Volodymyr BONDARENKO, executive director, International Center for Political Consulting:
For some parliamentary parties so-called extra-parliamentary methods are the only way to advertise themselves. What was the opposition’s aim on September 16? Mainly to oust the president. Could this be achieved by several dozen people’s deputies along with several tens of thousands of protesters, whose ideological unity is rather dubious? I doubt that the opposition leaders are so naive as not to understand that any such attempt would be ridiculous. Still, people were urged to stay on the square until the inevitable finale. The opposition would never miss an opportunity like the anniversary of journalist Heorhy Gongadze’s disappearance to remind the electorate of its existence. But note that the journalist was scarcely mentioned during the rally on European Square and even less so in the numerous statements made by Viktor Yushchenko, Yuliya Tymoshenko, Oleksandr Moroz, and Petro Symonenko. Because power was uppermost on their minds. I would be the last man to idealize the current regime, yet under the circumstances they have to be given their due; it had the presence of mind not to ban all those rallies and demonstrations. Law enforcement authorities showed a much better professional performance than on March 9, 2001, when video scenes of street fighting were played on television the world over and the president and his entourage were branded as undemocratic, while several radicals used the occasion to make their names and eventually good political careers. I believe the architects of the recent acts of protest suffered a defeat. The rallies were peaceful, even if people shouted radical slogans, nothing the Western media would call a heyday that anyone could capitalize on politically.
Mykhailo POHREBYNSKY, director, Kyiv Center for Political and Conflict Studies:
Every participant had his own motive. I wouldn’t say that there was any common cause. Yuliya Tymoshenko and her bloc had their reasons for trying to aggravate the political situation, hoping to get into the opposition limelight, for this would give them an advantage in dealing with the general prosecutor’s office. Also, one ought to remember Mrs. Tymoshenko’s ambitious claim to the national leadership status. The Communists stuck to their old tactic of marking their presence in the political arena, acting strictly in keeping with the post- Soviet socialist standards. Oleksandr Moroz’s participation in the action of protest was a logical sequel to his anti-presidential stand. Our Ukraine’s involvement looked most questionable from the standpoint of motivation. On the one hand, they seemed to take part, but on the other they kept aloof. Most likely, their strongest motive was to wage a political struggle for power at this stage. Viktor Yushchenko’s bloc is the only opposition force that stands any real chance of taking power. There is no such chance for Moroz, Tymoshenko, or Symonenko. Since OU couldn’t do so through parliament, they resorted to extra-parliamentary pressure. I don’t consider this unprecedented. It’s just that a political force is using all means available to reach its political goal. So long as they keep within the law, they have the right to use them.
Prof. Heorhy POCHEPTSOV , head of the Presidential Administration department of strategic initiatives:
Waging a struggle – if we accept the notion – implies all means of exerting influence, both “right” and “wrong.” Sensing their inadequate influence in the information realm (and in the legislative one, for that matter), a number of opposition parties have moved to a different field of endeavor. At the same time, the street also legitimizes the opposition, allowing them to rely on this kind of support, demanding in return transition to a new level.
To launch a civilized dialog between various blocs in the parliament, all forces operating in this society must have enough executive, legislative, and information room, they must have a clear idea of that room. But then (if and when fully represented, including in the executive domain) the very notion of opposition will disappear. Replacing the model of struggle by that of dialog takes certain concessions on both sides, on the one hand; on the other, it takes a clear understanding of common interests. From this point it will be possible to proceed to that of lack of convergence, and work on it. There are certain scientific methods – for example, confrontation analysis proposed by the British military, which makes it possible to keep this process civilized, while taking into account the views of all parties concerned.
Viktor RYBACHENKO , vice president, Ukrainian Association of Political Psychologists:
The opposition forces resort to uncivilized methods of struggle because the alignment of forces in parliament doesn’t allow them to solve the problem using parliamentary methods. It is clear today that they will remain a minority that won’t let them vote the way they want to with regard to any issue. This is the first reason for applying street methods of struggle. The next precondition is social psychological, because the actions of September 16 are psychologically demonstrative by nature. The organizers of these mass actions (first of all Yuliya Tymoshenko) wanted to show the regime what they were capable of. The more people they could have out in the street (they assumed), the stronger their position, if and when it came to negotiating a political deal.
However, these mass actions showed that the opposition is unable to execute a turning point today, because in most Ukrainian cities such demonstrations were held in a quiet atmosphere, without any political tensions. Apparently, there was no mass despair capable of unleashing the violent mob energy and executing a coup (as was the case with Romania and Yugoslavia).
There is, however, little doubt that the opposition will try to raise the matter in parliament, relying on a rally-picketing scenario. There will probably be blocking the podium, dramatic walkouts, and other old tricks. I think that the pro-presidential, centrist part of the audience and the speaker will try to guide the issue into a more rational vein. The opposition, for its part, is not likely to come out with bills outlining their aims this political year.
As a political psychologist, I could sum up that the opposition lacks the energy for a coup. And thus all of today’s “unrest” looks rather trite and amateurish.
Serhiy MAKEYEV , director, Center for Political Analysis and Consulting:
I think that there are at least two reasons for the extra-parliamentary methods being employed by the opposition. The first one, causing the parliamentary minority to go out into the streets, is that they are dissatisfied with the rules and methods of parliamentary work in Verkhovna Rada. The second reason (and I think it is the main one) is that the opposition has exhausted its parliamentary arsenal and is turning to the electorate (after all, there’s nobody else to turn to). Actually, this is quite natural. As for the extra-parliamentary methods, there is an aspect that could be interpreted as follows: the man in the street, having cast his vote, must then sit in front of his television and accept the views voiced on the screen. I think this is a wrong interpretation of the political rights and obligations of any given citizen. The people are actually an equal participant in that very parliamentary work, because they have expressed their political preferences and now want their views to be represented in the political process. For this reason, the very accusation of using extra-parliamentary methods fundamentally restricts the ordinary citizen in his desire to voice his attitude toward some event or another .
