“I was shocked all right,” Oleksandr Volkov said, coming out of the Verkhovna Rada hall on Tuesday February 29 after it had been announced that a Deputies’ group called Solidarity was formed in Parliament. History will never know the mysterious words he whispered in the ear of Petro Poroshenko, the new group’s leader after the latter had addressed the lawmakers, setting forth the main work principles of this faction. But we can imagine. Perhaps not only Mr. Volkov had this kind of feeling at that moment. Mr. Poroshenko confessed that the leadership of the SDPU(o) group, from which he and six other colleagues of his had moved to Solidarity, had only been informed of this decision on February 28. The SDPU(o) leadership does not seem indeed to have had the slightest idea that some of their comrades-in-arms were going “to take a stand more in line with their views.” Accidental eyewitnesses claim they saw quite a tumultuous debate, with no verbal holds barred. Little wonder, for what was called to question was the much vaunted monolithic unity of the United Social Democrats, one of Parliament’s most influential coteries. The situation could not in fact be saved even by the joint statement of outgoing Mr. Poroshenko and the remaining Oleksandr Zinchenko to the effect that the transfer of some deputies from the SDPU(o) faction to Solidarity does not mean they have abandoned their Social Democratic position.
Formally only two things keep us from talking about a split. First, the defectors have never been members of the party (including Mr. Poroshenko himself who once was SDPU(o) politburo member without holding a membership card) — they all had got into Parliament in first-past-the-post constituencies and joined the Social Democrats later, when the fraction was enlarged by recruiting such Solons. Secondly, the second largest component in the new group consists of members of the SelPU (Peasants’ Party of Ukraine) faction, disbanded for lacking the required number of People’s Deputies, with Ukraine’s “chief peasant” Serhiy Dovhan at its head, which made it possible for observers speak about a subtle game to tactfully attract the Left to the parliamentary majority. Mr. Volkov, for example (oddly enough, we will consider him an observer this time), favors precisely this version. “This is a quite a well-conceived and tactically good move,” he says, “to attract a segment of the Left to the majority. They would not have done this just for the asking, so somebody must have given up something.” In addition to fulfilling the attraction mission, Solidarity is expected to lobby in the interests of Ivan Kyrylenko’s Ministry of Agrarian Policy.
The idea of forming a “good,” i.e., constructive and not too opposed, leftist party with its own faction in Parliament emerged quite long ago, when the majority and the minority were still engaged in their heroic battle. On the one hand, such a party could increase the majority and, ideally, bring its number up to the constitutional 300 votes at the expense of some relatively pliable leftists who are prepared to compromise but are afraid of tarnishing themselves by cooperation with the oligarchs. On the other hand, such a structure armed with a mild socialist ideology could stand a good chance in the coming election campaign, given certain financial injections and most-favored-party treatment by the media, naturally, at the expense of Communists. The idea first aired by our same Mr. Volkov turned out to be extremely attractive, so attractive that it invited something like a tender for the right to implement the project. Oleksandr Moroz was the first leftist to try to contact the majority, which gave good reason to suggest the possibility of building a leftist Democratic Platform (late perestroika Trojan horse group led within the Communist Party of Ukraine by Volodymyr Polokhalo —Ed. ) based on the Socialist Party of Ukraine. Observers also took in the same vein the split in the socialist camp and Ivan Chyzh’s independent political sojourn. For how else can you interpret his statement that the Center-Left faction he is forming will include, in addition to leftists and centrists, “a segment of People’s Deputies from the parliamentary majority, particularly, those elected from majoritarian districts?” Then there was a rumor that certain oligarchs (everybody suspected Mr. Volkov, of course) were going to organize a back-up Communist Party under the quite original name of UKP (Ukrainian Communist Party, a throwback to a group of the same name or Ukapisty, a small communist party independent of the Bolsheviks and absorbed by the latter in 1925 —Ed.). Many versions circulated as to who could head this alternative communist movement. Among the names mentioned were Hurenko, Oliynyk, and Martyniuk (incidentally, they hurried to deny the rumors which tarnished their unblemished reputations). Finally, Oleksandr Rzhavsky said the ideology of his One Family was close to the communist ideals of comprehensive social equality. He also conducted talks with people close to the President, promising them to recruit, if necessary, the sixty legislators required for a faction in the shortest time possible.
Many options have been discussed but none were put into practice for the simple reason that there was no permission from the very top. The information we have says that the President would not give the go-ahead to any of the alternatives mentioned. The Regional Revival group says the whole point is whether the President really wants a constitutional majority in Parliament. He does not seem to want one very much. For 300 votes mean this is not a puppet Parliament but a real force capable of serious action. On the other hand, to turn the legislative branch into a full-fledged mechanism of state authority is in the interests of, first of all, the oligarchs themselves deprived of participation in the government. Some of the “Revivalists” have even confessed they have long had a respective scenario consisting of three main stages: “At the first stage, it would be a good idea to come to terms with Oleksandr Moroz, and the other steps will proceed from this.” And although Mr. Volkov says optimistically that the formation of Solidarity is a very successful alternative for expanding the majority, the Revivalists still have certain doubts about the validity of Mr. Poroshenko’s assurances of loyalty. In any case, the Peasant Party cell in Solidarity does not intend to openly identify itself with the majority. “We are not going to vote blindly for all the bills it proposes,” Serhiy Dovhan said, “We will vote instead the way our conscience and party commitments tell us.”
The Revivalists are not quite happy with such a vacillating position taken by Solidarity: their attitude toward this whole structure directly depends on whether the latter recognizes itself as part of the majority. Majority coordinator Leonid Kravchuk, while positively appraising the formation of this group in general, also expressed a reservation: “It is not still clear to me: whether Mr. Dovhan takes Mr. Poroshenko’s stand, it is one thing, but if Poroshenko takes Mr. Dovhan’s stand, it is something else. They show entirely different attitudes toward statehood, the market economy, and agrarian reform.” What is not clear is how can one expect any other tactics from a group which is to continue absorbing leftist breakaways from the minority. Even such repentant members of the opposition are unlikely to agree to promptly enter an overtly pro- presidential faction.
This raises a question: was Mr. Kuchma, vacationing in Truskavets, as shocked as Messrs. Volkov and Medvedchuk? Mr. Poroshenko himself flatly denied the rumors that the formation of the new grouping had been coordinated with the Presidential Administration. And the President’s representative in Parliament, Roman Bezsmertny, even took offense: look, whatever happens, whenever it smells like a split, they always look for the Administration’s hand! It seems to be true that the decision to form the new fraction was made when the President was away from Kyiv. But, if this action did not actually receive the head of state’s approval, Mr. Poroshenko deserves a monument for his audacity. It looks as if he, as the Deputies like to put it, had hoodwinked his colleagues, giving them and Mr. Kuchma the fait accompli of the formation, on his own initiative, of a new Left faction and trailblazing for the majority’s efforts to attract leftist lawmakers. On the other hand, he raised doubts in their minds whether he was going to play a game of his own, disguised as a beautiful legend about being a bridge between the Left and Right, which may not fully comply to the principles of United Social Democracy and Regional Revival. This was a desperate step for a Deputy tangled up (in the past, of course) with certain business interests. Following the logic of Mr. Dovhan who “put out a helping hand,” it turns out that Mr. Poroshenko “failed to share policy-making approaches in his faction.” He failed to share them to such an extent that he sacrificed the lucrative position of one of the most serious partners in a major SDPU(o) business project for a dubious, perhaps temporary, alliance with a party that has a steady procommunist image, always swings from one extreme to another, and has already had serious problems with the executive more than once. But still this does not seem a rash decision. Many are still inclined to think that the guarantor of the Constitution had his finger in the pie. If so, it is Mr. Kuchma who deserves a monument of his own for resourcefulness. First, the role of the creator of this new Trojan horse in the Left was assigned to a rather obscure politician capable of speaking quite sincerely about his Center-Left views. Secondly, the main parliamentary centers of influence were deprived of such an opportunity, which prevented all of them from strengthening themselves and gaining certain advantages. Mr. Poroshenko is a figure independent enough of this country’s main oligarchs, taking into consideration certain differences which are said to have emerged lately between him and Messrs. Medvedchuk and Surkis. Now these differences are bound to grow. Thirdly, many interpret the defections from the SDPU(o) faction as weakening of the party that was until recently strengthening its position in Verkhovna Rada, which has in this way preserved a certain balance of forces.
In any case, Solidarity will find it not so easy to maintain good-neighborly relations with all the rival parliamentary groupings: SDPU(o), Regional Revival, Labor Ukraine, and Fatherland. It is also not to be ruled out that the latter may soon experience a renaissance if its acknowledged leader, Yuliya Tymoshenko, returns from the government. According to her faction’s deputy leader, Oleksandr Turchynov, Ms. Tymoshenko is waiting for Mr. Kuchma to return from vacation and will only then make a final decision after she personally meets the President. Mr. Turchynov is confident the problem of sharing a government and a parliamentary post — concocted and inflated by those who wish them no good, will vanish by itself before the weekend. (As we were going to press, it became known that the Verkhovna Rada procedural committee had received Ms. Tymoshenko’s notice of resignation as People’s Deputy. Interfax-Ukraine reports that resignation of some Deputies was put on the agenda on March 2 —Ed.).
No doubt, the cofounders of Solidarity were only too well aware of the consequences their abrupt move could have. They must have taken some adequate precautions. Mr. Poroshenko affirms they treated very seriously at least the selection of candidates for membership. Sources close to the Solidarity leadership claim at least five contenders were rejected for a number of reasons at the discussion stage. In particular, account was taken of the cleanness of their biographies, i.e., whether some law-enforcement bodies loyal to certain groups might exert pressure on what could well turn out to be lawbreaking lawmakers. Any financial dependency was ruled out: the contenders should be self-sufficient materially. Solidarity has been armed for bear from the very beginning. It is unlikely that People’s Deputy Poroshenko hoped to successfully confront all alone the united multiple factions of oligarchs without enlisting the shelter of a high enough political roof.
The majority continues to regroup. Having finally believed in the sincerity of the President’s promise not to dissolve Verkhovna Rada ahead of schedule, the parliamentary groupings lost the principal cementing force that made them seek points of contact even where they could not exist. A field for broad political maneuvers has unexpectedly been opened, and all haste to seize this opportunity. Observers forecast that other factions, which were formed so painstakingly, will continue to disintegrate. SDPU(o) has gone through the first, preliminary, stage of splitting, with fissures still remaining inside both the fraction and the party. It is not ruled out that this disease could also in the immediate future spread to the alliance of the Democratic Union and Regional Revival forged by Mr. Volkov. To have at least a small official fraction of one’s own in today’s viable Parliament is the cherished dream of every serious businessman. Each new session day brings information about new rotations in the lineup of deputies’ groups and factions in Verkhovna Rada. The process continues.
