Politicians find manipulating this society increasingly difficult. The Soviet system with its supremacy of the state over the citizenry is still deeply rooted in our minds, but after the proclamation of Ukrainian independence public conscience has been gradually healing itself. Our citizens realize that they can enforce restrictions on the arbitrary rule of the incumbent government that often acts the Soviet way, by force of habit. Moreover, it is possible to implement one’s democratic right — so much favored by politicians in their campaign slogans.
The year 2004 became the first vivid manifestation of a civil society, when after the rigged presidential election people walked out on the street to protest its results. It was then that the “street factor” became the most effective tool that helped resolve the political crisis and forced the powers that be to retreat. At this stage, public protests against a backstage alliance between the Party of Regions and BYuT marked a tangible contribution to the development of civic self-consciousness. People were outraged not so much by the fact of consultations, held between these political forces to establish a coalition, as by their attempts to secretly rewrite the Constitution of Ukraine. In the end, this public response forced them to terminate the negotiations.
Not so long ago, the CE Venice Commission responded positively to President Viktor Yushchenko’s draft constitution. Ukraine’s Minister of Justice Mykola Onishchuk, who defended the president’s version, noted that the commission “has positively assessed the president’s draft as one that meets the Council of Europe’s standards and as the European legal constitutional doctrine.” The Venice Commission also pointed to certain negative aspects to the new wording of the Constitution, which was registered with the Verkhovna Rada toward the end of March 2009. Onishchuk said that “the Commission regards as excessive the need to adopt any changes to the Constitution by referendum. Commission experts further opine that a semipresidential system may retain the potential conflict between the president and the Cabinet of Ministers.”
Besides, considering what individual Ukrainian MPs have had to say on the matter, this bill doesn’t stand a chance at the Verkhovna Rada because the head of state lacks support in parliament.
The main distinction of the draft Constitution is that it is genuinely public. In other words, the public could acquaint itself with it from the outset. Unlike the Party of Regions and BYuT (neither has come up with a new Constitution, although each promises to introduce their draft version very soon), nothing has been kept away from the public eye. Several weeks ago, President Yushchenko held a public debate with university law school students from various Ukrainian cities. It was broadcast live and the head of state offered his arguments in defense of his version. The Ukrainian media paid little attention to this event, although it testified to the existence of public process. Whether they like it or not, this is the European pathway. One must refer to one’s society, ask questions, because society is the creator of power, and this is precisely how public self-consciousness should be generated.
Naturally, this process could have been moving faster over the 17 years of Ukraine’s independence as, for example, in Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary. On the other hand, one ought to bear in mind that these countries were not part of the Soviet Union and did not have Ukraine’s bitter experience of the 20th century alone, being constantly under the Kremlin’s ruthless control, having to survive all those social cataclysms.
Current realities show that Ukraine has indeed embarked on the road of democratic progress. All hardships notwithstanding, no matter how slow the process, this process is underway. There is no denying this fact.
Five years have elapsed since 2004. We are facing yet another presidential election, which means that our politicians will once again turn to society. How has our society changed since then? What role will it play and will it influence the presidential election? To what extent is our society prepared to defend its rights during the presidential campaign (bribery, manipulations of mass consciousness, administrative pressure, attempts to restrict the human rights and freedoms, etc.)?
COMMENTARY
Yurii SHVEDA, Associate Professor, Ph.D. in Political Science, Ivan Franko National University, Lviv:
“A civil society is only in the making in Ukraine, so it is premature to discuss this society as one that has taken shape to the extent where it can meet all those challenges that will most likely come its way during the presidential campaign, using only what institutions and organization this civil society will have. The same applies to the political culture and political consciousness of the population. To hold fair elections at this stage, you must launch institutional and legal mechanisms capable of preventing any kind of bribery, blackmail, manipulation, and so on.
“At present, these threats are even worse than during the previous presidential campaign. Political freedom is determined by economic freedom [free enterprise] in the first place. Ukraine is gripped by the world economic crisis, with lots of people losing their jobs. These people are easy to manipulate because they no longer have a source of income. The situation that has developed in Ukraine paves the way for all kinds of manipulation, as in the case of a company manager ordering his staff to do something. More often than not, they will act as instructed because they don’t want to lose their jobs.
“A great many people without an income source are very likely to sell their votes for several hryvnias. And so, these threats are clear and present. I believe that the current level of our civil society and political culture doesn’t suffice to meet all such challenges as we may face during the presidential election. In other words, unless the government, monitored by the international community, secures observance of the procedures and principles of free and fair elections, I expect very serious violations.”
Anatolii ROMANIUK, Ph.D. in Political Science, Ivan Franko Lviv National University:
“I think that civil society is prepared to counteract all those glaring violations during our election campaigns. The big question, however, is whether it is prepared to resist bribery and administrative pressure. In my opinion, this depends on the amount of pressure and sums offered as bribes. I mean that if all this is outrageously vivid, then yes [society will be prepared].
“Giving and taking bribes occurs on many occasions, every day, yet our society is showing a weakening response. Will the current level of political culture allow the people to make a conscious choice? The problem is not the level of political culture, but the level of manipulation and active use of the media during the debates, employing half-truths when explaining the situation.
“In this sense, our society is following into the footsteps of manipulative technologies, so our politicians can impose their views on us. At the same time, an increasing number of people are prepared to resist this, although I think that these people are still outnumbered.”
Oleksii LUPONOSOV, winner of the Space of Change program, organizer of the Ukrainian banking website:
“Public opinion is now being taken into account—that’s a fact—with regard to not only purely political issues but also economic issues. Our people are no longer silent; they hold rallies. Take the problems with our banks. There are picketers with posters in front of the entrance to each problem bank, usually numbering between 200 and 2,000 persons. The holders of bank deposit accounts know each other’s phone numbers, so they can get organized. These people defend their stand not only by using the media or holding rallies, but also in court.
“However, people don’t want to solve the political issues of any parties or leaders. They are trying to solve their own problems, so they get organized into public movements. People are relying on their own resources, without getting affiliated with any political party, so that if a political force says, ‘Dear bank deposit account holders, please support us,’, people simply won’t respond.
“Are our people tired of politics? I don’t think so, except that there are certain problems concerning the need to have a job and earn money to sustain one’s family, so these people can’t possibly take an active part in such rallies, but when the time comes — and our people are well aware of this — they will certainly make their statement.”
Iryna BEKESHKINA, head of the Democratic Initiatives Foundation, Institute for Social Studies at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:
“Everything depends on the particular rights that are violated. This issue was discussed during our study in December, when the crisis was just gaining momentum. We asked our respondents what could make them take to the streets and hold rallies. The result showed that quite a few people were prepared to defend their economic rights. Thus, 20 percent were prepared to hold rallies if their wages were delayed or if they lost their jobs. As we know, none did; we have this phenomenon but most of the actions of protest are local.
“When asked whether they were prepared to hold protest rallies if the Verkhovna Rada canceled the election and had the president elected by parliament, 4.8 percent said they were. On the other hand, this is not a small number; it means about a million citizens, yet we know that in reality considerably fewer people are prepared to do so.
“The reason is obvious: people are sick and tired of politicking and politicos. They are not prepared to take to the streets to defend some abstract rights. Of course, they would show more activity if they had a prominent leader, like Yushchenko at one time. Also, add the ongoing crisis. People focus on their own economic interests.
“With regard to the [coming] election campaign, it will be different, considering the large degree of disillusionment and apathy on the part of the population. There is a strong likelihood of a considerably lower turnout, as compared to all previous campaigns, particularly the one in 2004.
“With regard to ratings, there is still time left, although most experts predict BYuT’s fiasco in the first place. Yulia Tymoshenko’s electorate appears to take a dim view of the idea of Viktor Yanukovych being elected as president by parliament. She will have to scramble to make it to the second round. Strange as it may seem, she will feel better in the second round, because then most of the ballots will be cast against Yanukovych.”
Vasyl SUKHOV, coordinator, NGO Dnipro Public Activists, Dnipropetrovsk:
“Regrettably, a civil society hasn’t taken shape in Ukraine as yet; this kind of society is only emerging. As in the case with the 2004 presidential election, much will depend on the leaders capable of rallying the electorate. I believe that our society will support politicians with a reputation unblemished by acts of corruption and scandals, people who haven’t taken part in the grabitization campaign to snatch a chunk of the state property pie. Such candidates may find response from the Ukrainian electorate.
“Be that as it may, we need leaders. Our society is such that it can’t get organized to oppose any abuses of office. Our process of forming a civil society and transferring from the Soviet past to the semicapitalist present appears to be protracted overmuch. To an extent, this can be explained, because the formation of a civil society is a step-by-step process. After you sow the seeds, you have to wait for them to grow, and then wait again for the fruit. It takes time for the ideas of democracy and civil society to be perceived and adopted by the people.
“In general, our society needs consolidating ideas that can rally our citizens around reaching common targets. I think that the holding of Euro 2012 in Ukraine could be one such idea. Whereas some regard this event as an opportunity to raise Ukraine to a higher quality level, others view it as a chance to carry out yet another business project, including the distribution of budget funds and parcels of land. As a result, the man in the street seems to have developed a rather controversial attitude to what is happening.
“Nor is there anything coincidental about our electorate’s negative rather than positive attitude to the politicians. As was the case in 2004, most Ukrainians will cast their ballots against rather than for certain candidates. This public choice is caused by our realities, so one can regard it as a conscious one.”
Volodymyr PRYTULA, head of the Public Center for Monitoring Freedom of the Press in the Crimea:
“I believe that civil society in Ukraine today is better prepared to meet whatever challenges the forthcoming presidential election will offer, compared to those in the late 1990s and in 2004–05. However, it is hard to tell whether this society is prepared to meet all such challenges. We certainly have a ramified network of NGOs and enough freedom of the press, so that this level of freedom suffices convey any ideas to our society.
“This, nevertheless, is not enough to provide all democratic conditions. After all, our NGOs represent a small percentage of our society; this doesn’t suffice to meet all such challenges on a large scale.
“Even though the citizens of contemporary Ukraine are less intimidated by administrative pressure, there are still many individuals who are prepared to sell their votes for peanuts. There is also the strong likelihood of rigged elections — not during the ballot-casting process, not at the polling stations, but on the way to the district election commission — when the bags with the ballots are transferred in the middle of the night, without any observers, when any kind of tampering with these documents is possible. In view of this, all structures of our civil society, along with the media, must mobilize their resources to meet such challenges and prevent flagrant falsifications, as happened during the last [presidential] election.”
Artem FILIPIEV, Ph. D. in Law, lecturer at Ostroh Academy National University, head of the PRO BONO Legal Clinic:
“There is no civil society in Ukraine, there is just the kind of society we have. An indispensable characteristic of a civil society is the responsibility of the citizens and their preparedness to take over political power, even contrary to the will of the state, which is a political institution. Our society is not prepared for this as yet. Also, it fails to realize that civil society and the state are entirely different units of the administrative machine.
“With regard to making an educated choice of the next president, the whole issue is disputable. Here one must take into account the way we understand the notion of educated choice. If this choice means that we must cast our ballots for a certain candidate and know him when we see him, then Ukrainians will make their choice. If this means foreseeing a certain process within the state and choose a national development program, then the answer is negative.”
Mykhailo MOZOL, participant of the Polis Political Analysis School, Ostroh Academy National University:
“Ukraine’s civil society is not prepared to meet whatever challenges of the coming presidential election, because it is too early to discuss the very existence of civil society in Ukraine. Civil society as such must have social capital — in other words, public trust, when every citizen can trust other citizens and every social institution. In Ukraine the level of this trust is very low.
“Besides, the political culture, involvement, and values, as well as people’s preferences remain on the Soviet level in many cases. In the first place, this should be attributed to the immoral and irresponsible conduct of our politicians, as well as to the high level of social stratification. After all, the middle class is still to take shape in Ukraine, while this class serves as the basis of a civil society.
“At the same time, there are certain positive aspects to the situation that has developed in our society: our politicians are encouraging our citizens to come up with alternatives that are at odds with the incumbent government.
“As regards the conscious choice during the coming elections, the big question is what we understand by this choice. For the time being, one can state with reasonable assurance that our politicians keep using manipulative technologies, and that under the circumstances it is hard to discuss any kind of conscious choice. Who will be our next president is not too important an issue, considering that all candidates are using the same sources of financing.”
Vitalii KULIK, director, Civil Society Research Center:
“There are three differences between Ukraine’s civil society in 2004 and in 2009. First, our citizens are now sick and tired of politicians and their politicking. Second, the people no longer trust any political institutions or politicians to give the man in the street a better life. Third, there is an increasing degree of public political passivity. In other words, people simply refuse to cast their ballots. The most active citizens capable of defending their stand want no part of the political process. This, of course, has a negative effect on civil society’s value and potential.
“What we have now is a rift between our civil society and political community. Both are now poles apart, with the politicians addressing their problems (NATO membership, Russian language, and re-elections) and the citizenry dealing with their own issues that largely boil down to survival.
“None of our political force would be able to persuade people to walk out in the street and hold rallies in defense of civil rights. Only local actions of social protest are possible, in conjunction with the economic situation and everyday problems. Any political actions that will take place will have financial stimulation.
“Also, one ought to admit that our civil society is getting corrupt on an increasing scale. Initially, politicians tried to make allies out of NGOs, thus giving an impetus to civil society. Second, professional civic organizations developed a dependency on grants. Third, public activity moved from the NGOs to new social movements. The latter are clearly apolitical, focusing on specific local matters. Using them for political purposes will be practically impossible.
“So, no values will be able to unite our society in the course of this political campaign because the larger part of our society does not want to be manipulated by politicians. There is also the smaller, thinking part: people removed from the political process. These people are opposed to the political community at large. This critical mass actually shapes our public opinion. In the long run it may produce new leaders, who will eventually come to power.”
