Channel 5 was the only television channel in Ukraine that broadcast free parliamentary candidates’ debates every Saturday and Sunday, starting on March 5. Ten political forces with the highest ratings were invited to participate in the “Televised Debates: Parliamentary Elections 2006.” The channel insisted on the participation of candidates listed at the top of the slates.
However, the audience never saw the leaders of the parties and blocs, who, come what may, were promised seats in the new Ukrainian parliament. The fact is that these politicians would be most welcome to comment on the situation and give straight answers to straight questions as leaders of the electoral process, the ones who will form the parliamentary majority and hence Ukraine’s new political course. Whether their nonparticipation in the televised debates had any effect on the parliamentary campaign’s outcome is anyone’s guess, although it seems safe to assume that it did not benefite the Ukrainian electorate.
The Day asked the hosts of the televised debates, Yehor SOBOLEV, creator of the program Chy na piat? [Does It Rate an “A”?], and Lidia TARAN, the host of Chas novyn [News Time] to answer several questions concerning the quality of Ukrainian politics and politicians.
1. Channel 5 was the only national channel to propose free televised debates to parliamentary contenders, open to all the main political forces. But we never saw the frontrunners. What does this mean?
2. You succeeded in communicating with a number of politicians who will have seats in the Verkhovna Rada. What do you think we should expect from them as new parliamentarians-progress or stagnation?
3. It is possible to analyze and gain an understanding of the presidential and parliamentary campaigns in a more or less unbiased manner, since practically the same political figures were involved in both of them. In view of this, what do you regard as the strong and weak points of Ukrainian politics?
Yehor SOBOLEV: “We have a new country but mostly the old generation of politicians”
1. First, the top politicians seriously underestimate television’s role in the life of Ukrainians. This is amazing, considering what came to pass last fall and winter. Televised debates are a direct route to the electorate, and an honest one. During the election race few politicians met with the people and did a good job of working with their regional electorate.
Instead, the spin doctors hired by most of the political forces staked mostly on another option: appearances on expensive television programs, and only in a victorious light via carefully edited commercials. This road turned out to be damaging to most contenders because the level of our audiences’ awareness has risen considerably; our viewers cannot be taken on a guided tour as easily as before. During the televised debates the politicians had to give straight answers to straight questions. In most cases they failed. At the moment few of our politicians are prepared to compete through their ideas, even less so while facing their opponents and people in the audience.
2. In my opinion, the present time and this Verkhovna Rada are at a turning point. The times demand qualitative changes, and many “veterans” who have again obtained seats in parliament are not prepared for this because of their mentality a priori. They will have a hard time, even the most battle- hardened ones; they will have to adjust to changes because this is required by the new political realities in Ukraine. I am personally placing more hopes on the next parliament. This one has too many marginals. There is practically no new wave of politicians. What we have is a lot of big businessmen, who are there solely to lobby their interests. This is obvious, and their performance will be dull, as most of them are not public figures, and I am afraid that this will also have an excessively painful effect on the Ukrainian economy.
3. The worst thing that the presidential campaign did is split the country. And the parliamentary one finished it off. Its outcome is eloquent proof of this. There is no leader of the nation. The status of the “president of all Ukraine” is weak and curtailed by the political reform. There is nothing that would glue the broken jug back together. It’s a shame. Those who came to power and those who will now obtain repeated access to it are unable to bring about the changes for which the people have been waiting because they have a different mentality.
After becoming aware of this, Ukrainians lost interest and trust in their politicians and government; worst of all, they became disillusioned with their country. Those who still believed in something chose their leaders: the man from Donbas and the woman with the beautiful braid. Considering the situation on a broader range, we are at a historical crossroads, as our Russian brothers put it. This reminds me of the classic writer [Shevchenko — Ed.] who wrote, “When shall we get ourselves a Washington/To promulgate his new and righteous law?” The real victor of the previous presidential campaign never turned into a Ukrainian Washington. We’ll see what happens next.
Lidia TARAN: “Few of our politicians are prepared to compete through their ideas”
1. The first conclusion is that our politicians are already living in a democracy, yet they do not seem to understand how to behave under these conditions. I believe that a politician cannot refuse to take part in debates in a democratic country. This is impropriety and a lack of respect for the media and, most importantly, the electorate.
Another conclusion is that politicians are often the image of their parties or blocs, but not actual leaders. They do not generate ideas or have the ability to implement these changes. At least two political forces have openly admitted that their leaders were not allowed to take part in the debates by their spin doctors, who believed that the leaders or their forces would lose out by taking part in the debates. In other words, they were simply not prepared to argue their causes, prove the correctness of their programs, and counter their opponents’ arguments convincingly.
The third conclusion is arrogance. Yulia Tymoshenko, for example, believed that she could not argue with Petro Symonenko because this is not her level, because her level is only Viktor Yanukovych or Yuriy Yekhanurov. The latter was prepared to take part in the debates, but figured that if Yanukovych does not want to take part in them (he also regarded them as below his level) then he has no business there. This logic seems rather strange to me. Competing on television does not take place according to the principle of who looks toughest in the studio, but who wins the largest number of supporters among viewers; whom the audience will like better and find most convincing. Our politicians, because of their arrogance and habits stemming from Byzantine- type politics, fail to realize the advantages of personally getting across to the electorate and looking better than your opponents in the end. That’s what televised debates are all about.
2. All of us are moving forward. I believe that every new Ukrainian parliament will be better than the previous one. I am sure that we will be able to expect cleverer and more responsible decisions from the new parliament than the previous one. The atmosphere is changing in Ukraine. We are becoming more demanding, and the people are becoming more demanding. Now it is not that easy to make a stupid or odious decision because there will surely be people who question it and condemn its authors.
Therefore, the new parliament will definitely be better than the previous one. The question is will the new parliament be a new-generation one? I don’t think so. To me the notion of new generation includes politicians who come to power to reach a certain goal. In fact, the televised debates were aimed at this, so that we could see and hear our politicians not using beautiful campaign slogans, like “Don’t Betray the Maidan!”, “There Is Justice Worth Fighting For!” or “Let Professionals Come to Power!”, but presenting clear-cut ideas that they actually believe, ideas that have been formulated with their advisors, ideas that they would proceed to implement with their assistance.
George Bush promised tax cuts before he began his first term, then he pledged to fight terrorism — the way he saw it — before the second term. He has been true to both. Whether this was the right approach and whether the electorate accepted it are different questions. However, voters in the US knew their candidates and what to expect from them. Our problem at this stage is that we don’t have politicians who consider politics as an implementation of certain ideas, rather than as a struggle for higher posts, a larger Mercedes, or the best seats in a larger studio. I think that the new parliament does not consist of politicians of the kind described above. However, I do believe that Ukraine is showing speedy progress; we are all learning things. Let’s hope that a considerable number of our politicians will keep pace and progress in the right direction. I feel optimistic about the new parliament.
3. The strength of Ukrainian politics lies in the fact that it is free today, competitive, and we can expect the best politicians to appear, owing to their personal qualities, intellect, political talent, and so on. The weak point is our politicians’ lack of understanding of the fact that politics no longer has to yield big business profits or high social standing. We are living in a new country, but we have to put up with the old generation of post-Soviet politicians.
There is, however, the encouraging hope of a new political cadre emerging from “below,” primarily from local self-administrations. When a man comes to power not in order to build a big business or satisfy his ego, but to implement a certain idea that he believes is important for his city, raion, or oblast, this is a different dimension. I hope that the current generation of politicians will be gradually replaced by new and younger ones. This will be a welcome change because the new generation, with its new approach, will be of far better use to our country.
