(Continued from the previous issue)
THE MYTH OF A NEW GENERATION
V.F.: “There is a [Ukrainian] slangy catchphrase: ‘Moolah will beat evil.’ In reality, ‘moolah’ or, to be more exact, the pursuit of it, begets evil. The 1990s saw the formation of the foundations of the current oligarchic clan system which envisages attitude to the country as to one’s own manor. And every election is in fact a race for the country as a prize. But the gravest danger is that in the 2000s this chase for ‘moolah’ began to spread to society as well. ‘Cash for coverage’ in the media is a very illustrative example of this. While the 1990s was a period of the primitive accumulation of capital, the 2000s was that of an institutionalized system. In fact, the power of ‘moolah’ spread over everything: civil society, the media, the political class, etc. Money became the main argument in social and political relations. This spawned political corruption which also embraced the opposition. And now that there is a change of political generations, the incoming generation regards this system as normal. Moreover, it is even ‘improving’ it.
“There are some myths about a new generation. In reality, there is a conflict not only between the old and new politicians but also one inside the younger generation itself. One part of it wants to have civilized rules of the game, while the other, influential and rather active (with Oles Dovhy as a symbol), knows how to make money and is not interested in any systemic changes.”
Do you think there is a political speculation on the topic of money? The opposition uses such topics as wages, benefits, and privileges to incite people to protest (rallies against tax reform, protests of Chornobyl cleanup and Afghan war veterans, etc.). You said we should seek a tissue’ that will connect the ‘living cells’ of society. As we can see, ‘moolah’ can be a connective tissue for a very infirm body only. What can and must it be replaced with?
V.F.: “Let me make some corrections about the protests, I beg to disagree. People go out on the streets, fighting for their money and rights. It is a positive thing. The same has been occurring in the US and Europe. But the point is that money should not come to the fore in these processes.
“The Ukrainians must break free from the trap of populism. For the problem of money is not only a problem of the oligarchs who are unfairly distributing the social product, it is also a societal psychology malady, when people agree to take small money in exchange for not ruining the discredited system. We should form a critical mass of people who will finally break this vicious circle.”
B.H.: “I would like to change the course of our discussion. I think it worthwhile to speak about the positive things that have occurred in Ukraine since the very first days of independence. For example, I believe the March 1990 elections was a fantastic thing not only because they were democratic but, above all, because, thanks to these elections, a third of the people who came to power did not belong to the party nomenklatura. They were ex-political prisoners, writers, poets, and dreamers. Being in a quantitative minority, they formed a moral majority. If people have reached critical mass, they are able to break the system even in spite of being in a quantitative minority. But the few young people now going to the Verkhovna Rada are unable to change anything. They are wading into this quagmire, only to vanish in it.
“Another positive example. We had a wonderful summer of 1996, when we curbed inflation, introduced the hryvnia, and adopted the Constitution. I must say Kuchma’s first term was not so bad, either. The horrors came together with Medvedchuk.
“Let us speak about the lessons of the Orange Revolution. There are two important points to remember. Firstly, there are many of us, and, secondly, we must always demand the truth and freedom. And those who are protesting today are demanding the truth and freedom. If they saw that society is honest and politicians are doing their duties, they would not be taking to the streets for the sake of money alone.”
We will have perhaps to live with this leadership for a long time. So does it have a chance to be legitimized in society and on the international arena? You, Mr. Hawrylyshyn, seem to have once said that the current Ukrainian leadership would not let Russian business in. Do you still think so?
B.H.: “It used to be so. But today the leadership is a noose. Yanukovych has reached a deadlock.
“When Yanukovych was the premier, he was aware of and admitted to knowing very little. And he was eager to learn! No other Ukrainian politician was so much ready to learn at the time as Yanukovych was. Unfortunately, he has already gone out of that phase – not because he knows everything now but because he is the president.”
V.F.: “And is there any point at all in legitimizing the government?”
I.K.: “Obviously, it is difficult to speak of some additional legitimacy after the Constitution was changed. How can the situation be changed? By way of holding fair elections. This may bring along some new messages and even dreams for society. We have already recalled Georgia. Its president is a dreamer. The mockups of bridges and highrises… He is carrying out strategic projects, such as the construction of health resorts on empty seashore next to Abkhazia in order to attract big Western investors. I so much wish I had asked our president at the last Yalta Conference about his idea of Ukraine. Does the current political elite have a vision of this country’s future?
“In the early 1990s we were the world’s sixth economy, but what did we have in the humanitarian field? Even the national patriotic dreamers had very little to offer. What did the leadership do in 1991? It dealt with the budget, privatization, and money, but not with the humanitarian sphere or de-Sovietzation.
“The oppositionists will only be successful if, instead of sitting around the table and discussing candidatures for winner-takes-all constituencies, they go to these constituencies and ask the people whom they want to support and who stands a chance to win in one district or another. There can be no democracy in a country, where politicians do not practise democracy. In Ukraine, neither the opposition nor the government practises it. Why? Because in our conditions this means weakness. If you begin to play by democratic rules, you are bound to lose.”
B.H.: “In spite of all this, democratic Europe in interested in Ukraine. Let me give you an example. The Research Council of Switzerland, a rough equivalent of our National Academy of Sciences, has decided to issue a million-dollar-worth grant for a project of cooperation between young Swiss and Ukrainian academics. It is a liberal arts project. The most interesting thing is that when it came to choosing the program manager, it was decided that it must be a person who had recently worked at the World Economic Forum and, before this, studied at Kyiv Mohyla Academy or Lviv University. I know that the European Parliament is showing interest in Ukraine. There is a not so vociferous but real Ukrainian lobby there.”
I.K.: “This raises the question of Ukraine’s openness. Europe is interested in us, but is Ukraine prepared to seek any cooperation? To what extent are we open?”
B.H.: “Society is open, the government is closed.”
I.K.: “It is important that this openness should become a policy. Zbigniew Brzezinski says that the Council of Europe’s headquarters should be moved to Kyiv, but I am today more concerned about China. I guess the entire Europe will be uniformly moving towards Kyiv just because it is closer to China.”
V.F.: “As far as the government’s legitimacy is concerned, one of the conditions for the establishment and consolidation of democracy is formation of trust networks. What has always been our trouble? We have been waiting all the time for Washington to bring us new laws and change everything. In my view, it is very good that the government is being delegitimized and personified political myths are being shattered. We must not pin hopes on one person only.
“The current leadership’s paradox is that it seems to have begun doing everything right: reforms, European choice, etc., but it has made a number of fatal mistakes, first of all, the Tymoshenko and Lutsenko cases. One more thing: you can’t possibly carry out reforms and, at the same time, cash in on them. What is killing the authorities is greed. This in turn provokes ‘intraspecific’ conflicts. There are many people ‘on the top,’ who want not only to reap a personal benefit but also seize power. If this goes on, there will be no point in speaking about legitimization and the government will have to think of how it can save itself. But I am not sure that they will be able to ride out of this situation and change their behavior and mentality.”
B.H.: “I feel pity for these people. They are trying to isolate themselves in their cars, houses, dachas, behind high walls… Our rich people are slaves, not owners, of their money.”
