Opposition to Their Own Country or Their Own Position?
Last week could well go down in Ukrainian history as the week of Strasbourg, for it is Kyiv’s reaction to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) resolution that showed the still unfailing ability of the authorities to create the image of an “external enemy” and the survivability of such a propagandist technique as disguising domestic problems using precisely this image.
The Ukrainian parliamentary delegation failed to get the PACE resolution watered down, so the latter left intact its rather harsh wording. PACE not only cautioned against the unconstitutional implementation of referendum results but also recommended the President postpone the referendum until a new law on referenda is passed. Moreover, PACE expressed deep concern about the possible disruption of the system of checks and balances in Ukraine’s governmental setup because Europeans think the referendum is aimed at a substantial increase of the role of President and reduction of that of Parliament.
PACE has publicly announced its diagnosis of our democracy, to which our officials will never agree. If this diagnosis, like a true diagnosis of a not-so-nice disease, had been kept secret, the Ukrainians would have brought from Strasbourg only the ice of Ukrainian-European relations. But under the current circumstances, they are carrying home a “traitor” to the national interests, Serhiy Holovaty, who, according to parliamentary majority member Roman Zvarych, was engaged in “destructive” activity in Strasbourg, “doing his best” to prevent the delegation’s official representative from addressing the monitoring committee and present the delegation’s view. This is supposedly the reason why the mitigating amendments failed to make their way into the resolution text.
Yuri Orobets, People’s Deputy of the previous convocation and a supporter of Mr. Holovaty, claims that the authorities have been irritated not only because it became practically impossible, after the PACE decision, to use the referendum results the way it was planned due to political pressure. He thinks there also is another reason: “Holovaty could not have achieved this result if he had not felt unofficial but real support by the so-called pro-presidential forces. They shook his hand when nobody saw. Thus, what irritates the President most is the fact that he does not have a monolithic team, his entourage does need the referendum, and it would be impossible to upset the original scenarios without their support.”
But do the lawmakers who support the holding of referendum really think they have made us believe that only Mr. Holovaty prevented them from adequately presenting their views to the European organization? Or perhaps this view and even the speech of Minister of Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasiuk about the President not being about to usurp power, whatever the referendum results might be, failed to convince PACE because of other reasons not of a personal nature?
The unsuitable and, to a large extent, accusative PACE resolution was hastily commented upon by the state-run media well before it reached Ukraine. Vox populi type interviews, usually resorted to by UTN when it is necessary to mold public opinion, were reoriented from supporting the referendum to condemning PACE: new concepts are being molded by the voice of the people; it turns out we gained our independence in order not to depend on international organizations and not to ignore the reaction of those who are not with us. This draws an unambiguous parallel with our not so very distant Soviet past. Society is in fact being pressed into giving a negative answer to the question: is it patriotic to wash Ukraine’s dirty linen in public? But, to tell the truth, this question is the repercussion of a broader problem: what are the rights of the opposition, can it appeal in critical moments to the international community, the only arbiter, rather of a moral nature, which, for example, the Belarusian opposition still does?
The Ukrainian reaction to the PACE resolution was spread through various channels. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry made a statement on April 6, pointing out that the PACE referendum resolution does not reflect the true situation in Ukraine, and flouts the Ukrainian Constitution and legislation, as well as the Constitutional Court ruling and other branches of power. “It is totally inadmissible to call on the President of Ukraine to defer the referendum, thus violating the Constitution of Ukraine and the Constitutional Court ruling,” the statement says (UNIAN).
On the same day, parliamentary majority leaders initiated putting on the agenda a draft Verkhovna Rada statement saying that the PACE resolution on the Ukrainian referendum indicates a simplified interpretation and the ill-considered attempts to foist an alien position on a sovereign state. Again, all this came down to the prejudice of part of the Ukrainian delegation and the noncompliance of its position with the opinion of the parliamentary majority. And although this document was never discussed, a compromise decision states that the session will discuss the report of the Ukrainian PACE delegation, as well as the changing of its composition. Admittedly, Mr. Holovaty is going very soon to face the music, and the authorities may soon turn him into the first dissident in Ukraine’s modern history.
A Sobor Party statement also hints at an apparent parallel with the Soviet times, when the USSR would stir up an anti-Western hysteria in reply to human rights accusations. This opposition party believes the PACE decision is “an adequate reaction of the international community to the curtailment of democratic process in Ukraine, mounting bureaucratic mayhem, and violation of the freedom of expression. We are sure Europe will change its attitude toward Ukraine not as a result of passing bellicose resolutions and ousting the ‘dissidents’ from the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation but only after Ukraine turns to generally recognized democratic norms and builds a civil society that respects individual rights and freedoms.”
It should be noted that the accusations of almost an anti-state attitude brought against the opposition-minded members of the parliamentary commission in fact disguise the question: who is the state? Only those who are today for referendum, or maybe also those who are against it? The persistent desire, to put it mildly, to alter the delegation, which is most likely to happen, will also pose another question: if the state-run channels only continue to beam the position of the parliamentary majority, will this effectively testify to Ukraine’s democratic movement toward Europe? Or could it indicate something else?
