What is a Political Technologist
July 18, 2008 – 11:44 amPolitical Technologists
It has always been a puzzle for me to understand how one becomes that most important of persons in Ukraine, a political technologist? Seemingly he is invested with magical powers and super human abilities to change fiction and dreams into reality.
I have never quite understood how one becomes such a superman, a political technologist? Is there an underground school for training in this profession in Koncha Zaspa? Or maybe the college for Ukrainian political technologists is based in the two offshore zones of Cyprus or the Virgin Islands that invest heavily into Ukraine?
What kind of qualifications should political technologists possess? Is there an MA and PhD in “political technology”? If not, do political technologists need PhD’s? More importantly do they need to be trained in political science? Or are they instead trained in special courses in Byzantine intrigue and post-Soviet deception?
I ask these questions because over the last decade I have read and heard many comments by Ukrainian political technologists and, to be honest, most of them have been very poor and low quality analysis and advice. If they had been students in my University class and submitted their comments as course work they would have received “F” for FAIL.
There are exceptions to this rule of course, but most Ukrainians who I respect as givers of comments and writers of analysis tend to be in think tanks, such as the Razumkov Centre (www.uceps.com.ua) or the Centre for Independent Political Research (www.ucipr.com.ua), the latter a think tank that I established as Ukraine’s first think tank in 1992.
Let me give you a typical comment by political technologist Vadym Karasiov that pushed me into writing a blog on this subject that has been in my mind for many years. In an on line discussion on United Centre party ‘s web site he made two interesting but unusual comments.
Karasiov remained optimistic that Yushchenko would be re-elected for a second term. Well, we can all have optimism in things we want to happen. I would love to win the lottery for example but I doubt it will ever happen. Karasiov belittled current polls as ‘sotsiolohichne aryfmetyka, ne bilshe. A ye vysha politychna matymatyka’.
My first thought was that maybe political technologists need to be also mathematicians? Or, maybe I did not understand the deep analysis that made me confused?
Karasiov ignored the complex reasons why Yushchenko’s ratings are catastrophic which are lower than Kuchma AFTER the Kuchmagate crisis in his second term. And, worse still, he seemed to take Ukrainian voters for simpletons.
Why should Ukrainians negatively vote for Yushchenko because this is only for one term while a vote for Tymoshenko or Yanukovych is allegedly for two? Does a political technologist have the ability to foresee the election results many years in advance? Why can it not be possible that Yushchenko could follow Kravchuk in only being president for one term? Ukraine has had two presidents, the first for one and a second for two terms.
Karasiov’s use of an analogy with Leonid Brezhnev’s term as Soviet Gen Sec is intellectually inept and merely reflects on the political technologists inability to draw upon any comparative perspective -except that of the USSR. I have no understanding of how Yanukovych or Tymoshenko being elected somehow makes them analogous to Brezhnev?
Karasiov’s comments reflect a common problem found throughout Ukraine’s elites of not appreciating and respecting the intelligence of Ukrainian voters. Why should they be asked to vote negatively in 2009 (as they did in 1999 and some did in 2004 on both sides) when most voters feel they have had enough of voting in such a manner. Ukrainian voters yearn to vote positively, not negatively.
Karasiov’s second comment is even more interesting. He supports a bicameral parliament for Ukraine as this he believes is in the ‘European tradition of parliamentarism’. Is this really the case? Only half, 13 of the European Union’s 27 members, have bicameral parliaments.
It is an interesting coincidence that bicameralism is being proposed by Yushchenko now when it was also proposed by Kuchma in 2000 in his flawed constitutional referendum and again in 2003 when he wanted to become a senator for life. Then and now bicameralism will never find parliamentary or public support. Bicameralism is as unpopular in eastern as it is in western Ukraine. Donetsk will never agree to send the same number of Senators as Ternopil.
Karasiov believes it is the role of businessmen to sit in the Senate. This is a new argument that I have never heard put forward in support of bicameralism in any European country. Akhmetov is proposed as one of these businessmen who should move from the lower house to the Senate.
Akhmetov’s place should be completely outside Ukrainian politics and preferably living outside Ukraine (some Ukrainians might believe he should be in another place but that is a different discussion for another time). His extraordinary wealth of $31.5 billion (22 billion more than second place Pinchuk out of the top 50 wealthy Ukrainians this year) makes him the wealthiest person in Europe and Eurasia, a fact that will never be accepted by Ukrainians. How is it possible for a Ukrainian to honestly become wealthier than Russian oligarchs who have access to oil, gas, diamonds and gold.
I really do wonder how political technologists can demand such high rewards for such poor quality analysis and advice.
5 Responses to “What is a Political Technologist”
Remaining optimistic about Yushchenko’s reelection for a second term with current approval ratings is gullible. Maybe Karasiov knows something we don’t?
By Vitaliy on Jul 18, 2008
Dear Dr.Kuzio,
Unfortunately Karasiov is a typical “specimen” in our political life. All these “politologists” are nothing else but professional liars. Their education is based on traditional for the former USSR school of so called “marxism-leninism teaching” – there was the whole army of teachers that gave lectures in universities (starting from “history of CPSU”, “dialectic and historical materialism”, “political economy”, up to “marxist-leninist ethics and aesthetics!!??”). The only today difference is that there is more than one party, but it seems that they serve those who pays more money. Most of them are simply stupid and primitive (as Karasiov), some – as Pogrebinsky, Vydrin, Tabachnik – make impression of educated “intellectuals”, but on my opinion what is common for all of them – the high level of cynicism. I like the precise Oscar Wilde’s words about cynics: “A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”.
Like you, I cannot understand how such kind of people can call themselves “scientists” (they really have PhDs and other titles). By education I am physicist and I cannot imagine the scientist who can “for money” distort well known laws of nature or deliberately lie against own convictions and common sense. But unfortunately only such liars have the monopoly for propaganda in today mass-media in Ukraine.
P.S. Thanks to Internet it was easy to recall brilliant Orwell’s words I’ve read long time ago in “1984″. They also are applicable to most of our “politologists”:
“The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”.
By Yuri_D on Jul 20, 2008
In Ukraine, the line between analysis and advocacy doesn’t get drawn very often.
Karasiov has apparently taken a sharp turn to the latter, becoming something of a spin doctor for Yedyny Tsentr.
Yedyny Tsentr operates as a replica of ZaYedu tasked with securing Yushchenko’s reelection in the spirit of Kuchma’s Yeltsin-style reelection in 1999.
But that’s no easy task. In a general election, Yushchenko stands no chance running against Tymoshenko or Yanukovych. Neither his oligarchization nor his redeeming pro-NATO/EU rhetoric will win him a second term.
All things being equal, Yushchenko can only win
(1) in an indirect election bankrolled by the oligarchs;
(2) in the second round of a direct election, if running against Symonenko or Vitrenko.
Neither scenario will do Ukraine any good.
By Ukrainiana on Jul 21, 2008
as1ox105en4svvs4
By Terrance Campos on Nov 12, 2008