The For Ukraine party leader Viacheslav Kyrylenko came to give an interview to The Day right from the “barricades”: he had been helping Ivan Malkovych rebuff an illegal attack on his publishing house A-BA-BA-HA-LA-MA-HA in downtown Kyiv. “Some people began to do things there at 7 a.m. without any explanations, and only the intervention of the public and the mass media stopped them, while the authorities and the police had been unable to do so. A paradox indeed! Or is this the norm of today?” Kyrylenko said indignantly.
Fortunately, they managed to defend the Revutsky Chapel and the publishing house. We began our conversation with the latest much-talked-of ministerial appointments.
Mr. Kyrylenko, what do you consider more symptomatic or telling – the appointment of Anatolii Mohyliov as chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Crimea or of Vitalii Zakharchenko as Minister for the Interior?
“Neither the former nor the latter. This will not at all change the essence of events in this country. For example, in the Crimea this decision is going to aggravate relations between the Crimean authorities and the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar People. From this angle, the decision may have unpredictable consequences.”
The name of Mohyliov is associated with the police lawlessness that we have seen in the last while.
“The opposition had endless complaints about Mohyliov. Even an ad hoc commission was formed to inquire into the events of August 24, when peaceful demonstrators were beaten up. But I am just convinced that this reshuffle will not change the overall atmosphere in this country and the overall algorithm of relations between the populace and the police, when the former are always indebted to and suffer from the latter, rather than the other way round, when the police are supposed to protect people and human rights. If this continues, no names will change the situation in the country.”
Now about the Chornobyl cleanup people: some say they were just used by certain string-pullers.
“I do not think they were used. I have mingled with these people at different times and under various circumstances. These people, who can sometimes barely survive, are keenly aware of the fact that those who wield power go on accumulating wealth, denying themselves nothing, and economizing on them. That’s it! Their actions just reflect a common social motive. I think the conflict can be settled by solving the problem itself, not by searching for those who motivate. The multibillion-worth budget should be used not only for keeping up the government and the uniformed services and subsidizing the attractive business projects run by the powers-that-be but also for solving social problems. There should also be a dialogue with the people, including Afghanistan war veterans, Chornobyl cleanup operators, old-age pensioners, teachers, etc. But this kind of dialogue is so far near the fence of the Verkhovna Rada and the Cabinet only. This clearly won’t do.”
But, on the other hand, something should be done with privileges. If I am not mistaken, 142 categories of our citizens – almost half the population – are entitled to some kind of exemptions.
“The authorities are the largest beneficiary of privileges. This includes MPs, former and current Cabinet members, the military and the police, and others eligible to well- (or not-so-well-) earned privileges. And nobody is going to strip them of privileges. For example, I have repeatedly moved a bill on canceling MP privileges. The result was always negative. When the so-called pension reform was being introduced, I proposed a number of amendments regarding privileged pensions, but none of them was accepted. But this ‘reform’ had a painful effect on ordinary (future and current) pensioners. Nobody will trust the authorities until they begin to reform themselves. And, whatever the government says about the number of the privileged, this won’t change the crux of the matter. The authorities want to go on denying themselves nothing, while the grassroots have to tighten their belts. It is not a reform. Neither the Czech Republic, nor Poland, nor the Baltic states have had this kind of reforms.”
President Yanukovych has recently made a shocking allegation that some people are buying up weapons on a mass scale and masterminding attempts on the life of those in powers…
“I am surprised with this statement. Firstly, in this case he should have explained to the public who, why, and what for is buying up weapons. But this became an object of parliamentary queries, on the one hand, and a butt of political jokes, on the other. If this is a reaction to people’s social protests, it is an inadequate reaction. If somebody deliberately spread false information, one must tell the public who did it.”
Incidentally, Mohyliov showed no reaction to this statement. It was announced later that the populace had a lot of weapons at hand.
“We can only guess whether these weapons are intended for hunting or for something else. If it is about criminal things, the police must deal and do away with this kind of things rather than scare the people with these weapons. But if the goal is to browbeat the opposition, Chornobyl cleanup operators, pensioners, Afghanistan war veterans, teachers, doctors, and all those who did or are going to protest, it has not been achieved, either. You can’t possibly solve this problem with intimidations alone. It is not an effective method. This reeks of the times of Kuchma or even communism.”
UKRAINE’S DEFEAT IN DECEMBER WILL BE THE KREMLIN’S BEST VICTORY
It was reported recently that another four cases had been reopened against Tymoshenko. Why is this being done? They have already sentenced her to seven years in prison.
“They want to show they will not stop and are bent on barring Tymoshenko from any political activity. They mean that if parliament decriminalizes one [criminal code] article, which is rather unlikely, there are many other articles. They want to say to the people: you have no way out; no matter how hard you struggle, we are still stronger. I don’t know in general how one can even dream of European integration if they have this kind of intentions. If they meant to cheat from the very beginning, they should have said it. But we have long seen that it is just rhetoric.”
Why do you think they need an imprisoned Tymoshenko? What are the political dividends of making a martyr out of her? Where is the logic?
“I can see no logic here. They are just removing the main political rival.”
It is known that the Ukraine-EU summit will be held on December 19. Do you think Ukraine should be granted associate status now that Tymoshenko and Lutsenko are behind bars?
“I think it should. I unequivocally support European integration in spite of any circumstances. Moreover, it is also the position of Tymoshenko who has made it clear from her detention cell that political persecution should not be an excuse for the European Union to put off its decisions about Ukraine, including the one on association. Ukraine’s December defeat (if, God forbid, this happens) will be a major victory for the Kremlin, which will slow down Ukraine’s European integration for many years as well as this country’s movement towards the European standards of freedom, rule of law, social security, legislation, etc.”
Yet many pro-European-minded intellectuals think that if Europe grants us associate status now, this will mean it is tolerating lawlessness in this country. This situation may be here to stay.
“It is a question to the Ukrainian people, to all of us: how long shall we put up with this arbitrary rule and repressions? Europe will never solve this problem for us. It has never been able to do so. But I think it will be a gross mistake for the European Union to draw an iron curtain on us because this will have more negative than positive consequences.”
In reality, not so many people came out to defend Tymoshenko. What do you think is the reason why? Experts say the current protests usually raise economic, rather than political, questions.
“All these protests – social, tax-related, political – are of the same line. They are caused by discontent with governmental policies and the absence of a dialogue between the government and society. So the limited number of public protesters is a temporary thing. It has always been like this in Ukraine.”
In other words, you do not think that society has in fact resigned itself to the arrest of Tymoshenko.
“No, I don’t. Even those who did not support Tymoshenko’s political activity are outraged at these actions of Yanukovych and his team. All this can, sooner or later, radicalize the situation in the country.”
As is known, the court will hear Tymoshenko’s appeal in mid-December. What do you think this will result in?
“I am skeptical and do not think she will win the appeal, even though it may have been lodged in accordance with all rules. At least now that we are speaking, I have no grounds to think otherwise. Unfortunately…”
What is the way out? Maybe, the European Court?
“We must count on the Ukrainian people only. We ourselves must shape our destiny. And, in spite of so much mistrust, disappointment and skepticism around this point, I do not think the current leadership will have a perennial monopoly on power.”
“THIS SYSTEM IS NOT FOR THE RICH BUT FOR THE VERY RICH”
Let us talk about the election law. A commission has been set up, which must reduce all the laws to the common denominator within two weeks. What do you think this will result in?
“I am a skeptic in this matter because the commission mostly consists of majority MPs. So, in my opinion, the results of its work is a foregone conclusion. This will end up in the discussion of a government-proposed bill. This is bad, for this approach essentially complicates the application of the principle of equal possibilities for the government and the opposition in the next elections. The administrative resource of governors, taxmen, and policemen will considerably exceed the political capacity of the opposition candidates.”
You hit upon the idea of a single opposition list a few months ago. What is the progress, if any?
“Many, but not all, are supporting this idea. I think it is the only adequate response to the very serious challenges that the government has issued to us.”
As far as I know, Yatseniuk does not support this idea. He says there are two forces capable of surmounting the 5-percent barrier – the Front of Changes and Fatherland. Two columns will poll more votes. The others may please apply for and join them. The time of minority projects is gone, you know.
“This is a simplified approach. Nobody can make sure that there are only two forces. It is widely suggested that there may be at least five go-through parties. So if there is no single list for the opposition, there will be a dozen of lists, as it has always been the case in Ukraine. And everybody will find arguments to defend their position. As an experienced politician, I suggest that this complicated, but very important, problem be solved before it is too late. You will see that the government will go into major convulsions once we just begin negotiating a single list. For, at the moment, everything seems to be suiting the government.”
But For Ukraine is not going to overcome the 5-percent barrier. What are you personally going to do? Will you be running at a single-winner constituency?
“We can make this conclusion on the basis of the results of pro-governmental opinion polls, but I am not sure it is right from the angle of an objective equality of possibilities. Besides, we still do not know which of the election systems will be applied. Yet the answer is 90 percent ready.
“As for single-winner constituencies, I am not authorized to make this kind of decisions on my own. It is the For Ukraine party that will be making decisions on nominating candidates in constituencies, on drawing our list, and on all the other matters, not to mention that the first-past-the-post system creates as many problems as the single list does. The opposition is also to nominate a single candidate in each of the 225 constituencies. It is so far unable to do this – again, because of the leaders’ ambitions.”
Even some Regionnaires oppose the first-past-the-post system. They say it is a system for the rich. But others are saying this may be sort of a social uplift.
“It is no uplift at all. To be more exact, it is a ‘downlift.’ This system is not for the rich but for the very rich. Even nationwide-known politicians will have a lot of difficulties in fighting against the candidates who will be showering the district with money – for the social sector, roads, house roofs, etc. In simpler terms, for all that is needed. And, taking into account the administrative resource, it will be very difficult to compete with these money bags and form the commissions. The opposition should be as closely knit as possible. This is what I am calling for. We should think of the risks the leadership has prepared for us instead of comparing our ratings and arguing over the number of columns that will march. They may all go and… lose – much to the delight of Yanukovych and his team.”
