On March 29 the extraordinary UAIE convention showed an unusually rich political coloration. Association President Anatoly Kinakh, in what seemed an attempt to justify the politicization of the former corps of red directors, stated that most socioeconomic problems in Ukraine are rooted in the political domain. This is nothing new, of course, and it was more interesting to hear the solution to the problem proposed by an organization, considering that Leonid Kuchma had started his campaign while he presided over it.
First, it is obvious that on the eve of parliamentary elections vying for the title of best, most correct, and “people’s” opposition will not yield the desired results and an opportunity to be “appointed” as an intermediary between the conflicting parties. At the convention attended by President Kuchma, Mr. Kinakh declared that he was prepared to build bridges between the regime and opposition. He also condemned the latter for trying to start a confrontation outside the constitutional field, pointing out that political contests should not be held in the street but within the limits of defined political and economic programs. He saw what was happening now as having nothing to do with a civilized political process.
Second, the industrialists paid special attention to arguments in favor of strengthening the parliamentary majority. The convention denounced its being divided into those backing the president and premier, stressing that this division is having a negative effect primarily on the performance of the executive.
Third, Anatoly Kinakh, on the behalf of the UAIE, urged Leonid Kuchma and Viktor Yushchenko to work in “solid tandem,” saying that unfortunately there have been of late “very serious divergences not only in terms of economic actions, but also political assessments between the cabinet and its leadership, Presidential Administration, and president.” He cited an example. On The Day when the opposition’s tent town was dismantled on Khreshchatyk in Kyiv, President Kuchma commented on the event, declaring that “those in power must be able to protect the law” and that “everybody is equal before the law.” At the same time, Mr. Kinakh stressed, Premier Yushchenko, visiting London, made a “practically opposite” statement, describing the dismantling of the tent town as an “undemocratic” act and that it would be an obstacle to subsequent efforts to settle the conflict. Anatoly Kinakh, who was in Germany at the time, said this difference between the president and premier, in assessing the same event, left the Germans astonished. How can you expect us to believe in your political stability if the top political leaders make different statements concerning issues of principle, they asked.
Fourth, the industrialists believe that the cabinet’s inadequate implementation of presidential decisions results in further undermining the people’s confidence in the regime and creating unfavorable working conditions for the authorities.
Fifth, the cabinet has bungled its social policy. Statistically, the man in the street earns $1.90 a day; in 1998-2001, the minimum monthly wage has dropped from $23.70 to $21.70. The delegates believed that 2000 marked no turning point in the social sphere nor did it raise overall living standards to any real extent.
In his address to the convention, Leonid Kuchma seemed to confirm the gathering’s political orientation, noting that the latest achievements of the Ukrainian economy are explained by the atmosphere of cooperation and interaction that dominated the parliament after creating the government majority. “Today, one must state,” he said in conclusion, “that much of what was accomplished has been lost precisely because of politicking.” The president specified that this happened on the initiative of those politicians that recognized nothing “except clannish, corporate, or personal interests and ambitions.”
Leonid Kuchma stressed that the opposition forces have not as yet proposed “any clearly constructive alternative” to the course being pursued, demanding power above all. In his words, the biological medium for the opposition is mounting interclan confrontation and shadow capital becoming active at the new stage of property reallocation, with underworld financial capital playing an increasingly active role. The president said certain political groups in Ukraine act as its spokesmen and promoters. He referred the sharpening struggle for ministerial portfolios to equally unfavorable, even dangerous factors, adding that this struggle, despite its political camouflage, is in many respects aimed at weakening the position and restricting the powers of the current president as the main guarantor of national security.
Despite his sharp criticism of the composition and actions of his opponents, the president once again declared that he was open for a dialogue with the opposition, stressing that he would conduct it only with that part of the opposition whose program aspirations rely on the principles of Ukrainian statehood. He said that such an opposition could be argued with but must be respected, adding that a round table of political parties has begun.
Leonid Kuchma said he would have no talks with those waving posters reading “Down with...” and whose practical actions are reduced to hurling Molotov cocktails; negotiating anything with people putting forth unacceptable preliminary conditions and having no serious support in society would be of no consequence. The president noted that this part of the opposition wanted to “stab in the back our statehood, civil peace, and quiet.” What happened on March 9, he said, dispersed all illusions about their intentions. The next year would be “especially heated” in view of the approaching elections. Mr. Kuchma stressed that political stability and today’s tentative economic gains should not be made dependent on getting seats in parliament and warned against drawing “work collectives” into political conflicts. “The state and economy must not be taken hostage to the election campaign’s technologies, a toy in dirty and irresponsible hands,” he declared. Simultaneously, the state “constantly feels the support of industrialists and entrepreneurs, people of the new formation.” He expressed the wish that the UAIE constantly enhance its participation in solving problems in Ukraine and made it clear that he had accepted the UAIE leadership’s proposal. It is also possible, however, that the process will reach even further and UAIE will succeed in crowding out other political forces as an intermediary in the ongoing political confrontation, eventually assuming opposition’s role of the round table, thus paving the way to future key cabinet posts.
