And, contrary to the jaundiced view that most Ukrainians have, the West is NOT the “same as” Ukraine.

Lieberman did not switch swides – he declared himself an “independent.”

When was the last time you saw that in Ukrainian politics?

Spector switched sides NOT because of a bribe, but because he was close to the Democrats anyway.

Contrast that with Kinakh and others in Ukraine, who happily switched sides for money.

Contrast that with Lozinsky, who came over to BYuT – and declared himself “master of his domain” and killed a poor, unemployed 53-year old Ukrainian citizen who lived with his mother.

And this brings out a further very important point, whic you yourself touched on – Ukraine does not have a representative government, as is true in most democracies.

Ukraine’s government is composed of oligarchs, and represents only oligarchs.

Which is due to the factors you noted (money, among others), as well as the fact that the whole system is based on party lists.

Which, as you noted, fosters loyalty to oligarchs, rather than loyalty and accountability to constituents-voters.

Tymoshenko has recently taken steps to take away the property illegally grabbed by Yanukovych – the huge mansion called “Mezhihirya”, obtained with Yushchenko’s help – and Firtash’s chemical factory, which Firtash “obtained” under Kuchma.

Tihipko now whines that this is causing lack of “confidence” in the government – and “upsetting the economy.”

Yes – it’s upsetting the “economy” of Ukraine, but it is, in large measure, what led to Ukraine’s economic crisis – the robbing and pillaging of Ukraine by oligarchs, who spent the money on yachts and jets and offshore accounts, rather than improving roads in Ukraine, public utilities (Kyiv has not had hot water for weeks now), airports, and re-investment in banks and businesses.

Tymoshenko has taken steps in the right direction – but they don’t change a fundamentally flawed system – which contains, in part, flaws which you have pointed out.

I have no sympathy to the constitutional coup attempted by PR through wooing the deputies from other parties by offering to them financial perks thus attempting to amass the constitutional majority, but still it does not change the fact that the dissolution of Rada by Yushchenko, implemented then, had no basis in the law but was purely a political arrangement. Sometimes, such arrangements are acceptable on the expediency considerations, but in that brouhaha BOTH sides displayed the so typical for Ukraine abysmal political culture and legal nihilism: PR by resorting to primitive bribing to advance their agenda and Yushchenko by dissolving the parliament without legal basis to do so (and Tymoshenko for making this possible.)

Holovaty was the only Orange deputy who publicly denounced the presidential act that was setting a dangerous precedent. As you know, in Ukrainian politics any dissent is not tolerated as lieutenants are judged exclusively by their loyalty to generals rather than by professional or moral credentials. This equally applies to all major political forces in Ukraine. Thus, Holovaty who refused to support such an utter disregard to the constitution was shown the door which in Ukraine largely equals political death since no politician has any chance of getting through a national election without support of the oligarchs or 2-3 influential politicians, which all are given at a price.

In order to remain in politics, Holovaty’s only chance was to switch, that he did, an act not unusual in US politics either (Bloomberg, Lieberman, Specter, etc). In fact, I am not quite sure, how Hrytsenko would have acted when he found himself in a similar position of disgust towards the political leader had he not already have secured himself a parliamentary seat for the next 5 years. I hope I am wrong as Hrytsenko seems to me a relatively sincere, for a politician, guy.

But you can’t blame Holovaty for doing something that is widely done by all politicians world-wide, particularly in the US, without giving a context of the particular event, the unconstitutional dissolution of the parliament, that prompted his morally questionable step.