Last Monday the Central Election Commission announced the final results of the first round of the presidential elections. What do these elections and the results mean to Ukraine? Here is the opinion of Yurii SHCHERBAK, Ambassador of Ukraine, which he expressed in an interview with The Day.
“Ukraine is approaching a moment of truth, which may be extremely unpleasant and alarming. The people who have been doing nothing for a long time (it would only torpedo Verkhovna Rada sessions, scathingly criticize the government, and drag us back into the past, suggesting that Ukraine make a U-turn in foreign policy), are winning the first round. This is a very negative tendency. For, in my view, the Party of Regions and its leader are incapable of running Ukraine’s national progress because they are pursuing particular and regional, not general Ukrainian, interests. Taking into account the country’s difficult historical development and specific features, it is extremely dangerous to have a small group ignore the needs of the many.”
Still, Viktor Yanukovych polled over 35 percent of the votes. What does this mean?
“I wrote in The Day a long time ago, just after the 2004 elections, that, in spite of euphoria, Viktor Yuschenko’s victory was not so convincing because a very large percentage of people voted for Viktor Yanukovych. I said at the time that we should study this ‘phenomenon’ and find the root causes. The point is not only that people associate themselves strongly with their own regions. There is also something else. This ‘something else’ is the ethnic factor. Because even the regions, where ethnic Russians accounted for 13 percent, voted for Yanukovych. In other words, the Russians had a hesitant view of the idea of a Ukrainian Ukraine. We failed to demonstrate that Ukraine poses no threat to them. There are things that they should respect, such as the Ukrainian language. Unfortunately, we still do not understand the nature of this phenomenon.
“The most important flop of the outgoing team is that it failed to launch a serious dialogue with Eastern and Southern Ukraine after the Orange Revolution had triumphed, despite the fact that many people there associate themselves with Ukraine. I can draw a certain analogy. Recent US elections showed that there are deep divisions inside the country. For instance, the most educated, urban Americans voted for the Democratic candidate Albert Gore in the 2000 elections, while the less educated, rural population supported the more primitive George Bush Jr. I would not like to draw a direct parallel with Ukraine, but it is obvious that a primitive person, who does not offer or cherish any complicated ideas, will gain the approval of a certain part of the electorate which in turn does not want to have anything to do with complicated political matters. If you want to be a president, in some regions, you have to know how to wipe your nose with your coat sleeve and swear. This also applies to some Ukrainian regions.
“As for Yulia Tymoshenko’s results, I expected, frankly speaking, a margin of not more than 6 percent. But it was 10 percent, which really disappoints me. I think it is the current president's fault, as he focused on fighting with the current prime minister, being unaware that he was thus paving the way to power for Yanukovych. History will obviously prove that it was a wrong strategy fraught with disastrous consequences.
“Tymoshenko is a person of the future, not the past. She is aware of the challenges Ukraine is now facing and knows how to rapidly respond to them.”
In spite of President Yushchenko’s failings, we must still give him his due: he made it possible to hold democratic elections. He lost them, receiving a mere 5.5 percent, but the question is different: who is going to continue the positive humanitarian policies that the current president pursued?
“Thank you for this question. Indeed, Yushchenko’s humanitarian policies deserve a very serious analysis and, despite everything, a positive assessment. One can fully agree with what he has said in the last months of his presidential term. The problem is that his words and deeds have been at conflict with, rather than becoming part of, the streamlined system of political decisions over the past five years. I think he could be an excellent spiritual leader of the nation (if this kind of office existed). A person who undoubtedly loves Ukrainian history and language and knows about the snags in our past, is worthy of respect. But the office of president presupposes care about such things as state-building and protecting social values. Unfortunately, Yushchenko failed to rise to the occasion in the latter case. There may have been objective reasons for this connected with his illness. It will become clear in due time.
“Yushchenko is a person who disunites people instead of uniting them around himself. In 2004, people literally carried him to the presidential palace in their arms, but his team gradually broke up. He is a person who does not have a permanent agenda but instead follows his whims, which can hardly serve as a basis for official policymaking. Yushchenko himself sawed the branch he was sitting on, so he finally remained without a parliamentary faction or a party, and his Secretariat has always been full of haphazardly selected individuals. I consider the No. 1 statesman to be Winston Churchill, who did not divide the nation into good and bad, but always used the best of them. Thank God, there is no war now. The ability to balance is the sign of deep political wisdom which, unfortunately, Mr. Yushchenko lacks.
“We must understand today that our choice is critically limited. There remains only one representative of the Orange camp to which a neighboring country and the Party of Regions are hostile – it is Yulia Tymoshenko. She must muster all the available forces and win these elections: only then will she be able to pursue the humanitarian policy we are speaking about. If Tymoshenko wins the presidential elections, I think she will heed the voice of national democratic and patriotic forces and appoint adequate people to the offices in charge of humanitarian policies. Should Yanukovych win, this will be an end to, among other things, Yushchenko’s legacy.”
Would you comment on those who finished third and forth in the presidential race?
“I liked Serhii Tihipko. What was his advantage? Firstly, he is a relatively new figure because he vanished off TV screens in good time, only to reemerge four or five years later. Secondly, he knows how to dazzle – he is ‘picture-perfect,’ as TV people put it. Those who are in charge of casting for films know that an individual is usually different in actual life from what is seen on screen. Thirdly, he did not resort to dirty methods of fighting his opponents, which the voters naturally liked. Fourthly, he has mostly been speaking about economic issues, shunning away from the dramatic questions that are tearing Ukraine apart. It is also positive that he is putting emphasis on small and medium business in addition to promoting our strategic fields, such as industry and agriculture.
“On the other hand, I did not like it at all when he spoke Russian at the polling booths. He should understand that playing up to Russian-speaking Ukrainians, especially in the regions where ethnic Ukrainians are in the majority, will produce no good results. This clearly shows that, as far as humanitarian matters are concerned, he still lacks the full ability to balance.
“I’ve known Tihipko for a long time. I remember him coming to Washington as vice premier in charge of the economy. I must admit he made a very good impression on me then. Tihipko is a dynamic, serious, and interesting figure. So I think he would be a good prime minister in the Tymoshenko administration. The Tymoshenko-Tihipko tandem could be accepted favorably in both Western and Eastern Ukraine. Moreover, Russia would also take a positive view of such a tandem. If they worked together, Ukraine would receive a strong impulse for further development.
“As for Arsenii Yatseniuk, I was disappointed with him, frankly speaking. It was incredulous to expect such an intelligent and well-mannered person to assume the role of a macho, pretending to be a cool Ukrainian guy. He is not the Stallone type. I think it is his cynical spin doctors who advised him to do so, and, unfortunately, he agreed to play that role. He played it amateurishly. In my view, if he reconsiders this unsuccessful campaign, he will have a political future. All he should do is stick to his own image, and then everything will be OK.”
You were speaking about combining forces, but both Tihipko and Yatseniuk immediately said they were reluctant to back anybody. How should their voters behave? Should they simply not show up?
“Tihipko’s and Yatseniuk’s voters are young, dynamic, and well-educated people who want to see Ukraine as an independent country integrated into Europe. I think a major part of them will vote for Tymoshenko. Naturally, it will be a pity if these people cast their votes for those who just want to make as much steel as possible, sell it abroad at half-price, and pay the workers five times less than in Europe.”
Do you think there are real chances of cooperation between Tymoshenko and Tihipko, or between Tymoshenko and Yatseniuk?
“It is difficult to say, for it depends on the wisdom of Mr. Tihipko and Mr. Yatseniuk and, above all, on the wisdom of Ms. Tymoshenko. She must show initiative. Yanukovych clearly does not hold a place for Tihipko, who has already had the experience of cooperating with the former, or for Yatseniuk. In a word, this is about Tihipko’s or Yatseniuk’s choice.”
Maybe, they are embarking on a road of their own, i.e., the upcoming local elections and the likely parliamentary elections?
“I do not think these people are so ambitious, in the finest sense of the word, that they are not aware that this country needs them today. They have already shown their importance as national, not local, leaders, so they must make their choice now. I would also like to note that calling upon voters not to go to the polls is paving the way for the presidency of Yanukovych. If somebody refrains from voting, that means they are voting for Yanukovych.”
Can we say that the results of the elections in Ukraine are a victory for Russia and a defeat for the West?
“It may appear so on the outside, but we do not know what surprises history has in store for us. Indeed, Russia is already showing, albeit with some restraint, signs of merriment. You can see this in the comments of some Russian observers. Russia only wanted Yushchenko to lose, for they are blaming him for all the problems in Ukrainian-Russian relations. That is a mistake. Problems have emerged for objective reasons and are bound to emerge again. Yushchenko may have been expressing some historical views that Russia does not like, but Russia does not like the very independence of Ukraine.
“Today we see it simply as a defeat or a victory. Yes, we can say that Russia ’won’ because its apt pupil and follower Yanukovych took first place. Obviously, he will keep trying to fulfill all the instructions and requests of Russian leadership, but it is difficult to say whether this will turn out to be a true victory.”
But Yulia Tymoshenko seems better than Yanukovych in cooperating with Russian leadership. For example, the gas agreements of 2009…
“Any responsible politician will say that we cannot do without Russia. But the latter must in turn de facto recognize our independence. In other words, it is the question of the degree of our domestic, spiritual, and political self-sufficiency. On the other hand, are there no disputes between France and Britain or France and Germany? They have found ways to coexist. We must understand that Russia has the right to interpret history the way it wishes to, even if it may look funny, when they set up some commissions in order to ‘correct’ history. In its turn, Ukraine has also the right to have a history of its own: it has the right to recall who Hetman Mazepa was, what were the Ukrainian-Russian relations at the time, etc. All this should not hinder our cooperation.”
Does it make any difference for the West and Russia with whom they work – Yanukovych or Tymoshenko?
“Wilfried Martens, President of the European People’s Party (EPP), congratulated Yulia Tymoshenko on qualifying for the runoff election and said: ‘Yulia Tymoshenko has demonstrated modern leadership, responsibility and political courage… For the second round, the EPP expressed its support to Yulia Tymoshenko, since she is the only democratic pro-European candidate. Thus, the EPP is calling on all democratic forces in Ukraine, and the EPP partners in Ukraine, to consolidate and support Yulia Tymoshenko, in order to prevent the return of the political forces of the past, to preserve the ideals of the Orange Revolution, and to open a new European path for Ukraine.’ Words like this are never said in vain, for the EPP is one of the fundamental parties of the European Parliament. This is the answer of Europe.
“As for Russia, they will clearly find it easier to work with Yanukovych because Tymoshenko will not be a puppet-like partner. Naturally, Russia needs to have somebody in Ukraine to follow its recommendations.”
Who do you think will become president of Ukraine?
“Nominally, of course, Yanukovych has the best chances with a margin of 10 percent. But in fact, if you take into account Ukraine’s untapped democratic potential, Tymoshenko has every chance of winning.”
