Where do the interests of the Kyiv dwellers lie? To preserve local self-government, solve their own problems, have a way to develop the community. That is what we wrote before, when commenting upon the opposition’s appeals to come to the Verkhovna Rada. As a result, recent events showed that nobody cares about these interests. Kyivites themselves are so disappointed in politicians that they see no point in supporting the opposition, let alone the ruling party. Only workers, members of political parties, and romantics rallied outside the parliament on Monday. As far as the government and the opposition go, each of them played their parts nicely. Political expert Oleksii Holobutsky wrote about it on Facebook: “I came to the meeting. There were 5,000 people at the most. It is obvious that neither the government nor the opposition need the elections in Kyiv. The decencies were observed, the rally was held, the voting will be failed. And what comes next? What is the opposition’s plan?”
After all, this last question was asked by many who were going to attend the rally near the Verkhovna Rada. But obviously, after failing to find an answer to it, they chose not to come. That is why, instead of a huge crowd of people, we saw just an ordinary rally. Actually, there were two of them. The first one was obviously oppositionist, and the other – pro-governmental. Traditionally, the participants of the latter, helped and escorted by a large number of riot police, occupied strategically important spots near the Verkhovna Rada, and the oppositionist protesters had to be content with the area further away from their destination.
What is of importance here? Before the action, opposition spokesmen stated that the meeting would be held only to protect the interests of Kyiv’s community, so party emblems of any kind were not going to be used. However, there were flags of the Svoboda Party, UDAR, the Front of Changes, Batkivshchyna, the European Party, and the Socialist Party of Ukraine. Why?
“Three oppositionist factions urged Kyivites to join the rally, so we could unite our efforts and force the government to hold mayoral elections according to the Constitution. But elections is politics, that is why this action is political,” says Serhii Pashynsky, MP for Batkivshchyna. “Of course, the Party of Regions with its communist satellites is going to find all sorts of pretexts not to hold the elections. But we see the discontent of the Kyiv community and we hope that it will only grow. As for the variety of organizations that joined the meeting, including the Socialist Party, we welcomed everyone who was willing to support our stand.”
Indeed, the action turned out to be a political one. And what do citizens really need? “I came to the meeting, because Kyiv and its residents need mayoral elections,” says Kateryna, a retiree. “We need someone to address with a request, someone to complain to. We, Kyivites, are like outcasts because every other city has a mayor, a city council, and we have nothing. Yanukovych appointed his man. Personally, I have nothing against Popov, but the city needs a mayor desperately. Because, for instance, when water in your apartment is off, there is no way you can reach out to public utilities, and there is no one else to complain to. I think that this action will help, because it is impossible to keep silent any longer. However, if this rally is not going to change anything, I will go out in the streets with a pitchfork.”
In general, if you talk about impressions, the whole action looked more like a cacophony than a proper protest of the citizens. While one part of the crowd called for mayoral elections, the other chanted “Youth is for Europe!” The atmosphere was also heated by provocateurs in rabbit and carrot disguise. This group passed by the oppositionist meeting crowd a few times and was laughed at. When asked why they wore children’s New Year party outfits, “bunnies” refused to answer.
Meanwhile, a different show was taking place inside the Verkhovna Rada. The parliamentary majority used all possible excuses to protract the procedure of the election day appointment. They submitted all kinds of other draft laws for voting, anything they could find: a draft law on making changes to some legislation acts of Ukraine (on preservation of names of the streets related to the WWII); a draft law on amending the Criminal Code of Ukraine concerning responsibility for public denial or justification of the fascist regime’s crimes; a draft resolution on celebration of the 95th anniversary of the Komsomol and state support for youth civil movements; a draft resolution on celebration the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad, etc. But not a single decision received a necessary number of votes, neither governmental nor the opposition’s.
However, among the proposed drafts there were a number of necessary decisions. For example, a draft resolution on the 80th anniversary of the Holodomor in Ukraine and commemoration of victims of the genocide against the Ukrainian nation (it was proposed jointly by the leaders of the three oppositionist factions). Only 210 MPs voted for this draft. The Party of Regions and Communist Party MPs did not touch the voting buttons. Hanna Herman explained this by saying that a common draft should have been created, then the Party of Regions would have voted. And the communists are a problem for Ukraine. They were the only ones who did not bother to stand up (including the vice speaker Ihor Kaletnik) when after an unsuccessful voting, Svoboda MP Oleksii Kaida moved to commemorate the Holodomor victims with a minute of silence.
“The key problem for present-day communists is their disability to understand their comrades’ mistakes, as well as their past crimes,” says historian Kyrylo Halushko in his comment to The Day. “Any movement, left or right-wing, can ‘reload’ to meet some new challenges and tasks of the 21st century, but for this you must learn from the lessons of the past. If you don’t want to learn, you shut off the future for yourself. This is not a political standpoint. It is unethical and immoral. Communists reveal their true souls. Although, should politicians have a soul, they would at least observe some decencies (and it turns out that this does not apply to communists). This is no play before their voters. Honoring the memory of innocent victims is a sign of respect and humaneness.”
In fact, the problem of communists was once settled, for a time. Under president Kravchuk the party was simply banned, but his successor Kuchma reinstated it. He did it to play along the election technology in 1999, when the leader of communists, Symonenko, was made his sparring partner in the second round of the election. This secured Kuchma’s victory. Since then and until now, the communists’ standpoint has often become a sort of commodity, an item of haggle. Here is the most recent example. Until recently the communists argued that they would not vote for any decision in the parliament unless the majority revised the pension and healthcare reforms. But yesterday a miracle happened: the reds voted! What is the secret?
Pavlo Rozenko, MP for UDAR, raises the curtain: “One of the biggest intrigues of the day: the communists resumed voting together with the Party of Regions,” writes he on Facebook. “The communists have forgotten all about the cancellation of the pension and healthcare reforms: their joint voting with the Regions recommenced. Where is the key to the communist vote? The answer is very simple: yesterday Viktor Yanukovych appointed their man first deputy minister of revenue and chief customs officer. There it is, as plain as the nose on your face. Now a long time will pass before the communists remember the pension and healthcare reforms.”
In a word, “Parliament, money and communists” would be a perfect headline.
But let us come back to the election. The voting predictably failed. Hard as the regionals tried to postpone it, they had to put the question to the vote in the afternoon, and 209 pros appeared on the screen. The decision was not approved. By the way, even the communists voted, but there were not enough votes. Before that Volodymyr Oliinyk, MP for the Party of Regions, announced that his party supported the idea of holding an election, but only after the Constitutional Court rules on their proposal. Besides he added that without a law on the capital of Ukraine we would elect “a virtual mayor with limited powers.”
The last remark is very true (the opposition holds the same view). But on the whole on that day we got what had to be proved. The regime and the opposition continue their game.
