It is a new step, an attempt to offer a different quality of the public dialogue, a discussion between politicians and the young active part of society. This step is perhaps still to be duly appreciated, but it clearly shows that politicians should speak to society, not just to one another.
We remind you that the roundtable “A New Agenda: the Opposition Speaks to Society,” held the week before last at the Den office, was attended by Vitali Klitschko, leader of the UDAR party; Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, chair of the political council of Our Ukraine; and Andrii Senchenko, Fatherland party MP. Civil-society institutions were represented by Volodymyr Viatrovych, historian, NGO SAM; Ihor Kohut, council chair, Legislative Initiatives Laboratory; Ihor Lutsenko, chair, NGO Let Us Protect Old Kyiv: Ostap Kryvdyk, political scientist, activist; and Svitlana Zalishchuk, initiator of the Honesty civil-society movement. The Den editor-in-chief Larysa Ivshyna was the moderator.
We offer our readers the most interesting fragment of the debate.
Larysa IVSHYNA: “The opposition is marketing a lot of interesting ideas, especially on seeking a quality alternative and drawing up a new agenda. When Valentyn Nalyvaichenko and Vitali Klitschko began to speak on this subject, the first reaction was skepticism. But this does not mean that the question of an alternative is no longer topical. In any case, this discussion is a new level for the opposition.”
Valentyn NALYVAICHENKO: “This roundtable is for the first time offering a format for cooperation between civic organizations, politicians, experts, and the media. I am convinced that politicians must cooperate with representatives of civic organizations, the people who struggle for their rights. A very important step is unification of the opposition, which should also involve civic organizations and activists. A transparent and fair unification is the essence of a quality alternative.”
Vitali Klitschko: “There is a problem with our representation in electoral commissions. So we are urging the opposition to defend, above all, the fair play rules. Otherwise, we will lose.
“As for a single party list, mathematical rules not always work in politics. Two plus two does not always make four, and five plus five will not always make ten. Each of the parties draws different support in different regions. We have conducted some social surveys which showed that the UDAR party would not always produce a better result if it joined forces with Fatherland or the Front of Changes. So it would be logical to make a joint effort in parliament.”
L.I.: “A mere numerical majority of the opposition in parliament does not suit us – journalists and civil society representatives. What worries us is entirely different: will this opposition be of a new quality, will it be different? This in turn requires clear-cut societal demands and proper coverage of the latter by the media. There must be courageous, intellectual, and very honest work. Will society be prepared to accept the new quality even if it is formed?
“In the past few years society has been gravely corrupted by ‘freebies’ and low standards, while the one who wants to raise the bar is at great risk. It is now the right time to say courageously: we are aware of the current complicated situation in this country and saying ‘No’ to degradation. Then it is the job of both society and the media to support, explain, and show that it is a new quality and a new opposition. A new rating list of the world’s 600 best higher educational institutions in 2011-2012 was published recently. Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Cambridge University rated first, second, and third, respectively. There are three Russian institutions taking the 200th something place and there’s not a single Ukrainian one. This mirrors a true picture of the present-day world. It is against this backdrop that the next elections will be held in Ukraine. What we want to hear from you is not only the technique of political struggle and getting to parliament. Why are you going there?”
Andrii SENCHENKO: “It is very important to define what the opposition means and what we expect from it. Speaking of the parliamentary opposition, it is about 120 MPs working in an absolutely inefficient parliament. But let us take a broader look at such thing as opposition. In my view, most of this country’s citizens are in opposition to the current government. But you can only hear this opposition in kitchens, subway cars, and at bus stops. This raises the question: to what extent is society, the institutions of civil society (oppositional by definition), trying to influence this government? Let us take, for example, trade unions. They are now under absolute control of the regime. And what is happening to employers, the third side of the social partnership triangle? It is Mr. Firtash who embodies them today. These social structures have been destroyed by the tacit consent of both the politicians and society. We have a plethora of all kinds of civic organizations, but they are in their infancy. They stay idle with their arms folded and are unwilling to fight.
“A very important question: if the oppositionists make their way to parliament and form the majority, will you surely feel any upsurge of optimism and believe that we will definitely come up to your expectations now that we are the government? Unless we build, together, a system of public control over the government’s activities, we will be unable to meet the expectations. Power entails endless temptations. It is also an illusion to believe that we will be able to find crystal pure people for all institutions along the whole chain of command, who will resist these temptations. It is very important that every individual as well as civil society institutions should not confine themselves to one-off actions, such as just coming to the polling station, casting a ballot, and waiting for the result. One must control the actions of power-wielders at every stage.
“If we try to picture a simplified model of Ukrainian society built by the current leadership at the connivance of each of us, it may be a pyramid. Its top is a dozen families that consider themselves masters of the country and life. About one percent of the population are civil servants and uniformed servicemen who are in fact playing the role of governmental guards and are supposed to ensure a comfortable life for these ‘masters of life’ on the pyramid’s top and protect them from the rest of the country and society. (I am not saying that all of them are absolutely shameless and dishonest – some are doing this willingly and some reluctantly.) This model also includes labor resources (two thirds of the population): it is we who are not considered people and are supposed to create material benefits for the ‘masters of life.’ And, finally, the lowest third of this pyramid is ‘unnecessary people,’ such as the disabled and pensioners. How can we upturn this pyramid? It is not easy, for the task is, by upturning the pyramid, to shift the center of gravity to the level, where, to tell the truth, the grassroots have problems – where roofs leak, education is poor, and ambulances do not answer the calls fast enough. This means powers should be delegated to that level, but even the best elected officials will never manage to do so unless there is pressure on the part of society.”
L.I.: “Why are people talking so much about a single list? And why are they supporting it, even without analyzing, and saying: we want you to be united? Because many of them believe that this may be dispelling the myth that the Ukrainians are unable to unite for the sake of some obvious strategic interests. Society wants to be convinced that there are people who have a top priority, a mission, a charisma, and who can easily ‘ram through’ all kinds of injustice and lies.
“In my view, we should think of the following: would the people like to see your three political forces on the same list? Is this realistic? Do you share the same values and can we be sure of this? Yes, we know that there are temptations and these can go on the rise when society becomes poorer, but after all somebody must say: that’s enough. The rules that allowed growing rich in the 1990s and the 2000s no longer work in Ukraine. We should have said as long ago as 1999 but did not dare to do so. And, as a result, even the current leadership is now in dire straits. Maybe, they did not even think that they would have to work. We are out on a limb over the abyss. Should the opposition communicate with the government, offer it an alternative, or criticize in this situation? We are not in a situation when the opposition could just sweep to power. Today’s society has no sufficient reserves to form a different, ‘sterile,’ world.
“As it became clear later, the Orange Revolution saw the failure of not only politicians but also social institutions because they did nothing to raise their quality and reconsider their experience. And how much trust we placed in the wrong people! If you look at our neighbors, you can say: yes, they failed, for they did not have even a ‘color revolution.’ But the quality of their social dialogue is noticeably different. They have a ‘passionary drive’ and, hence, inherit all types of statehood but offer us all kinds of ruin. So we must change the subject. We do not want the Party of Regions to end up badly – together with the whole country.
“All I can say is that we need people who have a ‘credit history.’ And what inspires hope in this case is the number of civil-society institutions that already exist in Ukraine.”
Ihor LUTSENKO: “We should focus on a narrow agenda that will make it clear what we – politicians and civil society – must do. Firstly, it is the cultural aspect. The destruction of architectural monuments must be put an end to. Secondly, natural resources also need to be protected. What hinders us from solving these problems? I think some more profound things than politics are to blame. If politics does not work, then the legal system should do, but it has been destroyed. We should begin with changing the legal and law-enforcement system – courts, police, and prosecution. If a party has a clear and convincing program, this must be carried out. In this case we can deal with this party.
“Now about some of my observations. Politicians speak very much about their own problems. And if we raise the question of reformatting policies and relations, politicians should drop their current self-identification and become ordinary people. Figuratively speaking, they should get off their warhorse and begin to do what the grassroots do. The same applies to campaign headquarters which are almost totally busy with their own problems, ratings, etc. If we want to reformat ourselves, we must become civil-society movements. Yes, it is a radical approach, but radical situations need radical solutions. This can in fact change very much. If you are a politician, please give society an example – only then will you be educating it. Besides, you will be immediately in the focus of photo cameras and have more opportunities to influence the society you are constantly complaining about. Yes, it is retrograde and passive. Well, educate it and show what to do on your own example!
“We know that our president is a usurper who has lost any legitimacy from the juridical angle, but he is still legitimate politically. So the opposition should hold its own primaries in the shape of a general election. This will allow finding out who, where to, and in what proportions should go. Besides, this will mobilize people. Nothing keeps us from holding a true election.”
Volodymyr VIATROVYCH: “As is known, history is a very tough teacher – it will be assigning the same lesson dozens of times until it has been learned. Today’s situation is the result of the political reformatting that occurred in 2010. It turned out after the presidential elections that the democratic majority was not genuine, so it broke up in a matter of a few weeks. This was the precondition of all the political processes, including the usurpation of power, whose fruits we are reaping now. Why did this happen? Because the people elected in the 2007 parliamentary elections never managed to unite. They lacked value-oriented reference points and a concrete political program. So when Yanukovych became the president, a small pressure was enough to destroy the ephemeral majority.
“You [politicians. – Ed.] are saying everything about candidates – who, where, with whom – but you should, above all, speak about values. Besides, there should be concrete programs: what you intend to do within one, two or three years. Power should be transferred down to the community. Ukraine should be turned into a country of communities rather than that of a monarchy or hierarchy of sorts, which we can see today.”
L.I.: “Cities should regain Magdeburg Law.”
V.V.: “Yes, but power will not come to the communities on its own. Only concrete short- and long-term programs can lead to single lists of the candidates chosen by the community. Only then will we be able to hope that the people will be prepared to defend the election results.
“What will really matter is not who has gone through to parliament but the way the elections were held and whether this country has successfully defended its right to elect. Otherwise we may come back to the times of Kuchma. This will also be a Rubicon of sorts for the government: either it will break down civil society and the opposition and go on imposing its principles (which means there will be no elections in the next 10 years) or society will manage to reverse the situation. But, to do so, society will need a certain level of awareness, which is rather low now. We should focus not only on having new candidates but also on having new voters who will be voting in a new way. Mahatma Gandhi once said very well: be the change you want to see in the world. This may become a joint project of civil society and politicians. For the people who undertake certain tasks for society are thus laying claim to being the political elite. For this reason, politicians and the public should educate these people. Today, on the contrary, politicians, pro-governmental as well as oppositional, are taking advantage of public ignorance because this helps boost their rating. The bar was lowered to a critical point, so now the public and the politicians should raise this bar by a joint effort even if this entails some electoral losses.”
L.I.: “If you choose to raise the bar, we will be supporting you. For until now, in the two decades since the restoration of Ukrainian statehood, we have heard the slogan: be bad and you will feel good – you will go to parliament and shape a happy life for yourself and your heirs. This mentality has infected our society. To put an end to this, we need new politicians with a reputation, at least those who can afford to begin discussing this.”
Iryna SHTOHRYN: “It seems to me this debate has reached a point when all the threads have intertwined. A politician can only become different if they do something concrete. If Nalyvaichenko, Klitschko, and Senchenko always try to achieve a specific positive result, there will emerge the new voter and a better-quality politics. If the government is at the level of a community, it will be easier to control it. The new quality should arise from a good deed.”
L.I.: “It takes much more courage at the local level to resist the governing trio. In my opinion, it is civil society that will spawn new people who have no negative experience in politics. Society should at least be aware of the existing level and spread of depravity and anti-rules.”
Svitlana ZALISHCHUK: “Marshalling resources, ideas, and people allows tackling problems on the public, national, and global levels. We, practitioners, know: if we unite, we manage to solve a lot of problems. As for the key problems of opposition unification, I think we are talking too much about unity in terms of percentage. But it is like sticking two sheets of paper together with common glue: just one rainfall is enough to make them unglued. Sociology is very changeable, as are internal and external factors. Where shall we find the ‘cement’ to knit us together?
“There are three things which I think are important. The first is the quality of political leadership. It seems to me it is a tremendous problem for society. I mean the true leadership and the people who are prepared to assume responsibility and address sore subjects. When there is a true political leadership, people will not vote for a miserable pittance. In 2004, when millions of the Ukrainians believed in the new-quality opposition, they not only ignored the notorious buckwheat handouts – they would themselves carry some to the Maidan.
“Mr. Klitschko, you said if you joined forces [with the BYuT. – Ed.], you would win in some regions and lose in others. Yes, undoubtedly, the opposition must win these elections and be competitive, but you should perhaps ponder the following: if the BYuT and Klitschko offer society some real things, the public will perhaps take an entirely different attitude to this alliance? For example, Obama ranked 3rd or 4th in the last months before the elections. But he believed in youth, new technologies, and the media – and society believed in him
“Secondly, the opposition should be a true alternative because a mere face-off with the government is not in itself a constructive stance. And I am not sure that the opposition is better than the government today.
“Thirdly, we want the opposition not only to offer a high-quality leadership and program but also to play by the rules. Today, the Honesty movement is suggesting to the opposition that we all play by the rules. We have worked out six criteria and are demanding that all representatives of the opposition accept them [the criteria are as follows: no facts of the violation of human rights and freedoms, an unchangeable political attitude in compliance with voting results, non-involvement in corruption, transparency of the declared incomes and property and their correspondence with the way of life, personal voting in parliament, participation in the sessions of parliament and its committees. – Ed.]. Vitali Klitschko has already said his political force is prepared to accept these criteria. Danylo Lubkivsky also spoke of this. The question to all the opposition leaders is: are you prepared to publicly accept these criteria and strike the people who do not meet them off the lists? Naturally, there will not immediately be so many people of this kind as to fill the whole parliament, but the opposition must make a commitment that there will be more people like this in the next-convocation parliament. One must look for this kind of people and offer them, not corruptionists, a place on the list.”
Ostap KRYVDYK: “I think the goal of the Ukrainian opposition is to establish a new political system. The Party of Regions is not a party but a clan, a group of people who are redistributing the nation’s resources in their favor. I am convinced they should leave the Ukrainian political space. The opposition should in turn say in no uncertain terms that Ukraine needs a lustration. Criminals, bandits, and falsifiers must be clearly identified and named. And, accordingly, they must be brought to justice.
“I am not sure that the opposition should take part in the parliamentary elections on a single list. These people, quite different by their attitudes and teams, are unlikely to rally together (I, as a citizen, was pleased to hear the UDAR party respond to the racist comments of Svoboda representatives on the participation of Gaetana in the Eurovision Song Contest). As for the lists, it would be interesting to hear about the principles of their formation. The election law provides for the old closed election lists traditionally drawn up by force of corruption or favoritism inside the party, when selection of the first five boils down to a window-dressing exercise. I personally do not have a recipe for how to draw up these closed lists publicly and openly.
“I would like to know the opposition’s vision of a new institutional picture. The defeat of the Orange Revolution is an institutional defeat caused by the constitutional reform. This reflects a deep-rooted contradiction between the president’s and the premier’s chairs. How is the opposition going to solve this conflict to avoid repeating the same blunder – having a superpresident or a torn-apart leadership? I want to hear about humanitarian immunity and Ukrainian-Ukrainian reconciliation (according to Yaroslav Hrytsak). There is a critical need of a high-quality rational dialogue inside the country.”
Ihor KOHUT: “It is, above all, the question of trust. For it is in principle impossible to argue about unification without knowing how to find mutual understanding. Trust means formation of a reputation, when we know what to expect from each other. There is a regime and an opposition in today’s Ukrainian society, but the alternative is something different. Some of us strand a chance to become an alternative, but this requires quite an effort. Democracy needs great courage today because it suggests, to some extent, weak attitudes and vulnerability. Democracy begins when democratic milieus emerge and the country’s problems are being discussed openly. So the first aspect is trust, democratic attitudes, and rotation.
“Another important question is funding. To what extent openly can parties declare their funds and name their sponsors? Meanwhile, preconditions for this have been set in Ukraine. In the early 2000s we suggested introducing partial government funding of political parties. A law to this effect was passed and signed by Kuchma, but it never worked.
“Today, if a politician has a certain stand and really wants to change something, he must be a Konovalets-type personality, a fearless officer with a feeling of honor. Politics means sacrifice rather than heroism, and it often involves losses. Ukrainian politicians should speak very much about values and Europeanization as well as carry out de-Sovietization.
“A few words about electoral practices. We can see today that constituencies are being ‘mopped up.’ In other words, there is a problem of selecting people who will be nominated in multi-member constituencies. There should be primaries because ordinary people themselves must show whether or not they trust the party representatives. And selecting candidates inside the party does not in fact differ from drawing up closed lists. Another thing to focus on today is transparent formation of constituencies.
“Undoubtedly, one way or another, there will be people who will defect from the opposition to the majority after the elections. Even now there are a lot of defectors on BYuT lists.
“As for the condition of civil society, it is very sick. And those who are donning the attire of politicians should be ‘doctors’ today. Demoralized and disillusioned, society is still living. Society is waiting for a dream. The problem is our leaders have no vision. Why can Tony Blair speak about vision and we cannot? When it was said at this year’s Yalta European Strategy conference that Ukraine can become a tiger or a lion, I wondered what totem our politicians associated Ukraine with. What kind of Ukraine do they want to see? It is a very interesting exercise for politicians.”
Ostap KRYVDYK: “Here are a few points: primaries as the opposition’s decisive style; non-governmental election commissions formed by representatives of all the competing parties, civil society activists, and the clergy; voluntary registration of voters; confirmation of a ballot’s legitimacy by wet seals of all the parties and civil society organizations that are observing the elections; and the public count of votes.”
V.N.: “I think that, among those present here, Vitali Klitschko is standing a fair chance, for he has a clear-cut program of actions. It is possible to change the quality of politics by inviting you and the like-minded people to the ‘political lift’ [he turns to civil society representatives. – Ed.]. It is a tremendous chance for new Ukrainian politicians. Politics holds a place for this very part of society.
“Those in power should either undergo lustration or relinquish power. Please go to a first-past-the-post constituency and report on what you did while you were in power.”
A.S.: “The form of cooperation between civil society organizations and political parties is a special question. There had not been this kind of cooperation for a long time, and when rallies began near parliament, this brought about the following syndrome: ‘Do not approach us with any flags in hand.’ There are a lot of justified complaints about political parties. But the civil society organizations that express uncertain views should either form a party or support an existing political force. Otherwise, there will be a gap between what you are struggling for and the idea of this county’s future. To fight on a small site for a local idea and not to see the general problem or not to know how to take part in solving the latter just means to refuse to participate in the overall project of this country’s construction.”
Vitali KLITSCHKO: “To answer Ihor Lutsenko about the party program, I must say I read the programs of very many parties. They do not differ much from one another. The spin masters who wrote them focus on the things that people want to hear. The question is different: will the politicians and parties bear responsibility for what they have declared?
“There should be a strategic and a tactical goal for unification. The opposition’s tactical goal now is to go through to parliament. The strategic goal is about what we are going to do in parliament, why we are going there, and around what values we are rallying together. I think every oppositionist must answer this question.
“I like what Claude Lelouch once said: ‘Boxing is the cruelest sport, but the one that is most like life.’ I know from my own experience that it is difficult to reach the summit but it is far more difficult to hold out on it. It will be difficult for us to go through to parliament, but it will be much more difficult to hold out on the positions we are taking.
“As for the formation of election lists, the opposition has always favored open lists but, unfortunately, there will be closed lists again this time. Yet we are drawing up the lists on the basis of openness and are ready to give information about any person on our list – who he or she is and what role he or she plays in the party. We suggest that other parties do the same.”
Danylo LUBKIVSKY: “I think this ‘therapeutic’ conversation is useful for the opposition and all political figures in general. It is not only external but also internal control that will help those who come to power to resist temptations.
“The golden key to changing the situation is, undoubtedly, the reform of local government. It is in fact the foundation. It is the experience of successful nations and states which are instilling what I believe to be the most important function in the personality – the function of a manager – in their citizens.
“There will be no progress until the lists of the political forces, now vying for Verkhovna Rada membership, include the people who can show as much intellect as do public activists in our discussion. But this is the way to go, not a panacea.”
V.K.: “We are not rejecting the possibility of uniting, but we must know on what principles we are doing so and how this will benefit us. If we see that people support the unification and if sociological surveys confirm this, I am sure politicians will have to respond to this.
“Many people keep coming to us. We are closely looking at every person from two angles: professionalism and the moral factor.
“If people do not abandon the principles they have declared, I am sure they will never be part of the government in the negative sense of the word. Every political party aims to come to power, but the question is whether it is an instrument of reforms or, as is the case today, one for the improvement of its members’ financial state.”
