Without being afraid of boring the reader, I repeat an old maxim: our problem, in my opinion, is that we have changed the notion of the freedom of expression into such an imperative, an object of worship, and the virtually the sole measure we use to gauge the behavior, honor, and honesty of everybody else. Such a pattern is very convenient for a system where the realities of everyday life do not matter and myths are of supreme importance. This is equally convenient for the authorities who can manipulate it the way they want, since for them the notion has no meaning at all. Consider the latest news: we have freedom of expression; the state tells us so. What we lack is the responsibility of journalists and media owners, who have turned this sacred right into a weapon in their internecine wars. In so doing, the Ukrainian powers that be disencumber themselves of any responsibility to preserve and maintain the system, which reduces the freedom of speech to the freedom of making irresponsible statements and mudslinging.
Similarly, transforming the freedom of speech into a myth also serves the opposition. For, by endless whining about political pressure and reprisals against the innocent, the opposition can also shed any responsibility for preserving and maintaining the same system of the freedom of mudslinging as well as for engaging in nitpicking and personal recriminations, not against the system itself in the form of constructive criticism (which, incidentally, would call on the opposition to present some viable plan of alternative action).
In reality, the freedom of speech and the press should not be treated so pompously. Nor as something so holy in its irrationality sense. On the contrary, the freedom of speech is a very rational and pragmatic agreement between society and the state on their mutual survival and development. It is merely a tool for selecting the most effective political programs, as well as for getting rid of futile, obsolete, or poorly chosen models of development and leaders. This tool’s major function is to promote public debate.
Neither the venality of some journalists (after all, are not Western newsmen cut from the same cloth?), nor the authoritarian practices of some politicians, nor the biased attitudes of their puppet media outlets, nor the dependence of the mass media on their owners’ priorities, political priorities included, which are always there and which will never evaporate because the media and television in the West are above all business, as our Ukrainian media mob still believes. What really matters here is that all three sides of the triangle — the authorities, mass media, and society — are supposed to adhere to certain rules of the game whether they like it or not. This is what is called the real freedom of speech and the press.
These rules are based on two things: transparent economic relationships and the real power of civil society. Take a simple example from Ukraine’s former experience: Why in the tenth year of Ukraine’s independence is our journalistic community still unable to create its own system for the self-regulation of their conflicts with the authorities and society? The answer is simple: until the economic priorities of the mass media and television continue to remain largely in the shadow economy, neither the so-called journalistic solidarity, nor any courts of honor will outweigh the temptation for many to earn big money for contracted stories, let alone utterly immoral materials aimed to kill. As long the mass media market continues to be free from any real competition, i.e., competing the managerial and creative skills of different media teams, there can be no talk of any corporate control.
On the other hand, the transition of the Ukrainian economy, mass media including, from the shadow sector to the legal one will remain impossible before the emergence of real economic and political forces and real leaders. Unfortunately, the latter cannot appear, given the present system such that the bulk of entities’ profits depends on how tightly these entities are connected with the state. But it could be a force which would understand that the current oligarchic ways of running the country’s economy will soon turn into a noose around the necks of those same oligarchs.
That real freedom of speech in Ukraine is still a far off perspective has been amply evidenced not so much by the disappearance of Heorhy Gongadze and not at all by either high-profile cases of reprisals by officials against defiant media outlets, with the officials resorting to the so-called right of the telephone (issuing orders to law enforcement by telephone to harass the mass media and leaving no incriminating documents), current censorship, or even self-censorship. The most telling evidence is the 2001 budget, which is as opaque to the general public as its 2000 predecessor and is based on the same old tax system that bleeds business dry. This budget was enacted amid a unanimous outburst of approval from the president (despite his earlier critical declarations), the cabinet (despite its ostensibly reform status), and Verkhovna Rada (including members of those caucuses supposedly preoccupied with the lack of the freedom of expression in Ukraine).
As the 1999 presidential campaign has already vividly shown, the major miscalculation of Leonid Kuchma’s opponents was that they limited themselves to just pointing accusing fingers at the incumbent instead of offering any real alternative programs. And after a year and a half, has anyone made an effort to propose a clear and positive Ukraine Without Kuchma program? And how would any Ukraine With Yushchenko or Ukraine With Tymoshenko programs differ from the present socioeconomic structure? The cabinet’s current war against alleged criminal oligarchic clans to save the fuel and electricity sector, the coal sector, or to pay off wage and pension arrears in the face of climbing inflation can be viewed as reforms only by those kitchen politicians who are used by aspiring politicos who promise pie in the sky to get power. Running the economy by government officials is nothing but robbing Peter to pay Paul (according to a more positive scenario) or covering up the officials’ corrupt motives (a more popular one).
Has anyone proposed to or invested any major money to get off the ground a real market-oriented (not officials-oriented) program for leading Ukraine’s economy out of the shadow sector (not out of the slump as the officials shamefully prefer to call it)? Has anyone tried to explain why the incumbent president (who publicly vowed he would be a new man if elected to a second term) did not want or was not able to implement such a program? Nor the government which, although appointed by the president, looks more like it is on the other side of the fence just now. It is quite obvious to anyone that the current cassette scandal indicates a serious systemic crisis, no matter what the television outlets controlled by the executive branch might say. Why now, at the peak of the slump, are the authorities using a pattern, similar to the one used by the opposition, to fight everybody, to implement destructive rather than constructive scenarios relying solely on the Prosecutor General’s Office and homegrown puppet journalists? In the meantime, addressing the Ukraine On the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century Conference in November 2000, the same president came up with a quite comprehensive analysis of past shortcomings, which led to the polarization of society into the very poor and the very rich, something which could become a societal time bomb for Ukraine. He also pointed out the specific ways, some of them radically new, of overcoming the slump.
The Presidential Administration should conduct its propaganda and counter propaganda campaign to neutralize the cassette scandal in a constructive way by enlisting both positive and negative factors, by publicly identifying its priorities and demonstrating that it has all the required mechanisms and expertise to attain these priorities. Not only the immediate existence of the current political system, but also its future hinges on how successful the executive will be in finding ways out of the crisis. It is similarly clear that Ukraine’s proximity to a newly emerging imperial Russia will not allow long-term Latin America style scenarios to unfold here. The West has a great deal to lose in Ukraine, above all in terms of its own security. This means that the West is not going to put up with corruption or dictatorship in Ukraine: the West will simply not allow us to devour each other. Much of what Pres. Kuchma said in his address should have won the opposition’s approval. This means that there is a real basis for consensus, open competition to select better models to overcome our stagnation, and for the exchange of ideas.
Not Ukraine Without Kuchma but Ukraine Without the Shadow Economy is one program, with every chance of garnering public support. And the forces which could begin its implementation, be they in the opposition or the current regime, would get the chance to get and keep the situation under control. This program could be carried out in the only way imaginable, by putting pressure on lawmakers, the cabinet, president, and society to solve our real priority problems.
To stay on to the topic of this article, the much debated freedom of expression, I would say that any discussions, including debates in Verkhovna Rada, will remain mere verbiage unless we ask ourselves this question: Who stands in the way of legalizing the mass media business? Who wants the lion’s share of this business to remain in the shadows? We need answers to these questions: first, to assess the status quo and, second, to launch the mechanisms, which will make it more profitable to conduct an honest and transparent media business, not the opposite. This could become the first vital step toward real Freedom of Expression, just as this pattern to other sectors of the economy could become the first step to reforming them. Instead of perpetual hectic trouble- shooting by the cabinet in the energy sector, coal industry, or elsewhere, the executive should lobby our legislators, engage the mass media, provide reasons for changing the laws and enact legislation, which would make it impossible to do illegal business. Let us consider another argument: for every law there is a telephone right allowing officials to bypass it. However, no matter how bad things might be with the freedom of expression in Ukraine, not all the media have been gagged. Still, the cases when our mass media monitored the implementation of laws and named those individuals and those factors, which were standing in the way of such implementation, could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Since no concrete questions are asked, and no concrete answers given, do we really have an opposition, which allegedly confronts the government? Or do we really have a reform government allegedly harassed by evil oligarchs? Or the oligarchs, with Yushchenko and Tymoshenko allegedly at their throat? Or, does everything keep going on just like they did in Soviet days, with a monolithic Politburo carrying on only due to endless squabbles among its members for the General Secretary’s throne or some cushy chair nearby?
And one of the elements of this system of self-preservation is the struggle for the freedom of squabbling, with one and all actively engaged in this fight. For, in the absence of Entertainment, some detrimental thoughts might begin to enter their heads, like one about what makes their Daily Bread so meager. To stop any such mental deviation, you are invited to join the dance to the beating of tom-toms.
Perhaps we should begin looking for the shoots of future forces and start fostering them? Maybe this new force will even need the Rules, a new system for government and the economy? Maybe it could become a force that will blow up the system from within and will not limit itself to just another cosmetic facelift. What kind of force could this be? Middle class, big business, white-collar workers? How do the processes of globalization and of forming the post-industrial information society affect the alignment of the motive forces which contribute to progress? What steps could be taken by society to push these progressive forces to the fore, to create the conditions for them to gain strength, make the authorities listen to their voice or change the system, not merely its leaders, should their voice not be heard. This is what those who want to be involved in real politics and real journalism should be thinking about now. As distinct from those who, having learned the arts of phrase mongering once in their careers, continue to criticize or glorify in all too vague and general terms, creating in this way a gallery of cardboard national heroes and straw national villains who, in fact, display little difference and are worthy of each other. It is just that simple.
