It is difficult to evaluate the level of politics in Ukraine, but that of journalism is hope-inspiring, as evidenced by 1+1 TV channel in its live election-night coverage, which showed that our country still has something not to be ashamed of. The very atmosphere welcomed questions like "Don't you think that the President's words about Parliament not reflecting the people's views and this being the reason why certain forces want a mixed election system boil down to another draft verdict condemning the new Parliament?"
Rostylav Khotyn, journalist,
international observer:
"I don't think it is a draft verdict. Rather, his words reflect the difference between Ukraine's intention to integrate into the European Union as officially declared by the government and the President, so as to turn and face Europe, and those other realistic views resulting from historical circumstances, certain ties with and orientation toward Russia. Hence the trend to portray everything using a colonial mentality. We are witness to ebbing enthusiasm for the electoral party system in Russia, and it even looks as though they are sorry to have discarded the majoritarian one. We might give the same answer as well. We know that all European politics are based on parties. Considering that the communists and anti-Presidential parties garnered so many votes, I think the President and the rest of the country's leadership should have strengthened their support for parties. There is a big difference between attacking party elections and saying that criminals are going to cast votes and be elected, along with other characters with dubious past records and assets. Criminals would find it much easier to pass muster in majority electorates, whereas the party approach demands public transparency in politics. I see this as the only political future for Ukraine as a European country."
Iryna Pohorelova,
Political Chronicles:
"Number one. When the President said that Parliament was 'wrong' at 10 a.m. he committed what can only be seen as unlawful propaganda on election day and making bad publicity for the legislature in general. Mr. Kuchma's statement shows that he could have voted only against all. Number two. When the Communists win it means the triumph of precisely those forces that had brought the President to office. Which makes his attitude even less comprehensible."
Oleksiy Mustafin,
journalist:
"I think that the President has never fully discarded this scenario. However, the past four years show that the President has never had the presence of mind and will to play it out, even when worse came to worst. I also think that he will keep this scenario in mind until he loses the next campaign."
Valery Zaitsev, political analyst,
The Day:
"The President is demonstrating that 'multivector' approach. On the one hand, he says that the elections are 'fateful.' On the other, he declared his love for the proportional representation election system only six months ago. On top of all this, he claims that he has always supported the district majoritarian system. Finally, he states that Parliament does not reflect the people's views. In other words, depending on the situation, he may always counter that he has said so earlier."
Volodymyr Skachko,
New Word Television:
"I think the more people come to the elections the sooner this period of darkness personified by Leonid Kuchma will be over. Whatever this person says, the people have made it clear that they don't want him, as clearly evidenced by these elections. At times, listening to our 'beloved President,' I have the impression that there are three processes taking place simultaneously. The first is life in Ukraine. The second is what's going on in the President's mind. And the third is what is being said. The three are in no way connected with one another. Now this is what the 'multivector' approach is all about."
Oleksandr Martynenko, President, Interfax-Ukraine:
"If his every statement were considered a verdict, everybody would have been shot by firing squad, many times over. But we are all still alive. This means that the President acts on the spur of the moment. I think that he really meant what he said on Sunday, except that he did not actually mean that Parliament does not reflect the people's views. What he meant was that Parliament will not reflect certain views and political convictions of the Ukrainian population because there are so many parties, and so on. No, Interfax-Ukraine never interprets what the President says. It's just that, having worked with a man for three-four-five years, one can have a rough idea how this man is going to say what he thinks."
Natalia Kondratiuk,
head of the Ukrainian Bureau,
GRT Channel
"If the NDP fails to get as many seats as planned, I think a verdict will be drafted to condemn the new Parliament. But this will look funny. Many Deputies will come to take their seats with time bombs around their necks - I mean criminal cases started by the Procurator General's Office. Unless Parliament and the executive can come to terms in the nearest future, these bombs, or even one such bomb, will be triggered, and the whole thing will blow up."
Yuliya Mostova, deputy chief editor, Zerkalo Nedeli:
"Regretfully, this is not the first time the President has changed his mind. We all remember his statements for and against parties. He is wary of both a Communist victory and NDP ambitions. NDP leaders assured him they would win 30%. As for Parliament's dissolution, passions started to build when it became clear that there was no sense in disbanding the old Parliament, and that dissolving the new one would take more strength than they have. Carrying out a dictatorial order requires strict discipline in a vertical chain of command. I don't think that the President has it, so he should rely on his wisdom, provided one can expect this much from him."
EXPERT OPINION
"To begin with, the new Parliament will not reflect the people's views, not because of the mixed system, but because there is the 4% barrier, so at least one-third of the voters will say aye to parties that will never surmount it, and this is precisely how much this Parliament will not respond to the people. More than one-third would be lost in majority electorates, because about 15% will suffice for victory. Which means 85% less response, and which also means that the majority system is even worse than the party one. Is this a verdict? I don't think so. I think that we'll have to coexist with this Parliament. Much as some desire otherwise, I do not expect any cataclysms, like disbanding Parliament. There are two possible scenarios (a) the President with perhaps his new team come to terms with Parliament, and Mr. Kuchma's reelection campaign will stand a chance, and (b) his presidency may end ahead of term."
Mykhailo Pohrebynsky,
Kyiv Political Studies Center
