“Epicenter” sets Ukrainian public astir
“If you like the word [i.e., oligarchs — Ed. ], at least don’t say that there are oligarchs in Parliament campaigning against Cabinet reformers. You could say that there are oligarchs in Parliament struggling against oligarchs in the Cabinet.”
Oleksandr VOLKOV, interview in Kompanion
I think that the popular political show, “Epicenter” (1+1 Channel), was truly unprecedented on June 18. And I doubt that the participants in the verbal duel of the year, Yuliya Tymoshenko and Hryhory Surkis, fully realized the impact of their act of public politics for the first time on Ukrainian television. If they did, perhaps nothing of the kind would have taken place. Assuming that Mr. Surkis did not initiate his television appearance (the first of its kind, for all I know), his self-confidence and self-righteousness seemed grossly overstated, and 1+1 in general and Vyacheslav Pikhovshek in particular deserve all possible praise. They managed an unforgettable show at the end of the season, an exclusive eye-opener on certain trends in big-time politics which I think left many viewers stunned. Let me stress, however, that what happened was not totally unexpected, not with 1+1 anyway. These people are trying hard, allowing for the available possibilities, of course, to make television an intermediary between the powers that be and the electorate.
Here is what I consider especially important about “Epicenter” now. First, there is someone keeping in the shadows and pouring oil on the fire of open, rather than backstage (as previously) hostilities between various political and financial groups. And I am sure that, but for that shadowy figure, the show’s performance would have been different, which means an ever stronger likelihood of a third force appearing on the political arena.
Secondly, Ukraine’s oligarchs appear prepared to swallow the bait at the first try. How should viewers, intelligent enough but unfamiliar with the intricacies of political intrigue, respond to that “Epicenter”? Watching politicians supposedly concerned with the people’s well-being argue not about ways to secure such well-being but who plays fair and who does not? I think they told themselves all those on high are all alike. If our political oligarchs still do not understand that hurling glasses of juice at each other in public view should be done only in the heat of an ideological rather than property dispute, it means that they are extremely vulnerable to whoever will be determined enough to take advantage of this vulnerability. Certainly, Ms. Tymoshenko appears to have emerged victorious from the televised duel, after acting out her role of victimized reformer vs. plutocrat with singular dramatic talent, never missing a line, without a single false look or gesture. Hryhory Surkis, as a self-styled prosecutor exposing the dark past of the “gas princess” (as if we all did not know it already), was at a disadvantage, the more so that the show was broadcast with all that fuss about Gusinsky and the subject of shadow money amnesty making headlines. In addition, he could not but betray his personal attitude to a woman politician whose hysterical self-aggrandizement on the road to political Calvary somehow looked more presentable than his poorly motivated machismo (Mr. Surkis actually used the word). Sometime, in some other program some people or other with an experience in public debate rather than party podium thumping will smoothly guide Ms. Tymoshenko into answering the questions. Thus, instead of pompous declarations, she will have to tell about what is actually cooking. Remarkably, oligarchs themselves paved the way for such other people that will pose Ms. Tymoshenko — and not only her — straight questions and will eventually receive straight answers. Incredibly, the Russian experience seems not to have taught anyone any lessons.
Finally, my third — and gratifying — inference is that programs like “Epicenter” and reasoned journalism are continuing to develop. Strange as it may seem, this is evidence that those at the top of the Ukrainian Olympus have already made their European choice. Everything points to pragmatists coming over to replace all those sentimental dinosaurs championing problem-solving by force, that is, no person (channel or whatever), no problem. And so these pragmatists want democracy, even if totally under control from above, even if it is a poor semblance of democracy. They are learning to win, to maneuver, to rule using democratic methods. In fact, the April referendum may have been the last attempt to apply administrative resources on such a scale. All things considered, the next parliamentary elections will have a different pattern.
