“Ukraine: Unitarianism, Federalism or Disintegration?” was the theme of the first session of the Ukrainian Club established by political scientists who represent this country’s leading analytical centers. “We are aware that a way out of the crisis can only be found if experts study a number of administrative, economic, and informational anti- crisis measures,” the Ukrainian Club founders said in a statement. Most of those who signed the statement are longtime contributors and commentators to Den/The Day such as Andriy Yermolayev, Volodymyr Lupatsiy, Volodymyr Fesenko, Oleksandr Lytvynenko, Vadym Karasiov, and others. Among the Ukrainian Club founders’ goals are “developing a new discourse for “the project of a new Ukraine,” reaching a compromise among differing viewpoints and approaches, actively restoring the format of experts’ analyses in the mass media, especially in television news bulletins and analytical programs, understanding and defending the corporate interests of Ukrainian experts before foreign experts corporations,” etc.
Here are a few comments from the participants of the first discussion on the new “debating ground.”
Kostiantyn MATVIYENKO, Gardarika Corporation:
“In my opinion, some people are generating ideas of separatism and resorting to force to solve the current social conflict. I would like to quote a Ukrainian catch phrase for those who are toying with the idea of separatism: ‘Hang loose, brother!’ It seems to me that those who are inciting the army and police to bloodshed and actively supporting the idea of separatism in southeastern Ukraine are nothing but intellectual bankrupts. Unable to generate any new ideas or propose any new relationship model, they are still clinging to old Bolshevik- style clichйs. I think Russia should discard this method of dealing with Ukraine. In reality, the current local government law fully complies with what is going on at the level of the territorial communities.”
“The point is how this is being implemented. For example, in Sumy you have governor Shcherban and the territorial communities that elected their local government bodies. Accordingly, the prosecutorial and security services, the tax inspection, etc., are implementing the mechanism for removing mayors, and the law is not being observed because this is not the No. 1 question here. Regrettably, it is the culture (or practice) of exercising power that is coming to the fore. Changes are only possible if the political elites change. In the past few years our society has formed a new managerial elite capable of putting into practice new administrative technologies (I am talking specifically of innovative technologies, not coercive or tough ones). We are aware that the bickering for offices that is now going on within the elite does not guarantee us a new high-caliber government, but in this case qualitatively new circles that have identified and are able to defend their interests are being brought into play. In reality, if you draw historical parallels, what is now going on in Ukraine is a bourgeois revolution. If you go to Independence Square and see demonstrators using cell phones and cash dispensers, if you see the machines that are serving our Ukrainian revolution, you will understand it is a bourgeois revolution. Why do bourgeois revolutions break out?- because new elites and new ethics are emerging. And these ethics should be instilled in the government.”
Oleksandr LYTVYNENKO, first deputy director, Institute of Strategic Studies:
“We saw some governors taking separatist steps and then suddenly, almost overnight, backpedaling. This gives me perfect right to emphasize that there is no problem of separatism as such in Ukraine. One can cite a lot of political, economic and other reasons, but it is very important to note that the very fact of raising this issue is an extremely negative factor. There are such things as territorial splits, separatism, etc., which should not be discussed at all because this may help to materialize this model. Just watch Russian television, and read Russian newspapers and Web sites. They are full of the wild propaganda of separatist ideas. They also eagerly quote a lot of Ukrainian experts who paint a gloomy picture of a ‘Southeastern Republic,’ ‘Donetsk-Kryvyi-Rih Republic,’ and so on. We are witnessing a pre-arranged public relations ploy in action. In principle, it is in fact physically impossible to broadcast and publish so much separatism-related material in a day or two, like the Russian media did. The most sensible step in such conditions would be to make any discussion of this subject taboo at the national and regional levels. Experts and journalists should avoid this topic and above all put an administrative halt to this idle chatter.
“In addition, a discussion of real regional problems, primarily the question of self-government, should be initiated. There are economic and political reasons for this. Let us say that it is necessary to push forward Bill No. 4180 on political reform, but it is equally crucial to understand that we can and must formulate not only constitutional amendments but also new laws, for example, on local government, on the Cabinet of Ministers, on the Presidential Administration, and on the Verkhovna Rada. These laws can help solve an extremely large number of problems, and they require 226, not 300, parliamentary votes to be passed.
“It is crystal clear that the much-talked-about compromise will primarily affect the distribution of portfolios. This means that when the time comes to confirming the new premier in office, he will have to make a genuine ‘throne speech’ and show his own vision of necessary changes. Accordingly, his speech-writers should be aware of these problems.”
Yevhen KOPATKO, Informational and Analytical Center, Donetsk:
“We are proceeding from the idea of separatism and beginning to play it up. But no one has said that what provoked this problem was recognition of Viktor Yushchenko as president in western Ukraine. Let us face the bare facts: this was a reaction to the situation in the western region. In reality, there is a wide rift in society. This should not be ignored. We should not think that everything depends on what governor Kushnarov or somebody else says. I can assure you that things are a bit different in eastern Ukraine. I come from there and don’t need rumors to know the situation. This situation emerged because the closely-fought election ended up with politics coming to the fore. It was alleged that one candidate unconditionally won and the other unconditionally lost. I must say there are other opinions that also have the right to be heard. It is a false approach when one view is considered right and any other wrong. This will not help reach a compromise by definition. On top of it, separatist trends are the answer to what is going on in Kyiv.
“I hate the word ‘revolution.’ Have we forgotten the years 1991 and 1993? They clearly showed that a revolution always leads to a heavy ‘hangover.’ Everything that is going out of control will not calm down until they ‘quench their thirst for blood.’ And those who made the people take to the streets should not forget this. The people will eventually get tired and will either have to become aggressive or just leave the streets.”
Volodymyr LUPATSIY, Sophia Center of Social Research:
“We see a situation where the subject of separatism, if it indeed cropped up as a political technology instrument, is turning into economic destabilization. The country’s economic system is becoming a hostage to the behavior of one of the groups that supported these slogans. What we are seeing is the economic component, the formation of the political sponsors of this idea, a certain level of their self- organization, and the formation of a new local identity based on the consolidation of Orthodox fundamentalists who profess a Ukrainophobic ideology and anti-American stance. There are very few people of this kind, but they are in fact cementing a force that will, in all probability, market the idea of separatism in 2006, whether or not there are ample grounds for it. So the question is to remove this issue from the agenda altogether. It would be wrong to try to persuade everyone that there is no use discussing this subject: this would in fact mean promoting this idea. Instead, we must offer a counter-package that would focus on the dire need to address the problem of self-government. This should be done through the media. A media plan should be drawn up to disseminate this idea. Secondly, one way or another, this situation emerged not only because we failed to tackle the problem of local government but also because we did not pursue an adequate regional policy. In other words, Ukraine will be unable to develop steadily if it fails to build its economic strategy with due account of macroregional interests. Another component of this package is a more meaningful cultural policy. This means we must ‘dig deeper’ and on this basis only try to solve all the problems that are laying the groundwork for speculations.”
