After the Orange Revolution’s fiasco and its leadership’s defeat during the next elections, probably the most topical issue on Ukraine’s political agenda was choosing the principle of vote. Previously the picture was clear. Ukraine was divided into two political camps: the Orange one and their opposition. In other words, the choice was simple: you cast your ballot either for “our people” or “their people,” on a black-and-white principle. In three to four years, however, the “white” side had started revealing an increasing number of dark spots that could not pass unnoticed, so there emerged the idea of choosing the lesser of two evils – also, absenteeism – with the proponents of both options lashing out at each other, even accusing the other of having turned traitor to the national cause.
Who is right? In politics, as in social theories, any attempt to establish the truth in the last instance is doomed. I can only suggest an effort to get closer to this truth.
What makes choosing the lesser of two evils so difficult? First, while making this choice, one ought to determine the criteria – considering that they vary in regard to various social, ethnic, cultural, and regional groups – and reach a common denominator. This is easier said than done.
What is more important for Ukrainian independence these days? Enhancing the role of the Ukrainian, Russian, or other ethnic languages? Strengthening Ukrainian society and state? Enhancing Ukraine’s economy? Needless to say, passing bills establishing the dominance of the Ukrainian language would mean an end to any kind of unity between this country’s Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking regions (in the west, south, and east, respectively). The same would happen if Russian received this status. Under Yanukovych’s presidency a number of ethnic Ukrainians have become aware of a clear and present danger to their cultural, political, even social interests.
Ukraine needs clever and well-balanced decisions in regard to the language and other problems. In other words, to determine what is politically good and evil – as well as the amount of good and evil within a given political force – one needs an in-depth unbiased analysis.
If and when the criteria of the lesser of two evils are found, the next step would be an objective and insightful analysis of comparable political values, along with a forecast – what is likely to happen to alter these values. Only after completing this burdensome task can one discuss the choosing of the lesser of two evils.
Sad but true, the proponents of either option more often than not avoid making a bona fide in-depth analysis. Their rhetoric boils down to primitive statements, like: “This party is the lesser of two evils because it is led by Yanukovych (Tymoshenko, Klitschko, etc.) and s/he is far better than such-and-such politician, the leader of such-and-such party.” One can also hear statements like: “I’ll cast my ballot for the communists because, come to think of it, they are better than the Orange ones (Freedom or the Party of Regions).” In some cases ballots are cast because “…they’re promising exactly what I need.” In other cases the reasons are absolutely irrational.
Because of this superficial approach, we often find ourselves abandoning our political idols, frantically searching for new ones. Those who once lashed out at Leonid Kravchuk found themselves depressed after this commie was defeated by the Kremlin-minded Leonid Kuchma. Later, they all cast their ballots for Kuchma, so he could beat Yevhen Marchuk who was obviously pro-Ukrainian, yet an enigmatic political figure, and former KGB general to boot. And so on and so forth.
Most political analysts and voters left Viktor Yushchenko and joined Yulia Tymoshenko, and then left Yanukovych to join the communists. Not once any of Ukraine’s intellectual – or not sufficiently intellectual – circles has organized an in-depth discussion or tried to analyze the comparable political values. The tone would always be set by highfaluting politicos and analysts on their payroll who would quickly determine what was good and evil, and help choose the lesser of two evils. Shortly the electorate would realize that they had made another bad choice.
That is probably why absenteeism has constituted more than 50 percent in central electoral precincts, in certain regions of Ukraine, with an increasing number of voters refusing to cast their ballots for the lesser of two evils because someone is telling them to do just that, without bothering to explain why.
Choosing the lesser of two evils has been germane to human nature for thousands of years, although making this choice hasn’t been easy, as evidenced by fairy tales, when a young hero faces a crossroads, with a sign reading that he will suffer this and that, including his death, if headed in either of three directions. None of these promises victory. Anyway, this young hero chooses a direction and reaches his happiness, after surmounting great and painful obstacles.
Such fairy tales offer a wise solution to the problem of choosing the lesser of two evils: try to suffer the lesser of losses; do not expect manna, just valiantly fight all kinds of evil that will attack you on your way, for this is the only road that will lead you to your happiness.
Unfortunately, this simple folk tale recipe remains unused in Ukraine. We choose the lesser of two evils, then tend to forget that this lesser evil is evil, after all, so we have to fight it lest it become the greater one (as each evil tends to become).
Nothing has practically changed for the better within the most influential political parties, considered to be the lesser of two evils by the Ukrainian electorate, since the election date. Has Fatherland become a European democratic party? It has not. The usage of party slates has demonstrated that Fatherland is no different from the Party of Regions, which is true of most political parties in Ukraine. Tihipko created his party, using his funds, then had it destroyed, leaving befuddled many Ukrainians who had trusted him. What will happen to UDAR if and when Vitalii Klitschko becomes disinterested? Fiasco, because everyone knows that this political party exists using this world boxing champion’s money. Many people cast their ballots for UDAR, believing that Vitalii had learned enough democracy while competing in Europe. I can only hope that he will cultivate strong political figures within his party.
Here is another topical issue: campaign funds. Suppose some of those who have cast their ballots for the lesser of two evils will ask their nominees to tell them exactly how their money has been spent.
How are these parties going to get democratic, with collective leadership and internal competition?
Friendly but demanding control over the performance of the nominees is a very important duty for every member of a democratic society.
Another complex aspect of the choosing of the lesser of two evils is the fact that not every one communal member is capable of analyzing the situation, like a chess grandmaster who can plan ten to fifteen moves ahead. Some can plan two or three moves while convincing everybody that they are making the right kind of moves, and that those who are objecting are fools or enemies of the Ukrainian people. This is a lasting problem of humankind.
Germany is a good example. When it came time for the ruling class to choose between the communists, social democrats, liberals, and the Nazis, they chose the Nazis and Adolf Hitler as the lesser evil. They thought they would keep them under control. The outcome is common knowledge.
Considering the complex domestic political situation in Germany, back in 1932, one should not condemn the absenteeism trend – I mean the voters who refused to cast their ballots for any of the thriving democratic parties. Even before the Reichstag elections (July 31 and November 6, 1932), Germany was destined to have Nazism. That choice had been made by the ruling class, the big-time proprietors, with the largest part of the people (ranking with Europe’s most culturally and industrially advanced nations) wishing an iron hand, after having suffered the hardships with the democrats in power. They wanted quick and resolute changes in government. An alliance between the German democrats and communists was out of the question because Germans had suffered two leftist radical attempts to seize power; besides, the German democrats knew what was happening in Soviet Russia; they knew that the Nazis and communists were birds of a feather.
In such complex historical situations, one can assume that each is responsible for his choice and will answer to the Lord. A number of Germans may have condemned themselves for choosing the lesser of two evils when casting their ballots for the Nazis, rather than a third political force, after Soviet troops forced their way into the Third Reich in 1945. Some of them may have cursed their indecision when it was time to fight for democracy while the radicals were still unable to tip the balance.
Choosing the lesser of two evils in politics spells an active bona fide public stand, even after the election campaign, even if to decrease the amount of evil in that lesser evil, or to prevent it from growing. Another necessity is an acknowledgement of one’s mistake in having chosen the lesser of two evils, if the latter proves the bigger one. This is necessary to avoid making further mistakes.
Unless we in Ukraine take these aspects into account, we may well end up like Germans [back in the mid-1930s], with a male or female, leftist or rightist Fuehrer, along with crazy ideas and unpredictable consequences.
