It has already become a tradition for journalists to seek the opinion of independent Ukraine’s first President Leonid Kravchuk on any ripple in Ukrainian politics. Not only because he is both a highly experienced politician who knows in detail “the way it all started” and now the leader of one of the largest parliamentary factions, but also because he is quite frank in his answers.
“THE PEOPLE DON’T CARE ABOUT DEPUTIES’ RIGHTS”
“What do you think stands behind the conflict between the former and current Prosecutor General?”
“Actually, I object to the Verkhovna Rada being held hostage to such conflicts. I think both Potebenko and Piskun will be wise enough to make peace and settle this dispute in private. Settling the scores in public will be of no use — it will only arouse mistrust towards the prosecution service. For the time being, the documents Potebenko has presented cannot be viewed as authentic facts. They need to be checked. But the Verkhovna Rada is in no way an inspecting body.”
“What do you think in general about the latest closed-door parliamentary hearings with participation of law enforcement chiefs? Was it really necessary to resort to this kind of procedure?”
“There was nothing to hide from or to open to the public. In my view, these kind of hearings is just a waste of time. We have a lot of other priority issues to deal with, such as the Tax Code, the fundamental foreign and domestic policy, and human rights laws. The common people don’t care whether the interests of deputies are being protected. If this interested the public, the level of trust in the Verkhovna Rada would be higher than 5-6%. But the deputies themselves try to put it across that their rights are being violated the most. They forget that millions of people suffer from far grosser violations of their rights and freedoms.”
“You have said more than once that the parliamentary majority exists as a matter of form only. The majority has now elected a new coordinator, Anatoly Tolstoukhov. Do you think he will be able to put things straight? And what is in fact required to make the majority more viable?”
“To this end, we must first assemble the parliamentary majority, hold a meeting, and see who is attending. Then the same meeting should elect and lay down the powers of the coordinator. It is important that the coordinator be elected by the whole majority, not just the nine faction leaders. The point is it makes no difference today to many deputies, at least to those of our faction, who will be the coordinator, because they are in fact barred from participating in his election. To defuse the crisis at least to some extent, we (the SDPU (O) faction — Ed. ) held a special session to discuss the coordinator problem and voted for Anatoly Tolstoukhov. I am sure the election of Tolstoukhov as coordinator will liven up the majority — in any case, this will make it possible to gauge its viability and perseverance. I am sick and tired of the never-ending chat that there is some other way of forming the majority. This ‘other’ option has been in the air since last April, i.e., for almost a year. Still, no ‘other’ option is in sight. All I want is that the majority could exist and cooperate with the Cabinet. And it does not matter what shape it will assume.”
“You have been talking for a long time, since December, about a general meeting of the majority. Who obstructs this proposal of your faction?”
“There was nobody to meet until recently. In my opinion, such a meeting should be attended by the coordinator and the VR speaker. The speaker must be interested in a viable majority. I don’t want to give recommendations about how this should be done. But this must be done in order to see in the final analysis whether or not there is a majority.”
“COMMUNISM WILL REMAIN AFTER US FOR TWO MORE GENERATIONS OR SO”
“Do you think it practicable to celebrate Volodymyr Shcherbytsky’s jubilee at the national level and at the state’s expense? Would it be better to turn these expenses to the account of the political forces that cherish Shcherbytsky’s heritage and whose ideology is close to that of the late First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party Central Committee?”
“The organizing committee that I head has recently published the book, The Prominent Figures of Past Centuries . For the first time in the history of Ukraine, we identified about a thousand figures to know and remember. I cannot discuss today the scale on which Shcherbytsky’s jubilee is being celebrated or whether this celebration is necessary. I still do not think we should forget this person and his role in Ukraine. The main thing is to impartially assess this figure, noting all the pluses and minuses. We suffer from the following trouble: when a certain date is being observed, we try to idealize the person, make him a hero and defender of Ukrainian interests, and vest him with the properties that he never had. I worked with V. Shcherbytsky and remember him as a cold-blooded and well-balanced individual who really cared that socialist Ukraine should live better but still remain part of the Soviet Union and invest as many funds and resources in this Union as possible. He did his best to reinforce that social system, and he took a dim view of perestroika . He could not act otherwise, for he was a man of his epoch, a man of the System. To say today that he radically differed from the Soviet Union’s leaders would be not only wrong, but also disrespectful for Volodymyr Shcherbytsky’s grave. Because he was not that sort of a person. Yet, he was not a cruel or vindictive personality. He was easy to deal with. In other words, he was a major figure in Ukrainian history from the angle of those days’ mentality. This figure should be painted with all its positive and negative colors so that the future generations know the leaders of not only the new, but also the old Ukraine. As to the celebration of this jubilee, I do not think this cost our state a pretty penny. After all, Shcherbytsky symbolized Ukrainian power for 17 years.”
“Word has it there was no love lost between you and Shcherbytsky...”
“We cannot discuss this in terms of love or non-love. V. Shcherbytsky had his own time-tested views of people. In his opinion, a person with an eye for a high party office was to have passed a certain way — from secretary of a local Communist Party cell to other higher posts. Besides, I noticed he preferred those who came from Dnipropetrovsk or, at worst, Donetsk or Kharkiv oblasts. I did not hail from there. So I cannot say he did not like me, he just did not consider Kravchuk a promising figure for the Ukrainian Communist Party. I know this for sure. But I did not feel hurt — he had the right to think so. I began my way up during perestroika , when the Ukrainian Communist Party was led by Ivashko.”
“There is an opinion that Shelest and Shcherbytsky represented two different types of the Ukrainian nomenklatura. Do you agree with this?”
“No. Both of them defended the existing system, favored reinforcement of the Soviet Union and transition to communism. I do not know what they said in private. I can only speak about their official statements. They were people of the same type, but Shcherbytsky was, in my view, a great deal more humane and easier to deal with. Shelest was a stern man who did not like debates and took uncompromising attitudes. I also worked with him and was received by him a few times. He was not inclined to listen to somebody because he had an opinion of his own. He may have heeded those who stood on a higher rung. Still, Shelest is not an accidental figure in Ukrainian history. He had passed a thorny way. I respected him as a human being. When the USSR was bursting at the seams, I was informed that Shelest, who lived in Moscow, was in dire straits and his family had to be selling household things. I requested Yevhen Marchuk, the then Security Service chief, to do something to pull Shelest and his family from poverty. We did our best to this end. This is our history, these are our people, and we should not forget them, no matter how we assess them today.”
“What do you think contributed to Shcherbytsky’s political longevity?”
“Firstly, he was a judicious and wise person. Secondly, we should not forget that he was Brezhnev’s favorite. I once heard Brezhnev address Shcherbytsky approximately as follows, ‘Volodya (diminutive for Volodymyr —
Ed. ), I beg you...’ In those times, a very high official could only speak in such terms to a very close person in whom he placed complete trust. This support from the Secretary General was of great import. Shcherbytsky was even offered the office of the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, but he stood his ground, preferring to live and work in Ukraine. So the secret of Shcherbytsky’s political longevity consists of two parts — his personal qualities of an individual who had experience and a standpoint of his own, and support from above.”
“Mr. Kravchuk, fate decreed that you, the former Ukrainian Communist Party secretary in charge of ideology, should begin to roll back communism from Ukrainian society. Do you think the process is successful?”
“It is not successful so far. Communism still lives in each of our compatriots, including you and I. Communism will remain after us for two more generations or so. It will be eradicated gradually. For instance, my granddaughter Mariyka is practically free of it. She is unaware of Lenin, she studies an entirely new history. Even if something is to be left in her, it will be from me only. We have ruined the foundation of communism, the ruination is going on, but we are so far free up to the waist, so to speak. When our heads become free, then will be able to say: communism is dead.”
