The party pendulum of Ukraine is picking up speed, regardless of the changing political weather. Like the three little pigs, the leaders of Ukraine’s hundred parties continue to simultaneously put up their party homes doubling as clients, architects, and contractors. What are the results of their construction and how do Ukrainian citizens view their performance? After all, these domiciles are presumably being built for the Ukrainians themselves.
In order to do this, let us focus on several paradoxes of such edifices, due to which construction should have been completed long ago. Strangely enough, the work goes on, with the design of the edifices reaching almost market variety. Some party boss is putting up a house of straw with a cherry orchard around it, another has a yen for an impenetrable and well-guarded fortress. In any case, party construction is in full swing despite some harsh realities of our political life, due to which the construction had to be put on hold long ago. Alas.
Let us make a list of these paradoxes which, strangely enough, do not prevent the parties from functioning and surviving in Ukraine’s complex political environment:
Paradox No.1. Although the parties win elections they never begin to carry more weight with the executive. Parties in Ukraine are confined to the legislature, the main venue where they do business, while the ship of state follows its set course. Let us dub this the Parallel Worlds Paradox in which both the lawmakers and government live.
Paradox No.2 is ritual. Getting one budget passed by parliament, the government implements a totally different one, in other words, paying purely ritual respect to the Solons. We have retained the Soviet-type pattern of the executive’s supremacy, barring other branches of the power to develop independently.
Paradox No.3 is the irrational. Regardless of arrears or no-arrears with the payments of wages, salaries, and pensions (which are, incidentally, well below subsistence level), voters still vote the way they are told, being absolutely unaware of their political role and ability to influence the situation in Ukraine.
Paradox No. 4 is the informational. The political parties that managed to have cleared the magic 4% hurdle to get into parliament are denied television airtime even on state-run TV channels, which would be considered elsewhere in the world as discrimination against parliamentary parties that, in effect, are the same state parties since they represent their voters cum citizens cum couch potatoes.
And now let us have a look at those parties that have managed to complete their party domiciles. The latest social survey has revealed the support Ukrainians give to political parties. The Sotsis Center quotes such ratings:
1. Communists — 20.42%,
2. Social Democrats (United) — 4.58%,
3. People’s Movement (Rukh) of Ukraine — 4.1%,
4. Green — 4.17%.
Only these parties could clear the 4% threshold to get into parliament today. Political analysts are currently debating the pros and the cons of the 4% barrier and what the alignment of political parties would be if it were different.
These four parties are ready for parliamentary election battles, let alone the fact that their chances could be increased by future campaigning which they have not started yet. Incidentally, available for the race could be those parties which can be expected to clear the 4% hurdle, given appropriate campaign efforts and if the 4% barrier remains. The parties breathing down the leaders’ necks include: Pustovoitenko’s NDP with 3.75%, Vitrenko’s Progressive Socialist Party with 3.67%, Moroz’s Socialist Party with 3%. A mere 7 of the total of 100 registered parties, showing an obvious waste of the political parties locomotive’s steam.
Incidentally, Valery Pustovoitenko, Natalia Vitrenko and Oleksandr Moroz have survived, given a most unfavorable situation. Although Vitrenko and Moroz lost the presidential race they managed to clarify their positions in the course of the presidential campaign. Pustovoitenko lost his premiership but was able to learn how short-lived the love of the state could be and new experience is a good asset for anyone.
What, then, are the pros, or rather, the cons of Ukraine’s political parties, especially since the lack of clear delineation throws more light on their political profiles. They do not have the least influence with the masses as they have no effective grass-roots organization. What are we discussing, reading or writing about? What are we voting for? Who should we embrace? As it happens, our parties could well be the creation of television, something shown on the boob tube just like as Veronica Castro or the “Dallas” soap.
On the other hand, although of less importance is that political parties (and this is the Paradox No. 5) could be actually defined as existing virtual entities. They are out to overcome their virtual existence by showing on television their conventions and sessions, being unaware that this is what makes their existence virtual — when parties exist for the sake of their leaders and vice versa. Both sides need only their counterparts and nobody else.
However, the first-echelon parties have abandoned television and are reaching out to the grassroots. What helps and hampers them to find their way to voters’ hearts? Let us examine the parties one by one. The obvious leader is the Communist Party, due to its clear past image and today’s less clear opposition stand. One might reason that the party has been prevented from opening its kimono, but, on the other hand, we must admit that the party is reluctant to do the opening, being targeted at its specific audience, which would rather keep its nostalgic ears open for the old stuff than hear anything new. A silent political party could be viewed by such target audience as a very smart move by the Communist Party, as such silence could be pregnant with anything one wants to hear. This means the party is always the winner in any debate. “Well-wishers,” however, say that the Communist Party is pursuing its own business goals which prevent it from becoming a real opponent of the government. (Incidentally, the sincerity of those alleged well-wishers could be questioned).
Unlike the Communists, the United Social Democrats, Rukh, and the Greens are the creations of current times. They have found and occupied their niches and are ready to fight for them with their rivals. Interestingly, all of these parties have duplicates, with the original Rukh splitting into two smaller Rukhs, several Social Democratic parties, also each smaller in strength, as well as several quite miniature green parties, sometimes registered under different names. The Social Democrats (United) could claim to be the Communists’ major rival if only SDPU(o)’s organizational activities could be more focused on its grass-roots propaganda, a high-profile activity with the former Soviet Communist Party which was inherited by the Ukrainian Communists, becoming their major trump card. SDPU(o) has another potential carrot to win Ukraine’s common citizens — making use of the experience of Western Social Democrats which helped them to score considerable successes in a number of European countries. Also important is that the SDPU(o) leader Yevhen Marchuk occupies a top executive post enabling him to get much press and televised coverage. Ukraine’s SDPU(o) has also started to develop their links with the Socialist International.
Strangely enough, the Greens continue to attract voter sympathy, notwithstanding their pretty poor track record including, as a major event, a single bicycle ride by the Greens to parliament. All this is evidence of the successful initial image-making campaign which carried a group of Green politicians to parliament. Incidentally, handling the Greens could be an easier job for those in power (if the idea ever comes to them) since doing business in Ukraine always involves a criminal edge. In fact, Ukraine’s political parties could be viewed as business derivatives, in the same way as George Bush, Jr. is a continuation of big oil. Incidentally, the political parties in the United States are also television parties but they became such following a certain period of time when supporting grass-roots organizations had been created. And since television political parties always catch the public eye, politics are becoming more TV oriented, especially with the presidential elections just around the corner. The American way, in a nutshell, could take the following pattern: from television viewers to television parties, bearing in mind that there are also strong grass-roots party organizations in America. Our way is the opposite: from televised parties to television viewers.
What resources do the Ukrainian political parties have at present to catch the attention of voters? One might mention the administrative, financial, mobilizing, information, and leadership resources. All come into play during the election campaign. For instance, lacking all other resources (except one-time resources), the parties led by Moroz and Vitrenko will be likely to cash in on the popularity of their leaders. Volkov’s Democratic Union has a mobilizing resource, its leader scoring 0.33% in the survey. Those parties on which the Presidential Administration will bet will have administrative resources. Financial resources have a clear clan/oligarchic connection, with only big business able to fill party coffers.
Let us dwell on Viktor Yushchenko’s possible role in the future party building process. No doubt, on resigning as Premier (which he is being pushed into by his political opponents), Yushchenko will most likely join one of the parties which, thanks to him, will find itself among the top three or top five political parties. Mr. Yushchenko will retain his image of a good guy who had his wings clipped, thus retaining his leadership resource. Hopefully, in this case financial resources will also be adequate. Speaking about other parties, their future remains hinged on those backstage players who will be likely to get enough political leverage.
Another interesting political phenomenon is the withdrawal of nationalist-minded political parties from mainstream politics, as had been amply evidenced by the low scores Hennady Udovenko and Yuri Kostenko received in the presidential elections. Today’s survey has shown a 0.25% support for Yaroslava Stetsko’s Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists and 2.75% support for Kostenko’s Rukh. However, Udovenko’s Rukh did clear the 4% hurdle. This 4% hurdle could be viewed as something of an achievement but, in fact, it means that only each twenty-fifth voter was willing to support the party, or, roughly speaking, one person on a half-empty streetcar.
Simultaneously, we should stress that the declarations by such minority parties are politically appealing, with minor parties more actively defending their positions and in some cases imposing their own political strategies on others. Still, more losses than gains have been scored by the nationalist parties, on condition the latter could be thus defined. Suffice it to recall the period of Rukh’s inception when everyone was ready to become its member at the drop of a hat. Rukh was then progressive, strong, and intellectually appealing. Gradually, all these assets have become history and today we perceive a typical Rukh politician as non-progressive, weak, and intellectually boring.
The beating involving the controversial journalist Oles Buzyna and the crackdown on the Rivne newspaper premises (aptly dubbed strong-arm literature studies by The Day) are detrimental to the nationalist parties, promoting an unattractive one-goal image for them. The recent changes in Ukraine’s foreign policy toward Russia (pro-Western Foreign Minister Tarasiuk’s resignation, suspension of the border delimitation, etc.) is likely to steal most of their political thunder. Given a variety of foreign policy orientations, Rukh would not have been so vulnerable to Ukraine warming to Russia. Since there has remained only one enemy, Rukh finds itself in a much more serious ideological situation. Most likely, the aggressive political struggle advocated by Rukh now and ideal for one of the possible scenarios, could be unacceptable for the present period of Ukraine’s development. Aggressiveness could be in heated demand someday, but today we definitely need something else. God has created the Earth, the water, and the people, but not political parties. Hence, they are to be created by experts living here on Earth. Who are the key professionals in this field? They could be counted on the fingers of two or even of one hand: Vydrin, Levenets, Lelyk, Nebozhenko (incidentally, the similarity in the number of political parties and the experts is a pure coincidence). There, undoubtedly, are many more experts but the parties prefer to keep mum on this issue. Still, the number of party-builders is limited and falls far short of market demand. There are fewer options for the development of political advertising in Ukraine compared to Russia where five to six various level elections take place each Sunday. This helps experts to build up their muscles in order to operate under more strenuous conditions. That is why we in Ukraine have so many visits from our freelancing neighbors.
Thus the leaders have created their parties, the experts have helped the parties to get to the grass roots. Notwithstanding, the Ukrainians have failed to see the greater portion of them — even through the large rose-colored glasses they wear. As a result, only representatives of the four political parties can help themselves to that big cake which is being served today, putting their party flags in front on the table. All others will have to put up their heels awhile — the other cake has not been baked yet.
The new feature of the current election campaign is that the Ukrainians are likely to learn a lesson from the empty promises that politicians made in the past. A new generation of voters has appeared who have understood only too well that they had been given garbage by politicians. In the last presidential elections it manifested itself in the out of the blue emergence of the Green Party, when part of Ukrainians refused to vote either for the Left or for the Right. We shall live to see what will to happen in the next elections. One thing, however, is certain — whoever capitalizes on the changes in the situation which have taken place recently will be the winner.
