Ukrainian politics has of late developed a language of its own and very specific criteria of political success. One person is an outstanding specialist in developing and implementing, so to speak, turnkey political projects and former unofficial director of the previous parliament. He is a most experienced practitioner of the science of politics, master of compromise, catcher of deputies’ hearts, oligarch, storehouse of parliamentary wisdom, subtle psychologist, bon vivant, the author of witty and juicy comments – in a word, a newsmaker and a sought-after interlocutor. All this applies to Oleksandr Volkov. It is even difficult to believe today that Mr. Volkov, now twice a peoples’ deputy, was not a public politician at all just over four years ago. On the other hand, he obviously remembers very well how difficult it is to take the first steps in public politics and is ready to sympathetically protect freshmen leaders, sharing his life experience with them. Reiterating his loyalty to the Ukrainian leadership, Mr. Volkov is simultaneously not inclined to shut his eyes to their mistakes and blunders, including those committed during the recent election campaign. It is these mistakes (especially the concentration of putting one’s eggs in one basket) that he thinks caused a situation when the leadership feels uneasy and has no allies. In his interview with The Day, Mr. Volkov analyzes and makes a prognosis of the situation.
“YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH PEOPLE”
“Did the recent parliamentary elections suggest the need for genuine reforms in the political system and the state’s attitude toward society?”
“You know, we’ve already been talking about political reforms for a very long time, but, much to our chagrin, it’s all remained just words. Consider one fact: there is no ideology department in the Presidential Administration, which means that there’s nobody to create an ideology that the head of state and similarly minded political parties share with broad strata of the population. Let us recall the role once played by the Communist Party secretary for ideology: he was in fact the No. 2 person in the state, without whom not a single question was ever solved. And what about television or the press? If Pravda printed a critical article on somebody, the latter was virtually dead and buried. There was a gigantic propaganda machine. But now this machine works only occasionally. It begins to come into play during the elections only to grind to a halt soon after. Look, the Communists polled almost five million votes although neither this ideology nor this party have been in power for the past eleven years. Why is there such strong inertia? Because then, by contrast to now, there was a clear system of Party rule. Today there is no powerful political force, no party, to propel the reforms, for which our citizens voted by electing Leonid Kuchma president in 1999. It is only he today who tells us about his vision of this country’s course and reforms. As you see, parliament does not back up this course and goes its own way. The government? No sooner is a premier confirmed in office than all begin to compare his popularity with that of the head of state or try to attach some label to him. What is more, if GDP is rising, this is considered the merit of the government, but when wages or pensions get delayed somewhere, the president is the one to take the blame. Why? Because the president lacks a powerful ideological team that could explain to the people who is who and who is responsible for what.”
“IT IS 100% CLEAR THAT THE PARLIAMENT NOW OPPOSES THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH MORE”
“Is the new parliament capable of a qualitative legislative breakthrough in foreign and domestic policies, the economy, etc.?”
“It is too difficult to assess the effectiveness of a new parliament in the first days of its work. But it is crystal clear that parliament is now more in opposition to the executive branch, which is very bad. This means there will again be a new, more serious and deeper, confrontation between the parliament, government, and president. But, as a popular saying has it, an imperfect peace is better than a perfect war. I am absolutely sure that the new Verkhovna Rada lineup will work even less constructively than the previous one. While before it was possible to make deals with the Communists and thus pass a long series of fateful laws, now this will be absolutely unrealistic.”
“Does this mean that the increasingly opposition-minded parliament might attempt to redistribute power in its favor, to change the model of power?”
“I can say even now that this will not happen: power redistribution requires amending the Constitution, which needs 300 plus one votes. Please count: 175 and 32 (the number of deputies in the United Ukraine and SDPU(o) fractions – Ed.) already makes 207 votes, so the other side will not gain a constitutional majority even if it turns up for voting in a body, which practically never happens.”
“Do you think the previous deputies were more constructive?”
“...In the second half of their term. After January 2000, the velvet revolution, when Verkhovna Rada veered right for the first time in the years of independence, people felt enthusiastic and voted wholeheartedly until Viktor Yushchenko in fact split that parliament. It is, to our great regret, precisely Mr. Yushchenko who did it.”
“And do you think the unwillingness of that Verkhovna Rada to implement the April 2000 referendum decisions is the sign of its being constructive or just the opposite?”
“That referendum results will not be implemented was the common knowledge of absolutely everybody, perhaps including the national leadership. It was unrealistic. Because no deputy will ever support one of the four questions on the ballot, the lifting of parliamentary immunity. Deputies do not want to fall victim to a police sergeant on the grounds of ‘different political views.’ I don’t like the Communists, that’s true. Under the Communists, our family – mother, father, Hero of the Soviet Union, me, and six brothers and sisters – lived for six years on Baseina Street in a semi-basement fourteen- square-meter room without water or heat. But today the Communist Party has lawfully made its way into parliament, so the Communists have the right to express their views and treat the authorities the way they want, and nobody can persecute them for this in any way. The same also applies to other political forces. In all countries, a member of the highest legislative body enjoys immunity. He/she is independent in this case.”
“However, as I recall, the Democratic Union participated actively, to put it mildly, in organizing the April referendum which, if implemented, would have stripped you and your colleagues of parliamentary immunity. When did you change your mind on this?”
“I never changed it. I have already said that the Democratic Union has always and clearly oriented itself toward and supported the national leadership and that the Democratic Union, like no one else, had the necessary structure and mechanisms to carry out certain campaigns, actions, whatever you like. When the Democratic Union was asked to help hold the referendum, it took this up. But it never and nowhere said that this referendum’s decisions would be implemented by Verkhovna Rada. We were told to do the job and we did it and showed our results.”
“You, a deputy from a territorial district, seem to disagree with those who think that the past elections showed it desirable to opt for the proportional representation system.”
“I did and still do say that the election system most acceptable for our society at the current stage is one of territorial districts.”
“YUSHCHENKO’S ENTOURAGE, TO WHICH HE GRANTED CERTAIN POWERS, CONTROLS THE BLOC AND YUSHCHENKO HIMSELF”
“Advocates of the proportional system claim it would be easier for such a parliament to structure itself.”
“If the point is only the structuring of the parliament, then you’re right: a party-ticket election would facilitate this task. But in that case parliament and the common people with their problems would be poles apart. The situation would be like it was under the Communists who would never drop into backwater villages where people were starving to death. For we have about a hundred and thirty parties. People are still being fooled... If there were two or three parties today, say, the Communists, Socialists, Democrats and somebody else, then it would be different. This is what I said at the outset of my interview that only one ideology, the ideology of the state, should prevail. A popularly-elected president should represent a certain political force that should in turn tell society about how we live, what we are building, and where we are going. But, in reality, the current president does not represent a political force. Somebody convinced the president that he should not lead a party. But this is wrong!”
“What do you think is preferable – a non-party president who later makes a choice and leads a certain party or a president who already represents an influential political force?”
“In my opinion, there should be more than one powerful political forces to nominate presidential candidates, as is done in the civilized world. The party that has won the parliamentary elections has the right to form the government. This would be the ideal model for us. But, to our great regret, our society is not prepared for this at the current stage.”
“How many years will it take for such a situation to come to a head?”
“I don’t think it will come to head by itself: somebody has to roll up his sleeves and go to work. If we form a powerful united political force with a clear ideology and a thorough from top to bottom government-supported structure, then it will take our society two to four years to get structured. This would amount to a mental revolution.”
“Is this revolution possible before the presidential elections?”
“I would like to believe so, but, first, I don’t think it realistic. Secondly, let’s not talk about the present incumbent, for he himself said he wouldn’t run for a third term. Let’s talk about the current potential presidential candidates. Well, I don’t see among them a political leader who could form a powerful political force to suit himself, except perhaps for Viktor Medvedchuk. I like Viktor Yushchenko. I’m a friend of his, which I don’t hide. His greatest mistake is that he doesn’t control Our Ukraine. On the contrary, his entourage, to which he granted certain powers, controls the bloc and Yushchenko himself. This is what everybody is afraid of: if, God forbid, Yushchenko became president, it would not be he who would govern this country. I know Mr. Yushchenko likes playing tennis, swimming, praying, climbing Mount Hoverla, you see... Those who will govern us will be people from his entourage, which is by no means the best bouquet of our society.”
“IF BUSINESS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT, THEN THE CONCLUSION IS: WE DON’T NEED EITHER SUCH A GOVERNMENT OR SUCH BUSINESS”
“So much has already been said that a parliamentary seat is a cushy job and that some deputies cash in on switching allegiances, voting for certain bills, etc. Do you think the current parliament will be more or less given to such corruption than the previous one?”
“I don’t think the current parliament will show corruption to the extent the previous one did. This Verkhovna Rada includes very many businesspeople who can’t be bought in principle. If business does not support the government, the conclusion is that we don’t need either such a government or such business. Moreover, if they fail to influence the government... You see, one more agency has now been set up, the Financial Intelligence Service in the Ministry of Finance, to track various money flows and to spot, let us say, dubious operations. But the difference between a legitimate and a dubious operation is a moot point... For example, Belgium has been telling me for seven years: look, this is a dubious operation, we suspect this is money laundering. No problem, I say, show me at least one piece of evidence, and I’ll be ready to be brought to justice, either Belgian or Ukrainian. ‘We have none,’ they reply. ‘We think so.’ Thinking for seven years! But the main thing is my partners have had their accounts frozen and property impounded. This means millions in losses.”
“When is this affair going to come to an end?”
“You see, this being a purely political case, I am absolutely convinced that the strings come from Ukraine and are being pulled by some politicians supported in the West. I got quite serious hints several times: leave the president and the case will be dropped in a week. They need the president, not me. Look: I haven’t been at the Presidential Administration since 1998, but the opposition media still call me the president’s assistant or advisor.”
