Who Wrote the Ukrainian Scenario?

The Verkhovna Rada’s emergency session Saturday (the second one during the week) announced the runoff (Nov. 21) turnout null and void, due to massive transgressions of the electoral legislation and because it failed to reflect the will of the people in full measure. Parliament also passed a vote of no confidence on the central election commission, asked the president to submit a new CEC membership, and undertook to amend the election laws and return to the political reform.

The debate passed in a stormy atmosphere, especially with a massive rally outside threatening not to let the MPs out of the building before making a balanced political decision. The speaker harsh and to the point: “We have received the worst possible result... I’m out of this fight and don’t even try to get me involved in your intrigue... The point is not who becomes the next president, but what will happen to national independence...” Volodymyr Lytvyn mustered the courage to blame himself more than his colleagues for the VR failing to respond to transgressions in the first round and allowing even worse breaches of the law in the runoff.. Sharp criticism addressed local separatist leaders causing a rift in Ukraine.

Despite the stormy debate, there weren’t many practical solutions to the problem. Volodymyr Lytvyn, master of compromise, proposed only four options in his opening address, and they were actually the topics of discussion. The first, equally unacceptable to all, was proclaiming the elections invalid because of mutual accusations and massive fraud. The second, a nonconstructive one, consisted in making no moves, hoping the problem would somehow get resolved. The third was adventuresome: proclaiming the elections invalid because it was impossible to establish the fact of the people having expressed their will. The fourth and last one, which the speaker considered most constructive, was to carry out the political reform, signing a constitutional agreement whereby the president would be elected by parliament.

In the end a resolution was passed by 307 yeas, which looked like a symbiosis of sorts.

Borys OLIYNYK, MP (Communist opposition), and Petro PYSARCHUK, MP (government-supporting SDPU/U/), commented on the situation for The Day.

BORYS OLIYNYK: NEGATIVE ENERGY CRITICAL POINT AT HAND

Ukraine is gripped by a crisis, there is even talk about secession. What is the actual threat to Ukraine?

B.O.: First of all, those trying to segment this political space should know that in any country with the slightest degree of self-respect such intentions are qualified as high treason. I wish I were heard by all those planning some regional autonomies. Such attempts signify encroachments on the underlying constitutional principles and on basic rules of international law. If attempts are made on the territorial and political integrity from within, this is called the fifth column. We know how the fifth column is treated in normal countries. Some people ought to know history better.

President Leonid Kuchma said on one occasion that the elections of 2004 will be the dirtiest campaign in the history of independent Ukraine. Precisely what happened. Who is to blame?

B.O.: The powers that be. One is instantly reminded of Mykhailo Hrushevsky who said, “The trouble with Ukraine is that it is ruled by people who don’t need it.”

What about the opposition? After all, they’ve played a role in building tensions round the electoral process.

B.O.: Yushchenko or Yanukovych is not the point. The point is that this people was slapped in the face and it was the last drop. Those in power missed the moment when the population had turned into a nation. Thank God, we can see this nation before our very eyes, and we should also thank the government for this.

How can this situation be resolved legally and politically?

B.O. There is only a political solution. There is no legal way out. The election turnout must be nullified and new elections held — or at least the runoff. This must be done without delay to ease the tension, because we’re very close to the negative energy critical point. Politics also has its laws of large numbers. With three hundred thousand people in the Maidan events take an entirely different logical course than in the case of a small crowd.

PETRO PYSARCHUK: STRUGGLING FOR WEAK POWER UNDER THE GUISE OF DEMOCRACY

The Verkhovna Rada passed a resolution concerning the political crisis in Ukraine. A number of clauses there, as evidenced by the vote turnout, satisfies only one of the opposing sides. How can this resolution help get Ukraine out of this complicated situation?

P.P.: I don’t think that the resolution contains anything that doesn’t satisfy either of the sides drawn into this confrontation in principle. Yes, it has a lot of disputable points, some of them being at variance with the constitution and [other] laws o Ukraine. Therefore, I think that this resolution will be heard in court, even by the Constitutional Court.

The Verkhovna Rada stated that the elections in Ukraine were accompanied by transgressions, while having actually no information about them. Several MPs spoke from the rostrum, saying transgressions had been made and then parliament put this to the vote. Apparently, some pressure was applied, considering the rallies in Ukrainian towns and villages. In the end we received a resolution of the Verkhovna Rada, which is unlawful — and I do not hesitate to use the modifier.

Do you see any legal options to resolve the situation?

P.P.: Let me put it this way: there are neither virtuous nor sinful men these days. Our legal culture is ramshackle and our society is dominated by legal nihilism.

The elections turned out absolutely untruthful and the people were supplied biased information.

Viktor Yanukovych bore the whole negative burden of the current political system. Now that Ukraine is so much astir, we would do best by holding the elections anew, so we could elect a president cutting a convincing figure in the electorate’s eyes. It would be very good if Viktor Yanukovych received 30% in the west and Viktor Yushchenko 30% in the east of Ukraine. Then we could talk about two programs competing. What we have now is a competition of money and business.

What about the administrative resource?

P.P.: Let’s not forget that the elections were organized also by local self- government authorities practically free from the premier’s and local state administrations’ influence. I can understand certain city mayors fearing Yanukovych; they like Yushchenko better. I remain a stalwart supporter of Viktor Yanukovych, because his government has shown good practical results. These elections have destroyed what positive trends took shape in various spheres, primarily in the economy.

Do you think the current situation could be resolved if Viktor Yanukovych retained the status granted him by the Central Election Commission?

P.P.: Probably not. In fact, Yanukovych declared that he doesn’t want to be an illegitimate president. There is only one way out of this situation: early presidential elections following the enactment of the political reform. That’s all.

Who can guarantee that there will be no fraud during the new elections?

P.P.: If the political reform is carried out, I’m sure there will be fewer transgressions because the president will have fewer powers.

The subject of rift burst into Ukrainian politics in a matter of days...

P.P.: If we continue pressuring each other, leading the masses out onto the street, the unity of the state may become questionable. There are noticeable distinctions between the east and the west, meaning that Ukrainian political unity is rather fragile. Why the “otamanate” syndrome? We had it in 1917-20, there was always a crowd of princes and otamans in Ukraine in the times of unrest. Regrettably, history is repeating itself.

Yet at this stage separate Russian politicians are rudely meddling in this process. What about Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov attending a deputies’ convention in Luhansk oblast, discussing the possibility of setting up a separate Southeast Republic?

P.P.: There is Russia on the one hand and America on the other. From what I know, US billionaire George Soros allocated $13.5 million for the opposition leader’s campaign.

They also say that Russian oligarchs had to spend several hundred million dollars on his rival’s campaign...

P.P.: I have no such information. I am witness to mass actions of the opposition, which require staggering sums and the opposition’s funds do not seem to be running thin. On the other hand, I saw a group of coal miners arriving in Kyiv recently and I know that arranging for their accommodations and food was very difficult.