Without exaggeration the first president and current People’s Deputy Leonid Kravchuk can be described as the most experienced contemporary Ukrainian politician and one of the most active authors of our country’s recent history. Eleven years ago he was entrusted by the nation with chief executive authority, which he would later be the first in the CIS to surrender to his successor in a most civilized manner. It is also true, however, that not all media people have succeeded in receiving straight answers to straight questions when interviewing him. He has a gift for maneuvering in between the raindrops reflected even in folk tales. Indifferent to rank and position, a rare approach among today’s politicians, Leonid Kravchuk can afford to be frank and unbiased. Needless to say, his outspoken attitude has nothing to do with boisterous populism, because his arguments are always well substantiated. Perhaps compared to the rungs in the political ladder he had to climb, his current status (Mr. Kravchuk was recently elected leader of the United Social Democratic faction) appears rather modest, yet it is evidence of the first Ukrainian president’s continued active political involvement.
What do you think of the president’s recent message to Verkhovna Rada?
Kravchuk: From what I know, it’s his eighth message, considering the president’s report in October 1944. It’s one of the documents annually defining and specifying the nature and guidelines of the domestic and foreign policies and the president’s stand in those realms. This year’s message is different in that it is more specific, presenting a clearer picture of what Ukraine must accomplish in its movement toward Europe. Until now our stand showed a lot of discrepancies, it often changed, depending on who the president met with and where; he would say one thing in Europe and something different in Russia. The people had a hard time trying to figure all this out. I consider myself an experienced politician, yet even I couldn’t understand whether we were actually headed for Europe or just pretending that we were, in actuality moving toward a Eurasian alliance.
Let me remind you that Verkhovna Rada adopted its foreign policy guidelines in 1994. Other documents were enacted in 1996-97, including the so-called military doctrine. If one compares all these concepts, it is extremely difficult to figure out what kind of state we actually have, because different conceptual aspects of foreign policy strategy are interpreted differently. Thus, the 1990 declaration, adopted as a political document, reads that Ukraine wants to be outside blocs, but this document has had no legal consequence whatever, the more so that six, seven, eight years have passed since its enactment and new documents had to be adopted, even if to provide for the period to 2011 – as is stated in the president’s [latest] message. I am for placing the domestic and foreign political guidelines on the legislative agenda and to work out a single bill by putting together documents drafted by various factions. If and when we pass this bill, we’ll be able to say that Verkhovna Rada, the president, and cabinet are moving in the same direction. So far the whole thing remains ambiguous. We have finally overcome all those negative trends in the economy, thank God. The second decade of independence should mark the beginning of a period of understanding, clarity, and good organization.
I think that the president’s recent message offers a deeper analysis of the situation. It shows a clear stand aimed at reform, privatization, and solving other pressing problems. It could also be described as a signal for a better cooperation between the branches of government. Speaking in the parliament, he stressed the need to carry out the administrative reform, and we all can see that this is easier said than done. The reform is being dragged out for want of political will. The parliament is still to pass fundamental bills to reorganize the administrative system at various levels, including the political subdivisions. The president also outlined the key positions in the industrial, agrarian, energy, and other sectors. In other words, this message is stronger tactically as well as strategically than the previous ones. It is safe to assume that Ukraine has finally defined its choice and ways to solve acute economic problems. Now we must translate all this into reality. Actually, had we carried out everything written down in the messages of first Kravchuk and then Kuchma, and government action plans (I think there are tomes of them), we would’ve been living under communism, to use a clichО most Ukrainians still vividly remember.
And was all this for lack of political will?
Kravchuk: We lack this and lots of other things like professionalism, a market, and democratic mentality, especially the old mentality. Both books of the presidential message to the parliament start with political digressions to the effect that one of the main reasons for the current problems is found in the shortcomings and miscalculations dating from 1991- 94. This thesis has been repeated in practically every presidential message. Then it is emphasized that Herculean efforts were made in 1994-99 to correct those mistakes. Great, so they have corrected them, so what all that got to do with the next decade? Nothing whatever. Instead there is the desire – it must be at the genetic level – to blame slow progress on the mistakes made by one’s predecessors.
One other thing. With all respect due the presidential message, does this document have to be studied at school? If so, how is this situation different from the times when a plenum of the CPSU Central Committee was still in progress while its documents were already being studied in school and university? To begin with, materials for study at school must be recommended by educational authorities. Second, the leaders of developed countries, such as George Bush or Jacques Chirac, wouldn’t be likely to order any of their messages included in the curriculum. Outwardly this might seem a trifle, but it actually means that the entourage of the head of state, all those wielding power still don’t understand that everyone must professionally carry out his duty.
Third, should our children study this document this fall or winter, sitting with their coats on in cold classrooms (we have many such schools, especially in the countryside), I don’t think that the words about Ukraine’s European choice would sound very convincingЕ It’s just a detail but a characteristic one, illustrating our administrative methods, way of thinking, and so on.
Getting back to the presidential message, don’t you think that the relations between Ukraine and the Eurasian Economic Community contradict the stated course of European integration? Borys Tarasiuk, chairman of the parliamentary committee for European integration, said both processes are incompatible.
Kravchuk: Europe might well disapprove of our turning from an observer (our stated position) into a member of that community. We should, of course, uphold existing contacts, but we must go about it in a civilized manner. For one thing, I don’t understand the Russians saying they will lower customs duties or VAT only after Ukraine joins the EAEC. Why don’t they use the same kind of pressure in dealing with, say, Germany which is not a member as well? Why does Germany have to pay less for Russian gas than Ukraine? Since when have they paid such close economic attention to their neighbors and strategic partners? I mean Ukraine is being obviously pressured. I am against any use of force in both domestic and foreign political relationships. There must be only equal rights and partnership.
How do you feel about the president’s constant emphasis on the implementation of the April referendum?
Kravchuk: The president is insistent, because for him it’s a political problem; of course, he is chagrined by its still being unsolved. However, it was obvious from the outset that this problem would never be solved. To make that referendum effective, like the one in 1991, they ought to have proclaimed its turnout final and irreversible. If they did they’d have no problems. In fact, I told the president so. Or they should’ve acted under the constitution. It reads that amendments are to be adopted by the Verkhovna Rada and then, to make them final, can be approved by a referendum. Otherwise why should the Verkhovna Rada vote for it? I, for one, as a member of the parliament, am entitled to have my own opinion. The more so that we don’t have a new referendum law. In other words, they went about the whole project the wrong way from the beginning.
Also, don’t blame the rope in his house that he hanged himself with. We all see that parliament is unable even to decide on its rules. Who is going to pay for 300 votes to implement the referendum turnout? It’s as though all the talk about the referendum was meant to disturb the public peace. I don’t think that anything will be done in the next four years. We have presidential elections two years from now, and the situation will be ten times worse than during the parliamentary campaign. In a word, I have always insisted that we all must act in keeping with the Constitution. Those trying to circumvent it to meet their own ends should know better.
What makes the political forces claiming opposition status so radical?
Kravchuk: They’re pouring oil on the fire with the presidential campaign in mind. I assure you that all the fuss with the impeachment issue and so on (knowing full well that this parliament will never solve the problem) is explained by preparations for the presidential race. Everybody is only too well aware that under the Constitution an impeachment resolution is passed by three quarters, not twothirds. This means 338 votes. Who’s going to get that number and where? We’ll never vote for it, not our fraction, nor will many others. We believe that there are no reasons for putting the matter to the vote at all. What they are after is a political tempest in a teapot actively involving the media inside and outside Ukraine. This will in turn destabilize the political situation. In other words, both the implementation of the April referendum and impeachment are not realistic today. Those that have the presence of mind and desire to actually help the people of Ukraine are campaigning for Verkhovna Rada to make totally different decisions – like passing the tax code bill. Look at Russia, it’s doing great, having set the personal income tax at 13%. And we? Let me give you a personal example. I worked as a teaching consultant at the International Cadre Academy for several months last year and was paid about 21,000 hryvnias. I paid 4500 in tax along with 6000 from my parliamentary salary. And then I had to pay 11,000 in tax because the aggregate revenue surpassed the legally established limit. Total: 22,000, even more than I had actually earned. Well, I could afford it, I paid and never complained because I had let the idiotic bills pass in parliament. But what about everyone else? How can they get by them? Not so long ago, Putin said money taken out of Russia would be pardoned. In Ukraine, instead of working out a similar civilized bill jointly with the president, cabinet, and establishing certain guarantees, they are calling for returning capital using Bolshevik methods. Expropriation of the expropriators! And then they propose to distribute the loot among the “poor,” spend it, and then start looking for something else to expropriate. What is this? Have we lost both our brains and memory?
When you were president, the head of your administration never was a conspicuous political figure. What followed was an evolution of sorts, so nobody was surprised to see Volodymyr Lytvyn turn into a public politician. What do you think will happen next?
Kravchuk: I think that no one at the Presidential Administration should be allowed to take an independent political stand, because they are all meant to assist the head of state. I am amazed to hear the PA head proclaim his own political views. Where is it written that he has a right to do so? And it doesn’t help when he makes legal mistakes and then admits them in a roundabout way, like in that joke, Bear steady! Reverse gear! Viktor Medvedchuk is an intellectual, a considerate and serious politician with a Ph.D. He is keenly aware of all the legal and constitutional nuances. I am sure that he will help the head of state avoid the kind of mistakes he has made and continues to make because of incompetent assistants.
How would you describe the trend to form factions in parliament on what could be described as a regional and industrial basis? Some analysts predicted before the elections that this trend would result in a redistribution of power between the center and the regions. Doesn’t this trend threaten the unitary nature of this country?
Kravchuk: Yes, it could be dangerous. The regional elite has gained political clout, and we see regional political leaders and financial strength grow in the Donbas. In fact, Donbas interests are reaching beyond the regional limits, which is only natural. And this expansion will naturally be directed toward the center. The main thing is to keep this expansion in conformity with the national interest, rather than let it take advantage of the situation and forcefully win a special status for the region. Therefore, we must have a regional policy (we still don’t have parameters and guidelines, and it is the same with the regional budget system, laws, and so on) geared so as to prevent such occurrences. We also need a balanced cadre policy, allowing for a balanced representation of the regions in state structures. Otherwise we could wind up with very unwelcome results.
How will the presidential elections impact on the situation?
Kravchuk: If the next president follows in the footsteps of the current one, there will be no cardinal, I’d even say revolutionizing cadre changes. But if the next head of state proves to have different views, a different philosophy, it won’t be the best time for settling cadre problems. Thus, we must prepare a civilized transfer of power in advance.
