, for I believe that only specific deputies should be criticized. All of us should have come together after the elections to work out a compromise solution. But it never happened. This was, in my opinion, the root cause of an intensified confrontation between the branches of government. It is still not too late to get back to these issues: all we have to do is curb our ambitions.”
“And what do you think such a compromise could include?”
“First we must identify the range of issues to discuss: the organization and system of governance, economic problems, and foreign policy. Then we should offer the opposition an open dialogue.”
“And are you prepared to take part in the talks as a chairman of a round table?”
“With pleasure. I would share this responsibility with party leaders from either side to ward off the impression of stacking the deck with like-minded people. Look on the street: there are tents and other parties there. And one has to talk with them.”
“And do they want to talk?”
“So far, nobody has offered them even an agenda.”
“Mr. Kravchuk, all those parties until recently considered as supporting statehood — both Rukhs, Reforms & Order, and others — supported, directly or indirectly, Leonid Kuchma in the last elections. What does this mean?”
“First, they, like everyone else, feel the pressure of the regions and people because they regularly meet their voters. It is very hard to withstand this. Secondly, there are political games in Verkhovna Rada itself. This parliament has gone on record for horse trading. They began to buy deputies and votes. People began to team up according to this trading. Thirdly, the coming of Prime Minister Yushchenko divided parliament for some time into the pro-presidential and pro-premier factions. Now some of the latter are saying they were mistaken because they expected Mr. Yushchenko to become leader of the national democratic forces and presidential candidate in the next elections. In other words, there are many reasons why the political forces that supported Mr. Kuchma in the elections have now changed their mind. I no longer believe that this Verkhovna Rada will make any radical changes. But I do believe that if we start a dialogue, we will be able to convince the voters that we want real changes beneficial to the people and state.”
NO GREAT RUSSIA WITHOUT UKRAINE
“The elections in Moldova is not only a guideline for our Left in the next parliamentary elections. There is also the problem of foreign relations. The once considered promising GUUAM has in fact come to nothing. Besides, we are now in fact a country bordering on the already-discernible bloc of Russia, Belarus, and Moldova. And we are in the center of this configuration, incomprehensible to the West and making overtures to Russia. Will the Ukrainian political elite resist the temptation? Or are we thus returning to the Belaya Vezha accords?”
“First, I have never thought that GUUAM is anything meaningful. Secondly, President Kuchma is now under tremendous pressure from the Western media, which demand that he establish a democratic regime in Ukraine. On the other hand, there is Russia, which takes us the way we are. Even now, interesting meetings, such as the one in Dnipropetrovsk between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine, are taking place. I was not there and do not share the view of those media outlets that say that the agreements between the presidents are betraying our independence. We must always try to establish a normal civilized partnership with Russia. But, on the other hand, I can’t understand why the Russian military can be conducting exercises in the Crimea, on the territory of an independent sovereign state, with the authorities pretending to be unaware of it.”
“Do you wish you had not signed the Belaya Vezha document? Did Ukraine really need independence to appear ten years later as a country without great- power ambitions and with an elite devoid of responsibility?”
“Our meeting in Belaya Vezha was preceded by a social explosion demanding democracy and sovereignty. I would do the same today. I don’t wish that I hadn’t signed the document. For we had to start one day or another. Of course, we have to go through painful stages. The main thing is we should be wise enough not to forget that these difficulties can only be overcome in a civilized democratic way. We will never return to totalitarianism now. People have a different consciousness, a new generation has grown up. People even wear different faces. The cassette scandal has now been made public is also a sign of democracy. Thus I think that in the final historical analysis no one can say it was a mistake. There can be no mistaken steps toward freedom and democracy.”
“Russia, with its bypass gas pipeline, will integrate with Europe faster and more dynamically than we will. The danger then will not be that Russia will swallow us: a part of Russian modern- thinking politicians does not seem to want this very much.”
“Russia will never swallow us. But it will want us to do what it pleases. Russia has never from the very outset lost the idea of grandeur.”
“A nice idea for a normal country.”
“Can Russia do this without an obedient Ukraine? Never. Gorbachev used to repeat like a prayer: ‘There will be no Soviet Union without Ukraine.’ Yeltsin would say like a prayer: ‘There will be no CIS without Ukraine.’ They won’t be able to build Great Russia without Ukraine.”
WHILE PEOPLE TALK, THE MACHINE-GUNS KEEP SILENT
“Why did parliament not pass the new law on parties together with that on proportional representation elections? If we had a normal law on parties, there would not be 115 of them. The president vetoed the law on proportional representation. He seems to be afraid of such elections.”
“I don’t think he is afraid of elections. What he is afraid of is the situation. For it could happen that the elections will not reflect the real situation in Ukraine. I agree with you we must adopt the law on parties. It will take time, maybe one more convocation, for society to prepare itself for this law so that the next elections could be held under the proportional system.”
“Wouldn’t it be better if the president set a condition: you pass and implement the law on parties so that the parliamentary elections be held on its basis, and I will sign the law on proportional representation. Then the opposition, now roaming the streets, could be forming its structures, real parties. And the process could be placed within the constitutional framework.”
“There is too little time, only a year before the elections. All I agree to is that the law on parties should be signed. If the law on proportional representation were signed today, we would get a leftist parliament, a leftist majority. In other words, given the current ranking of the parties, we should leave the existing election system intact.”
“Perhaps the point is that we have not had a party-based regime from the very outset?”
“Actually, I cannot accept the current attempts to segregate power not only from parties but from politics. Suffice it to read the appeal of governors to the president. How can a nonpolitical decision be made in an oblast? It’s absurd. We even hear from the Presidential Administration that parties lack strength. But they will never be strong as long as they are treated like this. They remain outside the process of forming executive bodies. Then what are they for? Are they just clubs, not parties? For example, why can the premier not head a party? In that case, we would have a different form of and a different attitude toward the cabinet. People in fact brag that they belong to no party. Then what is the mechanism of communication between the people and the authorities? Referenda? But you can’t bring all things to a referendum. This is the job of parties. A party assumes responsibility and mediates between the people and the authorities, and exercises control over the latter.
“I want to say in conclusion that round tables, like this one at your editorial office, should also be held with the parties, between the branches of power, and between the authorities and the opposition.”
