Russian expert Stanislav Belkovsky and Ukrainian political analysts Kostiantyn Bondarenko and Dmytro Vydrin believe that political consensus between Viktor Yanukovych and Viktor Yushchenko is the only way to secure the further advancement of democracy in Ukraine at the current stage of maximum electoral confrontation. In Stanislav Belkovsky’s opinion, neither of the leading candidates, if he wins the campaign, will be able to meet the electorate’s interests and the needs of various political elites, particularly those in the regions. Yushchenko, for example, “won’t be able to form an effective power machine.” Belkovsky explains that Viktor Yushchenko is more the “face of the nation.” This Russian political analyst thinks that only Viktor Yanukovych will be able to “force the bureaucracy to work and create a firm executive vertical,” that the current premier’s administrative talent is needed now more than ever before to carry out effective reforms in this country. According to Stanislav Belkovsky’s theory, signing a pact of sorts between Yushchenko, Yanukovych, and their respective entourages is the best possible option for finding a way out of the situation.
The Russian analyst’s views triggered a lively discussion with his Ukrainian colleagues. Ukrainian political analyst Kostiantyn Bondarenko, supporting the pact idea, stressed that “the candidates must seek understanding,” and that Viktor Yushchenko “should not be touring the country but arranging the premiership, and vice versa.” This analyst is convinced that both candidates should pay attention to the regions and look for allies within the opponent’s entourage. Kostiantyn Bondarenko sees the absence of consensus and desire to sit down at the negotiating table as the main obstacle that may preclude the possibility of a Yushchenko-Yanukovych pact. “Without reaching an understanding, the elections will be a fiasco, no matter who wins the campaign,” he stressed. Political analyst Dmytro Vydrin pointed out that the opposition has placed maximum distance between itself and the government, thus opposing them to the people. This reduces all prospects of understanding to a minimum. In other words, following the elections the loser will most likely have to sign an act of capitulation. The current campaign motto is Winner Takes All!
At the same time, Oleksandr Lytvynenko, Viktor Nebozhenko, and Vadym Karasiov did not support the Russian expert’s idea. Vadym Karasiov noted that, if Belkovsky’s theory is implemented, Ukraine would have a political system along the lines of the Rzeczpospolita in the days of Cossackdom, with the president as a figurehead, a symbol of the nation, as was the case with the Polish king. The prime minister would control the whole vertical of power, with the regional elites pressuring the premier, the way the szlachta did, serving their own interests. In Karasiov’s opinion, this system would be utterly ineffective. Ukraine’s future lies with parliament-cabinet coalitions, and the winner of the election will determine the political force serving as the basis on which the rest will rally. Viktor Nebozhenko declared that the pact idea is essentially nothing new, that there have been several such pacts in the history of independent Ukraine. Nebozhenko believes that the proclamation of Ukrainian independence in the early 1990s, when the national democrats at the head of the Rukh movement and the Ukrainian communists voted for it, is an example of such consolidation. Also, discussing Yushchenko and Yanukovych’s unwillingness to hold talks makes little sense, because such communication does take place; it’s just that both teams have long identified their goals and too many resources are involved, so no one will stop halfway to victory.
Stanislav Belkovsky’s theory and assumptions may have a right to exist. At the same time, it is hard to imagine a Ukrainian political analyst voicing his views on Russia’s future at a roundtable in Moscow, days before the elections, even less so musing on which of the candidates would make a better president or premier. The very next day Ukraine would be accused of interfering in Russia’s internal affairs. In a recent article “Why Worry So Much?” Oleksandr Lytvynenko, First Deputy Director of the National Institute for Strategic Studies, analyzes the legal possibilities of neutralizing foreign influence on the Ukrainian elections, yet another example confirming the topicality of the issue broached by The Day.
