On Dec. 11 the members of the Ukrainian parliament are expected to vote Yulia Tymoshenko into office. But the current coalition is so frail that certain doubts still remain.
Last Thursday, Mykhailo Chechetov (Party of Regions) announced the creation of a “People’s Opposition” in parliament, which includes not only the Party of Regions and the communists but, for some reason, the Lytvyn bloc.
Viktor Yanukovych, now an opposition politician, said in an interview that parliament will be voting on bills, depending on the situation. “It is important not to allow violations of procedural rules here. I promise that we will be watching this closely and promoting bona fide decision-making,” he said. If parliamentary developments follow the preconceived scenario, the Party of Regions will have to get used to the new status quo.
We asked The Day’s experts to tell us what kind of opposition the Party of Regions will form this time and what tactic it will adopt.
Viktor NEBOZHENKO, political scientist:
There are three main ways for the Party of Regions to save itself in the opposition. The first one is financial. They will be approaching some narrow-majority deputies in order to find covert allies. This is not so much bribery as a search for common viewpoints and mutual commercial interests.
The second way, which Mykola Azarov sprang last Thursday during the very first session, will be an attempt to flatter and support Yatseniuk. But Azarov is not exactly the best candidate for making flattering remarks because he speaks either very dryly or through clenched teeth. Neither of these things suit such a temperamental, sensitive, and ambitious person as Yatseniuk. But the path itself is quite clear. They will be playing up to Yatseniuk’s ambitions. Yatseniuk’s problem is that he has no political faction of his own.
He came to parliament in a unique manner, without a political force of his own because it is difficult to call Our Ukraine and the People’s Self-Defense such forces. The point is that, now that Yatseniuk has been appointed, both Kyrylenko and Lutsenko have receded well into the background. And they understand this very well. The parliamentarians from NU-NS will now begin running to Yatseniuk and solving their problems over the heads of their bosses. Naturally, the Party of Regions can see this situation very well.
The third option is, of course, an attempt to engineer a confrontation with the BYuT, the most aggressive and active part of the democratic coalition. I think fighting Tymoshenko (if she becomes the prime minister) will be one of the main tasks, because once Tymoshenko becomes the prime minister, this will immediately spotlight second-rate and hurt coalition members, who will be unable to satisfy their corruption- related needs in their quest for portfolios. This is the part of the coalition with which the Party of Regions will be working.
I do not expect any peculiar tricks from the Party of Regions. They have already done their worst. Like small children, they got offended, and up and left the sandbox. They refused to play. That was the wrong thing to do. I think they are aware (or their big bosses explained it to them) that this behavior was irrational at the very least. I will say it again: the fact that last Thursday Azarov began to speak well about Yatseniuk, who has not done anything good yet, means that they are drastically changing their tactics. I don’t think they will be breaking panels, spraying dioxin into Tymoshenko’s tea, or anything like that.
Ihor LOSEV, associate professor at the Culture Studies Department of National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy:
In principle, every country needs a civilized opposition, one that opposes the ruling party about the ways to develop the country. Naturally, it opposes in the mass media, the hall of parliament, etc. I am afraid that the Party of Regions will not show us any examples of civilized behavior in opposition. I think there will be overtly anti-national and provocative actions, like the notorious congress in Severodonetsk: they want to show us its sequel.
I am afraid there will be an artificial aggravation of the public confrontation. And I am also afraid that the Party of Regions will also try to attract some foreign states as sponsors and allies. So I expect nothing good from the Party of Regions as part of the opposition.
As for giving the Party of Regions parliamentary committees that could perform some controlling functions, I see nothing bad in this. All I want is for the Party of Regions not to abuse these mechanisms and levers of influence. The controlling functions should not turn into powerful parliamentary sabotage.
Yurii USHCHAPOVSKY, associate professor at the Department of Economic Theory, Zhytomyr State Technological University:
It is an axiom that the opposition is an indispensable attribute of a democratic society. Ukraine being a young democracy, we are just learning to form a constructive and effective opposition. Society needs the opposition, no matter who is in it. It was being in opposition that promoted the political growth of the Party of Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych. There is practically no opposition in such post-Soviet countries as Russia and Kazakhstan, where a one-party system was formed and where authoritarianism and disrespect for the individual is disguised by the fig leaf of stability. An effective opposition is one that adequately responds to the challenges of an era and capitalizes on the government’s failures. Unfortunately, there are no parties or blocs with a clearly defined ideology in the current Ukrainian parliament, which allows them to juggle public opinion. Therefore, they are trying not so much to fulfill the wishes of the nation as to lobby the interests of the business groups that formed them. And the interests of business and the people do not always coincide.
While in power, the Party of Regions was not very successful in responding to modern-day challenges. And the problem here is not only the election campaign to which Mr. Azarov has so often referred in order to justify the economic failures of their government. It is good that the economy has learned not to react to the domestic political strife. The problem is the non-professionalism of many members in the last cabinet. For example, Azarov can be called a professional in an administrative command economy, not a modern transformational one. The lack of systematic thinking and attempts to reform the economy’s institutional structure resulted in the current government’s failures in fiscal and monetary policies, high inflation, and dwindling real incomes of ordinary people. Add to this an overtly un-Ukrainian stand in the humanitarian sector, which led to such an outrageous action as the refusal of the Party of Regions to support the recognition of the Holodomor as an act of genocide against the Ukrainian nation and its support for a monument to Catherine II in Odesa, a symbol of Ukrainian slavery, which is widely regarded as a resounding slap in the face of Ukrainian society.
Taking into account that the current economic situation is not very favorable to the business groups that support the Party of Regions (in particular, there will be a fuel price rise that will largely affect steel mills and lead to the hryvnia’s devaluation. There may also be no supplies of coke from the Zasiadko mine). These problems will force this political force to cooperate with the next government. One can only solve these problems by cooperating constructively with the government, without resorting to sheer populism and primitive protest actions. It is difficult to imagine the Party of Regions in opposition, but the situation demands that its leadership revise some of its conceptual approaches to the development of Ukrainian society: they should drop the threats of separatism and the propaganda of overt Ukrainophobia, especially since the population of eastern and southern Ukraine is not as anti- Ukrainian as this party’s leaders are trying to convince us. The party is forced to position itself as a Ukrainian, not regional, party and to develop a program for the effective redistribution of incomes in society to bridge social gaps; it should know how to bring business interests in line with national ones, it should regard dissenters not as enemies but as opponents. The latter also applies to the blocs now contending for power.
I am sure that the Party of Regions has sufficient scientific and practical potential to properly respond to the challenges of a situation and not resort to destructivism, which makes a laughing-stock out of Ukrainian politicians. This party is forced to be guided by the interests of Ukrainian society and not to be a bargaining chip of anti-Ukrainian forces. I think that the Party of Regions can be a worthy and strong opposition, and so much the better for Ukrainian society.
Valerii DANYLEVSKY, political scientist:
In my view, the Party of Regions is incapable of being in the opposition. And I do not think it will really be able to assume this role right now. I think they will aim their further actions at bringing down the coalition and the new cabinet, calling a fresh election, and coming to power. This is the strategic and tactical goal of the Party of Regions, and I am sure that the situation will be a repetition of 2005, when there was undisguised sabotage, especially in southern and eastern Ukraine, of the Tymoshenko and Yekhanurov governments. In other words, they will be doing their best to ‘shadowize’ the economy in the east and bring state budgetary revenues to the minimum. They will thus be thwarting the efforts of the new government and the coalition. So I do not believe that the Party of Regions can be an effective opposition at all.
The only thing that may somewhat ease the situation is the fact that the Party of Regions is not monolithic today: it has both an aggressive radical wing and a common-sense wing. So if a common language is found with the latter, this may have some effect: at least this section of the Party of Regions will behave adequately. As for radicals, there is nothing good to expect. The current situation is self-explanatory: today we see so much malice, aggression, and hatred from the Party of Regions and the communists. You can’t be an effective opposition if your eyes are blinkered with hatred for your opponents. You can’t build relationships on hatred.
Viktor OCHERETIANKO, Candidate of Sciences, Khmelnytsky:
I think it is too early to speak about a new coalition. Let’s wait until the prime minister is confirmed in office and a new cabinet is formed, and only then consider the Party of Region’s opposition prospects.
I will still try to predict a certain strategy of the Party of Regions in purely hypothetical terms, presuming that Yulia Tymoshenko manages to form a coalition government.
The first stage (January-March 2008) — stepping into the shadow. Passive sabotage of the ruling coalition’s legislative initiatives. Respite. Regrouping forces. Mapping out a strategy.
The second stage (April-September 2008) — hyping the Party of Regions as an updated political force. Obstructing the coalition’s parliamentary initiatives. Bitter criticism of the coalition, the cabinet, and the president. Declaration of ambitions for the 2009 presidential elections. Initiating a referendum on NATO and the status of the Russian language.
The third stage (October-December 2008) — a stab at power. Initiating an early presidential and parliamentary election plus a referendum on a number of key points. Radicalization of propaganda among the grassroots. Deepening the rift in the ruling coalition.
The fourth stage (January-2009) — participation in the presidential elections and perhaps early parliamentary elections. Speculations on referendum topics. Populism. Expansion of the social base. A mud-slinging war. Most likely a victory in the presidential elections.
Admittedly, the communists will firmly support the Party of Region’s efforts, while the Lytvyn bloc will take an opportunistic approach to everybody.
There may be an endless number of scenarios based on the factor of accidence. But the above is the classic pattern of Ukrainian political practice.
I will say it again: the Party of Region has still not lost the parliamentary elections.
Volodymyr PRYTULA, head of the Crimean Independent Center of Political Researchers and Journalists:
The most effective tactic for the oppositionist Party of Regions now is to remember that it is a party of the Ukrainian state, and hence it should work in the interests of the Ukrainian people instead of following the lines of foreign guides. Therefore, if the Party of Regions manages to draw up a constructive pattern of behavior in this very direction, it will be able to regain the clout and the rating it lost in the last elections. These are not empty words. The Party of Regions had quite a high rating in the middle of the last election campaign, but it reverted to old propaganda cliches at the end of the race, such as demanding official status for the Russian language, anti-NATO rhetoric, etc., and its ratings fell again, which was the reason why it failed to score more than the Orange camp.
Of course, only constructive activities can be an effective opposition tactic. I think the Party of Regions should understand that the ruling coalition and its opposition are two parts of the same governmental structure, so they should work in the same direction, not against each other. In my view, to do this we should not only adopt a law on the opposition, but also draw up a coordinated action plan for the ruling coalition and the opposition in order to resolve Ukraine’s thorny problems, increase the effectiveness of government, and ride out the protracted crisis. Above all, we should make public administration more effective, launch an all-out attack on corruption, work for a more effective scientifically-based economy, and for higher living standards. So the ruling coalition faces a formidable challenge here, but the coalition is facing a double task: it not only has to assist the governing coalition to solve problems but also check the way it works to fulfill its duty to the people of Ukraine.
