A sensitive nation like the Ukrainians seems to need a Hero. It is desirable that the hero be handsome and at least not poor, for those who expect a fairy-tale want to forget their own hardships.
It is desirable that the hero would come from the countryside, for those who feel uncomfortable in the city remember where their umbilical cord was buried, and those brought up in a megalopolis rave about the unknown romanticism of rural bucolic idylls and its juicy surzhyk (mixed Ukrainian and Russian —Ed.). It is desirable that this hero be as courageous as Danko, as mysterious as Stierlitz, as unreachable as Galatea, as witty as Aeneus, and as good-looking as the Gadfly. In general, it is desirable that there be any kind of Hero. A hundred days ago, a hero was made for the people. Of course, a true hero always has his enemies, but we were glad even that he was trampling upon somebody else’s fields and markets with his confident strides. We don’t care about all those vulgar users with their oligarchic arithmetics. But we do understand why our hero is unloved and so we love him all the more for it. The hero has lived his own life, with his image, like that of Pelevin, modifying, rather than reflecting, reality. But we expected an adventure: just wait awhile, he will show us.
Some sadist sold or just gave some of the Hero’s financial secret to the imperialists. But the sorrowful and unshakable Hero looked Ukraine in the eye honestly and shrewdly: can you believe it? That was a test, and we withstood it. God forbid, Hero! 41% of us believe in you alone. Here is our shoulder, hold on tight!
But when the imperialists pressed on, the Hero suddenly admitted: yes, it happened. But only once and quickly and, moreover, to Ukraine’s benefit. And, to prevent history from forgetting who forced the creditors to back off, our Hero courageously disclosed the culprit’s name and noted, just in case, that he had nothing to do with what somebody else did. Perhaps he was away on business or ill, but he was unaware of this for sure. We should be glad: our Hero is not guilty, but something went wrong. If only he had told us everything immediately.
Or perhaps he will say so tomorrow. About what he did not know before. Or about those who did.
We were lenient with the Hero, but our ethics let us down. I mean common, inconspicuous and non-heroic, rather than pan-Ukrainian, ethics. Our Hero has become like all of us, i.e., adapting to precisely this kind of life: he utters a little white lie, regrets a bit, is a little offended, and talks a lot. Or perhaps he was always like this. Have we again searched for our Hero in the wrong place?
The one hundred days of Viktor Yushchenko’s premiership have not turned into a public holiday. The trumps he plays in summing up his first jubilee are not so many, and his friendly speeches not so convincing. At the same time, the premier’s political advocates and his political (to put it mildly) opponents speak about the government in phrases where praise is mixed with reproaches. Everybody seems to be expecting something, like a wounded gladiator awaiting the mob’s decision: thumbs up or down? But nobody gives a prompt.
INCIDENTALLY
Volodymyr POLOKHALO, editor-in-chief, Political Thought:
“One can make mistakes if one speaks mechanistically about the achievements of one hundred days and does not see the context the government is in, what it inherited, and what it can rely on. This is the question of its a priori potential economic and political resources.
“From this angle, we should speak about the dynamics of the political processes that have evolved after the elections, about the level of civil society which practically does not exist in Ukraine, and about certain societal connections. And here I think that the executive power in the person of the Presidential Administration, which got a carte blanche last autumn, is now itself losing control over the way fundamental social problems are being solved. Simultaneously, there is a shortage of democratic institutions or they are of a purely formal nature. We can say that there is democracy in Ukraine, but this is formal democracy, which is really such only for the political class of political business groups. The Yushchenko government came in the conditions of a deep economic crisis and social injustice, when we have not yet fully understood the results of the activities of those we call oligarchic elites.
“There are two economic sectors in today’s Ukraine. One is in the shadow and is based on informal agreements that are opaque to society. It is this sector that informally converts administrative resources into financial flows. Those representing this economic sector do not require a normal market environment or the same rules of the game for all, which the government declared with such pomp, for such rules are risky for their business. I would call representatives of this sector orthodox entrepreneurs: they comprise new businessmen, old-style directors, and representatives of the top managerial echelon. For all of them, the preservation of the current system of degradation Ukraine is the most favorable climate for their further success. Under these conditions, it is next to impossible to really change the pattern of relations in the economy and to introduce the same rules for everybody. It’s sheer fantasy. It would require tremendous political will. Even the concentrated political will of several European countries is unable to reverse such a tendency.
“Representatives of the other economic sector are interested in a real market environment and the same rules for everyone. This sector comprises, among others, medium and some large enterprises. Perhaps the Yushchenko government does not understand it, but the middle class is precisely its social resource and source of support. Unfortunately, I can criticize the government that it has done in fact nothing over these hundred days to lay the groundwork for the development of small private business in order to break the system of production-and-commerce regulation that hampers this development. This in turn restrains the formation of a middle class, the only institution that can save the government the risk of being king for a day.
“The government has also failed to understand in these hundred days that in Ukraine appetites of regional bureaucratic and managerial elites are growing. These elites exert real influence on the political process. They ensured, to a large extent, the current regime’s election victory, but Mr. Yushchenko has not yet forged a contact with them because the same rules of the game for all, a transparent budgetary policy, etc., also touches the interests of regional elites.
“There is so much criticism heaped today on the government, but it is insincere because it proceeds from a desperate attempt to preserve status quo in those well-established tendencies that characterize Ukraine as being on far from a truly democratic vector of development. We see in today’s Ukraine no real resources that could provoke genuine changes. And, to our regret, society itself does not now need these change, nor does it need the implementation of declarations Mr. Yushchenko made. And all that has happened in one hundred days not only failed to break the tendencies I have mentioned but also showed that Ukraine has not been programmed for the European choice.
“It is obvious that the Yushchenko government has failed in its first 100 days to change the dynamic and logic of the socioeconomic process. It becomes more and more apparent that the current political elites have already formed some discernible standards of political and behavior and culture which bring to naught even the sporadic noble intentions of Mr. Yushchenko and some other individuals to instill entirely different European patterns in the political process.
“The next elections will feature the actors for whom Mr. Yushchenko is today a serious rival. So I foresee the premier will face an objective fiasco unless he adapts to these negative tendencies.”
