The Ukrainian World According to Kudelia (and CERES)
January 29, 2010 – 9:28 am
Serhiy Kudelia, a Jacyk Visiting Scholar from Ukraine in the Petro Jacyk Program for the Study of Ukraine at CERES (Centre for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies) at the University of Toronto, is on a mission. That mission is to use any forum he has access to unashamedly attack Yulia Tymoshnko’s candidacy in Ukraine’s 2010 presidential elections.
The main forum Kudelia has used is the ‘Ukraine’s 2010 Election Watch’ at the Jacyk Program where of the five bloggers his represent three quarters of the entries. Kudelia’s Yuliaphobia came to prominence during a panel held on the upcoming elections at the Canadian-Ukrainian Art Foundation in October 2009 where he was one of four speakers.
Writing in his Jacyk Program blogs Kudelia does not even attempt to show any objectivity in his coverage of the elections painting Tymoshenko as the arch villain. His latest blog (19 January) on the first round results, for example, talks of a ‘predictable’ first place by Viktor Yanukovych and ‘surprisingly solid showing of the “next generation” politicians in third and fourth place’ (Serhiy Tihipko and Arseniy Yatseniuk).
When Tymoshenko is mentioned it is in a disparaging manner as somebody who did not receive many votes. In reality a second place showing of 25% is a very good result considering two factors. Firstly, the fracturing of the former orange camp into six candidates that heavily divided the “orange” vote, something that Yanukovych was not faced with. Secondly, Tymoshenko is the first candidate to seek election as president from the difficult position of sitting prime minister – in 1994 and 2004 former prime ministers who had become opposition leaders were elected. To crown this, Tymoshenko is a sitting prime minister during the worst economic crisis for even decades.
Why then is her first round result not considered by Kudelia as a good one?
Kudelia repeats President Viktor Yushchenko’s arguments when he claims that the main threat to democracy in Ukraine is Tymoshenko – not Yanukovych. This canard is used to claim that she would, if elected, adopt the ‘Putin model’, using the law ‘as a selective weapon to subdue the critics and punish those who refuse to fall in line’ (8 December blog). Yanukovych, in Kudelia’s eyes, ‘is no longer viewed among Western Ukrainian voters as an existential threat to Ukraine’ and Western Ukraine will accept him as president in the same way as they did Kuchma in 1994 (4 November blog). This claim bears no relationship to reality in western-central Ukraine where again a large group of Tihipko, Yatseniuk and Yushchenko voters will be voting negatively against Yanukovych in the second round
Kudelia never feels the need to explain why the ‘Putin model’ would be impossible to implement in Ukraine for a large number of reasons as his Yuliaphobia blinds him to these realities. Putinism is built on anti-Western Russian nationalism that has broad appeal in Russian society. Where is such a nationalism to emerge from in Ukraine? Russia adopted a super presidential constitution in 1993 and Ukraine a semi-parliamentary constitution in 2006. How can Ukraine’s parliamentarism be transformed into an autocracy? Most importantly, how could any political force could overcome Ukraine’s regional diversity and obtain a monopoly of power and does he really believe that a president in Ukraine could be elected with the same landslide vote as in Georgia or Russia?
Kudelia revives the canard of re-nationalisation which was raised by the 2005 Tymoshenko government but has never been raised by her government since December 2007. He also warns of the threat that Tymoshenko would ‘kick big business out of politics’ in the same way that Putin did. What Kudelia ignores is the total failure of the Yushchenko term in office to separate big business and politics and the continued domination of politics by them. Yushchenko neither implemented ‘Bandits to Jail’ (for some reason Kudelia does not describe this Maidan slogan as a ‘Putin policy’) or an amnesty. Of the two candidates in the second round only Tymoshenko if elected could separate big business and politics as a Yanukovych victory would cement the domination of Ukraine by oligarchs.
As Kudelia is forced to admit, Ukraine’s oligarchs thrived under Yushchenko where they ‘secured most of their assets’. His pro-Yushchenko bias is again in evidence when he writes that both the Tymoshenko and Yanukovych governments provided oligarchs with state support while the ‘president became almost irrelevant for the distribution of rents and business deals’ (11 December blog).
Kudelia’s analysis ignores the cozy relationship of the 2005-2006 Yekhanurov government with the ‘national bourgeoisie’, as the prime minister described the oligarchs, in the only pro-Yushchenko government of the four to serve under Yushchenko. This pro-oligarch government is for some reason ignored by Kudelia. Kudelia ignores the close relationship between the president and the opaque gas intermediary RosUkrEnergo (i.e. Dmytro Firtash) included by Yekhanurov in the January 2006 gas contract, the close relationship between chief of staff Viktor Baloga and the Party of Regions (Baloga is Yanukovych’s campaign organizer in Trans-Carpathia in the 2010 elections where he used administrative resources to ensure Yanukovych’s first place in the oblast in the first round, the only West Ukrainian region which Yanukovych won) and the funding of Our Ukraine’s 2006 and 2007 election campaign by the most odious (in terms of unrepentant non-transformed oligarch) of Ukraine’s oligarchs, Igor Kolomoysky.
Kudelia complains at Tymoshenko’s threat to fulfill the 2004 Maidan pledges of putting ‘criminals in jails’ by appointing an honest Prosecutor-General. It would seem that nothing can be done correctly by Ukrainian politicians: when they don’t fulfill the Maidan’s pledges (i.e. Yushchenko) they are criticised and when they promise to do so (i.e. Tymoshenko) they are also criticised. Kudelia ignores the complete lack of reform under Yushchenko of the prosecutors office as seen by the appointment of two throw backs to the Kuchma era, Prosecutor-Generals Sviatoslav Piskkun and Oleksandr Medvedko, the former a Party of Regions deputy and the latter with close ties to them.
Kudelia’s pro-Yushchenko bias also emerges in his treatment of former chief of staff Viktor Medvedchuk who is widely seen as the architect of constitutional reform under Kuchma. Kudelia is critical of Medvedchuk’s December 2009 article where he backtracks from supporting parliamentarism but Kudelia ignores the fact that Yushchenko has clamoured for two years to return to a presidential system and that he also supports the same constitutional reforms as Medvedchuk – the very same ones Kudelia dislikes. Yushchenko was the only Ukrainian president to serve under two constitutions. Kudelia ignores the fact that most candidates campaigned in the 2010 elections in support of a presidential constitution: Yushchenko, Anatoliy Grytsenko, and the two ‘alternative, new face’ candidates Arseniy Yatseniuk and Serhiy Tihipko whose slogan was ‘Strong President, Strong Country!’
Could Kudelia explain why he only criticizes Medvedchuk’s and Tymoshenko’s policies as leading to authoritarianism but not other politicians who also seek a return to the same presidentialism? Why is Medvedchuk’s recipe for constitutional reform back to presidentialism ‘a return to competitive authoritarian regime of the Kuchma era’ but Yushchenko’s proposal to follow the same path ignored?
A final note on this question: Kudelia claims that Medvedchuk ‘has been Tymoshenko’s long-term behind-the scenes advisor helping her to establish close ties with the Kremlin and serving as a chief mediator during negotiations with Yanukovych’ (11 December blog). This claim could have come straight from Yushchenko and has no evidence to back it up. Unless Kudelia has inside information on Medvedchuk’s alleged relationship with Tymoshenko then he should not repeat rumours taken from the conspiracy-minded Ukrainian media that suit his ideological bias.
When discussing what kind of prime minister Tymoshenko desires to see if elected, Kudelia believes that she would seek an ‘invisible and obedient Prime Minister’ (30 December blog). This ignores the fact that Yushchenko also desired such a prime minister and his favourite of the three who served under him was Yekhanurov. Kudelia’s comment obviously failed to predict that Tymoshenko would offer Tihipko the position of prime minister after the first round, unless he is of the opinion that Tymoshenko believes that Tihipko would be ‘invisible and obedient’.
Kudelia praises Yushchenko as ‘The Last Pro-Western Democrat’ (30 November blog) whereas Tymoshenko is ‘Running Against Herself’ (9 November blog). Tymoshenko’s background in the energy sector in the mid 1990s is combed through in great detail but in Kudelia’s discussion of Yushchenko he ignores the various scandals that have dogged Yushchenko over the Bank Ukrayina and in the National Bank which also took place in the 1990s. In addition, should we not be asking what Yushchenko’s favourite prime minister, Yekhanurov, was doing in the 1990s when as head of the State Property Fund he oversaw the rise of oligarchs through insider privatization? Little wonder Yekhanurov describes the oligarchs in glowing terms as Ukraine’s ‘national bourgeoisie’.
In Kudelia’s discussion of the candidates, Tymoshenko is the only one which he portrays in such negative terms as somebody with a ‘mythical image’, who possesses ‘hypocrisy’ turned from a mere technique into an art form, and a ‘devious and insincere politician’ (9 November blog). The most biased discussed relates to the claim that ‘the number of filthy-rich oligarchs in Tymoshenko’s close circle has long ago surpassed that of Yanukovych’ (9 November blog).
This claim simply has no relationship to reality and is purely a product of Kudelia’s Yuliaphobia. Kudelia claims that of Ukraine’s top 10 oligarchs six are allegedly identified with Tymoshenko and two more are on good terms with her (80%!). To make such a claim requires Kudelia to stretch his imagination beyond breaking point and claim that Tymoshenko’s allies seemingly include Renat, Viktor Pinchuk and Igor Kolomoysky. As Ukrayinska Pravda (9 January) has pointed out, Ukraine’s five leading oligarchs met in a French ski resort to discuss whom to back and they opted to support Yanukovych, not Tymoshenko. Akhmetov is a major funder of Yanukovych’s election campaign, Kolomoysky has strained relations with Tymoshenko and Pinchuk, although neutral, backed Yatseniuk.
Yushchenko’s 2004 election programme hardly mentioned nation building and never mentioned Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic Choice, despite Kudelia arguing otherwise. Any careful reading of the 2004 programme will show it to be social-populist. In the 2010 elections first place for populist billboards went to Yanukovych and second place to Yushchenko (I have been based in Ukraine since August 2009).
Kudelia claims ‘Yushchenko is adamant in his support for NATO’ (30 November blog) but ignores the fact that NATO has never once been mentioned in Yushchenko’s two election programmes (2004, 2010) or Our Ukraine’s three election programmes (2002, 2006, 2007). Kudelia quotes Yushchenko’s widely criticised comment that neither Yanukovych or Tymoshenko could spell NATO right which presumably could also be applied to him in the light of the absence of any mention of NATO in his programmes.
In quoting Yushchenko’s disingenuous comment Kudelia ignores the differences between Yanukovych and Tymoshenko. The former rejected the need for a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in September 2006 (after supporting President Kuchma’s request to NATO join a MAP in 2002 and 2004). In contrast, Tymoshenko signed an open letter (with Yushchenko and parliamentary speaker Yatseniuk) in January 2008 to NATO requesting a MAP. Putting Tymoshenko and Yanukovych in the same anti-NATO camp also ignores the large pro-NATO wing of the Tymoshenko camp, including former Yushchenko supporters such as Borys Tarasiuk. The Yanukovych election campaign and Party of Regions has no pro-NATO wing and its position on MAP and NATO membership is a regression in comparison to the Kuchma era.
Kudelia’s blogs on Ukraine’s 2010 elections show an unrepentant bias and Yuliaphobia that should have no place in a scholarly institution such as CERES and in programmes funded from external sources by the Ukrainian diaspora. Kudelia’s domination of the Jacyk Programme Election 2010 blog has aimed to use it as a platform to propagate highly biased and inaccurate claims.
22 Responses to “The Ukrainian World According to Kudelia (and CERES)”
Dr. Kuzio, I saw you on one of the talk shows on “5 Kanal,” and you are right – in a Western democracy, Yanukovych, who participated in election fraud in 2004, who has a criminal record, who is a hand-servant to oligarchs Akhmetov and the rest in the Party of Regions, would not even be considered as a candidate.
But one of the participants pointed out something very important – the democratic changes in Ukraine really started in the 1980’s, the people left the politicians to their own devices, and – the politicians did their thing (meaning, of course, the ungodly grabitization and corruption and oligarchism).
Most importantly, the speaker pointed out something very important – that further serious systemic changes need to occur. Otherwise, it will continue to be the same old “replacing one crook with another.”
The European track, a main difference between Tymoshenko and Yanukovych, was mentioned. Another speaker mentioned the help that Poland got from the European Union, and the enormous changes for the better, so much so that he did not recognize Poland as the same country on a recent trip.
That is in stark contrast to the Yanukovych Russian “common economic space” orientation, which includes the authoritarian countries of Kazakhstan, etc., as one of the speakers pointed out.
I am glad that there are more and more TV programs and other platforms in Ukraine where people are demanding better government.
By elmer on Jan 31, 2010
Thanks for these words. Yanukovych has no moral right to be Ukrainian president and Ukraine will be isolated if he is elected. As the guests said tonight, we are all stunned at how Yushchenko is working openly for Yanukovych’s election.
By Taras on Jan 31, 2010
I was stunned when the sitting president of Ukraine told people not to vote!!!! I was stunned when Yushchenko supported Firtash and RosUkrEnergo. I was stunned when Yushchenko supported Vanco Prykerchenska.
Now he’s trying to give the impression that he never told people not to vote.
Yushchenko is a guy who has given quite a few speeches that give the firm impression that he knows and understands democracy in theory. And then some of his actions simply destroy that impression.
There is no question that the rancor between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko goes both ways, and is psychotic – off the charts – at both ends, to the enormous detriment of Ukraine.
But the deeper problem is still systemic, meaning, as a partial list, parliamentary immunity, the huge patronage system, etc.
I can’t tell you how much I hate the phrase (and I’ve mangled it a bit here, because I hate it so much) – “?? ???????? ??????”).
Given the comments from the people on the program that you were on, it seems that Ukrainians are just now, on a wider population basis, beginning to understand the specifics of the systemic problems – and the solutions – beyond just “we need to build a democracy and democratic institutions.”
One really worrisome thing, and this has been pointed out by Eurasis Daily Monitor (I’m sure you’ve seen it).
Yanukovych proposes a consortium (he mentioned this also on Savik Shuster’s show Friday night) of Ukraine’s gas pipeline assets.
This after an overwhelming vote in the zRada some time ago never to sell Ukraine’s gas assets!!!!
“Think one thing, say another, do a third.” The sovok way.
By elmer on Jan 31, 2010
I wrote the phrase in Cyrillic, but it didn’t take.
The phrase, transliterated is – “yahk paloochyty dengi”
By elmer on Jan 31, 2010
http://csis.org/event/ukraine-elections-discussion
See my PowerPoints here comparing policies such as on energy between the 2 candidates this Sunday.
By Taras on Jan 31, 2010
Have already seen it, thanks.
By elmer on Jan 31, 2010
Sorry but Tymoshenko has lost me as a result of her BS she has come out with yesterday and today.
She is clearly going to lose the election. At first I though it was by five percent now I think it will be more like eight. She is her own worst enemy.
I was hoping that she would secure more votes and that maybe she would return to a policy of abandoning the presidential system. I now realize that she, like Yushchenko has become the problem not the solution.
The Quorum issue ious only of concern if she and her representatives do not turn up and participate in the commissions deliberations. If she has genuine e concerns and complaints then she needs to document them and record them. If they could effect the overall outcome of the election then they should be properly considered.
As it stand she has cried Wolf too many times and has turn off many who may have supported her. She should have stuck to being positive and had someone else do the attack work.
I believe Tymoshenko has lost the election and she knows it and is now seeking to discredit the elections itself. an election that should never had been held in the first place. A two-thirds parliamentary vote would have been a much better option.
Tymoshenko’s rodiculas stance over the quorum issue and her threats of civil protest may have even provided cause for a vote of no confidence in her government.
I can only pray that Yanukovych will place Ukraine’s best interest ahead of his open and that he will continue to support the notion of Ukraine adopting a parliamentary system of governance. Chance are he will want more power. Assuming he will provide some degree of stability he will most likely remain president for the nest ten years.
Now is the time to serious start to advocate for constitutional reform ands removal of the presidential system before all is lost.
By UkrToday on Feb 4, 2010
You miss the point.
There is no such thing as a straight, honest chess game in Uraine.
They are all playing chess, but there are no rules.
The quorum issue – each side is permitted to bring a certain number of “representatives” to observe the counting of the votes. If the required quorum (2/3 of the authorized number of a candidate’s representatives) is not present, vote-counting cannot proceed.
In other words, the crooks on both sides are entitled to show up to make sure that the other side’s crooks don’t steal everything.
That’s the basic premise in Ukraine – everything is crooked, everything can be bought, and everything is manipulated. The sovoks really created some twisted beings, and that’s what you’re seeing in Ukraine.
However, the quorum issue ignores who is actually counting the votes, and whether those people are honest or not. In Ukraine, honesty is a highly dubious proposition, when oligarchs/”political elite” want to make sure that they can continue feeding at the government trough.
It’s a sick, oligarchic system.
That’s why there are election observers in Ukraine – but there is a question as to whether there are enough, and whether they are allowed in to every place they should be or need to be.
There is no doubt that Ukraine badly needs some systemic changes, most of which should involve direct votes by the people, rather than the severe patronage system, with all its corruption, that Ukraine now has in place.
Ukrainians used to say: “thank God I’m not a moskal (muscovite)”. (transliterated, because the Cyrillic characters don’t show up here, for some reason – dyakooyoo tobee Bozhe shcho ya ne moskal!)
But people should thank God that they don’t have to live in Ukraine, and suffer through its corrupt “political elite/oligarch” system.
It has paralyzed Ukraine, and has prevented it from being the great country that it could be.
Ukraine could easily be in the G-8 – if ever the dunderheads in the “political elite” got their act together. Which they never will.
There’s no “fun” in doing the right thing.
By elmer on Feb 4, 2010
The quorum issue was not an issue. It never was.
I must admit I think Yulia did much better then I thought she would. I always assumed she would fall short by 5% and in the last week thought her negative campaigning would drop her anther 2-3% (Maybe it costs her the election)
Coming within 3% is never the less impressive. It may even have a positive effect in that Tymoshenko may now focus more in Constitutional and parliamentary reform.
What the election has highlighted is the flaws and shortcomings of the presidential system.
One billion dollars two round of voting and what has Ukraine achieved as a result. It remains just as divided as it has been.
Yanukovychs win is not a victory. He will have to think twice before he embarks on a purge of the parliament. Parliamentary elections so close to the presidential ballot would not be in Ukraine’s best interest. Hopefully Tymoshenko and Party of Regions can find common ground and a means of coexisting.
If fresh Parliamentary elections are required they should only be held following the implementation of Polarimetry and constitutional reform.
With Yushchenko removed from office there is hope that such an alliance could once again be kindled and bear fruit. For Ukraine’s sake
Details election results map here.
By UkrToday on Feb 8, 2010
Noone wants snap Parliamentary elections because they are all afraid of losing their seats.
Akhmetov (from the Party of Regions) and quite a few other oligarchs don’t bother showing up in Parliament – why bother, they have total immunity, and they have their shills doing their work for them.
At the root of all this is a system of “political eliteness” – a few oligarchs who hold a stranglehold on government and the economy.
One should not have grand illusions about it.
Tymoshenko has gone after a few of the Party of Regions’ oligarchs – but not her own. (She has defined them out of existence.)
The Party of Regions won’t go after other oligarchs, because they risk retaliation – as before.
Those people are not interested in anything other than their own wealth, their own pockets.
It’s not all Yushchenko’s fault, and you can’t blame everything on Yushchenko, even though there is a lot to blame him for – as reflected in his 5% showing.
The Party of Regions is not a party, it is a political machine, a la the Kennedy’s or Chicago and Richard Daley, only far more corrupt by several orders of magnitude. And it shows in the voting – the Donetsk oblast (or province) voted 90% for the “proFFesor.” – Akhmetov’s butt boy.
The Party of Regions put out the word that Akhmetov is the “giver of jobs” – that’s a good one. First, rob and pillage the country blind – then “give out jobs.” It reminds me of Stalin, and his trick with kids as the “giver of bread.”
He gathered a bunch of kids once and told them to pray for bread – nothing happened. Then he told them to ask Stalin for bread – and on command, several trucks came around the corner with bread. Stalin then made his point – Stalin is the giver of bread. He stole everything in the first place, too.
On Tymo’s side – she campaigned hard. Very hard. But I believe the people punished her for her psychotic battles with Yushchenko. That, and in the Lviv oblast, for example, as well as other Western Ukraine oblasts, there was an overwhelming negative campaign against her. I don’t think that people like the image she portrays as a “benevolent despot” or the “salvation of Ukraine,” either.
By elmer on Feb 8, 2010
“Yanukovych has no moral right to be Ukrainian president”
Isn’t that the whole point of democracy? Anyone can stand and be elected for President if he happens to be the one legitimately elected according to the rules. The fact that you and I both happen to think that this particular candidate has no moral right is not only absolutely irrelevant but nonsensical. The fact that a Mrs Tymoshenko thinks that he is unfit to be President is also competely irrelevant unless she can prove that he was illegitamately elected as in, probably 2004.
By anon on Feb 14, 2010
You miss the point. In a European Union or North American democracy Yanukovych would NEVER have even reached the stage of being a candidate. And the fact that he was elected shows how un-European Ukraine. This is bad for Ukraine’s hopes of integration into the West and good for Russia and the EU enlargement sceptics who can now say “Phew! Thank God we don’t have to offer Ukraine anything”.
It is not only that he was twice in jail for violent robbery (a third conviction is rumoured to be for gang rape), but also his comment about women should be in the kitchen not in politics and his refusal to debate Tymoshenko. Just either of the latter two would have ended his political career or led to his defeat.
The election of Yan is a sign of how influential the negative Soviet legacy remains in Ukraine. See this great video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLExOpTWP3U
and:
Tim Garten Ash, The sight of Ukraine’s lumpen victor should stir the EU’s own into action
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/10/ukraine-victor-eu-yanukovych-europe
Yanik’s election is the victory of Soviet lumpen.
By Taras Kuzio on Feb 14, 2010
“If anything, it confirms that Ukraine is becoming a serious democracy, rather than the Russian-type virtual democracy it was before the orange revolution.”
Well Ash seems to disagree and sees the election, even with Yanuk’s win as showing, that Ukraine is a serious democracy. As for Yanuk’s previous criminal record I don’t know enough only the rumours and I think it is impossible to find out what actually happened and why it was wipped clean. It’s easy to assume it was corruption but youthful offenders are and should be given another chance.
However I think Ash gets it wrong – it wasn’t the lumpen proletariat as it wasn’t a class division but a geographical one. Mostly all easterners voted for him whether intellectuals, businessmen or workers which is no better reason but at least Ash should know what he’s talking about.
As for shutting the door the Europeans and USA have shown that they have no preference between the two candidates in their haste to acknowledge Yanuk as President – even before the official results were announced. Nothing has been shut by his election. I agree everyone is much too sanguine about the results but that’s because of the lack of enthusiasm for the other candidate and because the problems were all pinned on the previous President as if he were really in charge and if Yanuk and Tym were both the opposition had nothing to do with generating all the problems a view put forth by all the western journalists who write about Yush as if he were a US President. The Russian liberals writing know better.
By anon on Feb 16, 2010
In a western democracy Yushchenko would not have remained President. He would have been impeached for his actions back in 2007.
The presidential system has and will continue to fail Ukraine. It is not democracy but autocracy. The struggle between parliament and head of state is centuries old, In the 21st Century a parliamentary system is the truest form of democracy.
As long as Ukraine continues to lace its faith and future in the hands of one individual it will continue to suffer instability and ongoing political crisis.
Now the circus is over hopefully the momentum for change has not been lost and can be regained. Ukraine should have elected its head of state by a constitutional majority of the parliament as is the case in Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Moldova, Greece, Switzerland, Czech republic, India and the EU.
Hopefully this will be the last direct election of President. At a cost of over one billion dollars what did it deliver?
The last five years have been a complete disaster and a lost opportunity. We have no one else to thank for this but Yushchenko. he should have been removed from office years ago.
By UkrToday on Feb 17, 2010
Only in the mind of a particular spammer does the notion of taking the vote away from the people, and giving it to a group of legally unaccountable oligarchs seem more “democratic” than a direct plebicite… It’s absured on its face. Upwards of 80% of Ukrainians prefer a strong president who is directly elected by the people. That’s because Ukrainians know what democracy actually means.
By anon on Feb 20, 2010
Ukrainians may know what democracy actually means – but they don’t have it. The same old people keep voting for the same old people – and it’s all still for the benefit of a few oligarchs and their henchmen.
In 2004 and 2006, the voting patterns are substantially the same. And there is still vote rigging. It’s just that slimy politicians in Ukraine have not been subjected to the same scrutiny as in 2004.
The Rose Revolution in Georgia started because the margin of victory was so high that it was obvious to anyone that the vote was rigged. Kuchma and Yabikovych and the Party of Regions thugs looked at that in 2004 and said “we will be more clever, we’ll fix it so it won’t be so high.” Well, they got caught because of a very brave interpreter for the dear, Ms. Dmytryk, who exposed the fraud in sign language.
What’s different this year?
The voters rightly kicked Yushchenko out. But they also should have kicked out Yakibovych, as well as Tymoshenko (sorry, Taras).
Instead, it’s the same old kaleidescope – the same old people vote for the same old oligarch corrupt thugs. The patterns may change, but the pieces are the same.
And now there’s even a proposed “deal” to make Yushchenko Prime Minister in return for supporting the existing coalition in Parliament.
So was there a presidential election in Ukraine or not?
If so, then why all the slimy maneuverings in Parliament, hmmmm?
http://blog.kievukraine.info/2010/02/ukraine-tale-of-two-elections.html
The “orange revolution” overturned Mr. Yanukovych’s victory and vaulted his pro-western rival, Viktor Yushchenko, into presidency. Mr. Yanukovych has since become “contaminated with the ‘Orange virus’,” as The Times put it, and the bad guy of the 2004 poll won a fraud-free election.
How far does this story square with reality? It would be interesting to compare the results of the 2004 and 2010 elections. In 2004, Mr. Yanukovych polled 49.46 per cent of the votes against Mr. Yushchenko’s 46.61 in the run-off that was later overturned by the “orange revolution.”
The 2010 vote tally was remarkably similar: Mr. Yanukovych garnered 48.95 per cent against 45.47 for Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, former “orange” ally-turned-foe of Mr. Yushchenko.
Could it be just a coincidence? Hardly so, if we look at the way the Ukrainian regions voted in both elections. In 2004, Mr. Yanukovych won 80-90 per cent of the votes in Russian-speaking eastern and southern provinces and Mr. Yushchenko received just as strong support in the western and central regions, oriented towards Europe.
The east-west divide was strikingly evident again in the 2006 parliamentary election, in which Mr. Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions won most votes.
In the Yanukovych-Tymoshenko faceoff in 2010, the pattern of voting was once again the same — the east and south voted for Mr. Yanukovych, and the west and the centre gave their votes to Ms Tymoshenko.
This means the support base of the pro-Russian and pro-western candidates remains the same as it was five years ago. Those who voted for Mr. Yanukovych in 2004 backed him again in 2010.
The identical results refute the claim that in 2004, Mr. Yanukovych’s returns were heavily padded, and in 2010 they were not. Yet the same western observers who denounced Mr. Yanukovych’s victory in 2004 as fraudulent, in 2010 hailed it as “an impressive display of democratic elections.”
Here’s an interesting observation
By elmer on Feb 20, 2010
Elmer you continue to misplace your faith in the presidential system.
The president should not have power. The result of this election was always going to disappoint someone. The whole concept of presidential authority and direct election o0f a head of state is seriously flawed. It is not democracy.
Democracy is based on the premises of rule of law and representative government not elections and certainly not presidents.
Estonia and Latvia got it right when they implemented a parliamentary system and adopted the Euro as the basis of monetary exchange. They also opened their borders an standardise their visa’s and laws with Europe, pathing the way for EU membership and European integration. They laid down the foundations for future generations.
Ukraine on the other hand adopted the tsarist/soviet model of centralized autocratic governance and in the process the presidential model has failed Ukraine. It has built up expectations that whoever was elected to office would deliver Ukraine prosperity and good government. It delivered nothing but instability and ongoing conflict.
The Yushchenko years in particular have been a complete disaster and a wast of five years. Five years that could have and should have Eben spent building institutions and trust ion government. Five years that achieved nothing, even the so call “democratic” advancement has not happened. All Yushchenko achieved was to deepen the division and betrayed all those that placed faith in change. In doing so he has set back Ukraine’s democratic and economic development ten to fifteen years. Ukraine has to go back to the beginning and rewrite its constitution and embrace a full parliamentary model in line with other European states and European values. Shale up the judiciary and begin to implement rule of law not presidential decrees. If the system of parliamentary representation is based on fairness and equality then the rest will follow. The best we can ask form any system of government is that it reflects fairly the views and diversity of the people. It is though the chosen representatives that government should be actioned. If you interfere and seek to manipulate the rules and structure of democracy to give an advantage of one side or another you undermine confidence in its outcome and you will continue to ride the sea saw of change and instability. If you put in place a representative structure that is fair and equable then you build trust and hopefully respect. As much as you might like to see a clean sweep the outcome and results of such change may not be want you expect. Tigipko might appeal to those how are disillusioned by the same old faces but he also is an unknown element., Again placing your faith and hopes in the aspiration of one individual is foolish and certainly not democratic. Give me a parliament over a president any day. Make the parliament more accountable and representative but make sure it is fair and equitable and not designed to give more power to one group or segment of society then another. One vote one value…
That is after all what democracy and representative government is all about. Until you embrace the values and put in place the structures to support them You will be always swimming against the tide. A fair and equable structure is not the answer to all the problems but it’s a solid foundation in which to build as truly independent democratic state. A stop forward.
By UkrToday on Feb 28, 2010
I disagree that Yushchenko’s 5 years were a total waste. They were a waste, yes, but not total.
First – in 2004, Ukraine had Kuchmism – the Orange Revolution broke that, in part, through Yushchenko’s bravery and the support of a majority of the people.
Second – early in his administration, Yushchenko tried to initiate a “round table.” So, rather than clans of oligarchs and their henchmen killing each other, Kuchma style, and killing journalists to boot, elected governmental officials from all sides could come and talk and try to work out difference. It was a baby step in getting to full democracy. Today, people get together on the Savik Shuster show from different political sides, and engage in discussion – public discussion, with the very important participation of very capable journalists – who have a sharp eye, very good minds, and are not easily fooled. That’s not the only indication of how things have changed.
However, Yushchenko’s attempt to get into a “universal agreement” with the Party of Regions was a fatal mistake – he was getting in cahoots with the very Kuchmist bandits against whom he ran.
If he wanted to implement reforms, he could have put specific ones on the table, and put public pressure on Parliament to implement them. He had the support of the public. Instead – the psychotic battle between him and Tymo got in the way.
Third – if anything, this year’s election, which to use Tammy Lynch’s phrase, was forged by dissapointment, clearly pointed out the price of failing to keep promises – Yushchenko, who concentrated far too much on a psychotic battle with Tymoshenko (she did her part too), was soundly kicked in the behind. Yabookyvych and the puppet masters who control him (Pinchuk, Akhmetov, Kolesnikov, Azarov, etc) should take note.
Fourth – Tymoshenko should have learned a very hard lesson – as Abraham Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Her appalling attempt to claim that there are no oligarchs in her bloc and that she is not subject to any oligarchs is beyond belief – it is atrocious. If she had been more honest, I believe she would have gotten more votes.
Fifth – if there is anything that these elections revealed, it is this – Ukraine has been the victim of a horrible, horrible stealing, drinking and robbing corruption binge by a “select” few people. A few people robbed the entire country through privatization deals and through abuse of government to the point where there is almost nothing left to steal.
Corruption, which has been talked about for years, is massively prevalent. The rights of ordinary citizens – well, that’s too trifling for the “political elite” to worry about – except for pensions, of course, which are a pittance.
So the people had the freedom to finally wake up – and fully realize – whom do we elect, a bandit or a self-obsessed publicity queen who goes after everyone else’s corruption, but not her own bloc’s?
Not much of a choice.
And, after about 19 years, especially after the constitutional changes in 2006 – not much of a system.
And Julia found this out the hard way – imagine going in front of an election commission which is politically appointed, and not independent.
Imagine going in front of a court which has 49 goddamn politically appionted sycophant judges!!!!!!!! to decide election questions – with no public TV coverage. When Gore challenged the election against George Bush, it was in front of an elected judge, subject to TV coverage, and subject to appellate review by the Florida Supreme Court, and by the US Supreme Court – neither of which had 49 goddamn “judges” on it.
Welcome to what the rest of Ukraine experiences, Yulka. Crooked courts and no rights for ordinary citizens.
In Ukraine, the game still continues to be electing a different set of thugs in a crooked system.
The task ought to be 1)setting goals for reform and 2) implementing those goals.
One doesn’t need to change the Cabinet to do that. One merely needs all of the oligarchs to stop playing the “war of all against all”, and to stop playing the “Not Invented Here, So We’ll Reject It” games.
One doesn’t need to remove the Prime Minister – only some civil cooperation.
Yanukovych gave a very nice inauguration speech. The problem in Ukraine is that those speeches have been given year after year after year after year after year.
So that it’s come to the point that people view Yanukovych’s speech as just a bunch of lies, given for the benefit of continuing an oligarchic system.
And it amounts to “my oligarchs and I are better for Ukraine than you and your oligarchs.”
Which, of course, is utter cow manure, horse hockey and nonsense.
It reminds me of my favorite poster of all time – a naked man with a huge scowl on his face is holding a pile of brown shit in one hand, and a pile of black shit in the other.
The caption underneath reads – “tired of the same old shit? Try ours.”
That’s Ukraine – unless people get rid of the oligarch system, and unless the “political elite” start cooperating – finally.
By elmer on Feb 28, 2010
Only in the mind of a particular spammer does the notion of taking the vote away from the people, and giving it to a group of legally unaccountable oligarchs seem more “democratic” than a direct plebicite… It’s absured on its face. Upwards of 80% of Ukrainians prefer a strong president who is directly elected by the people.
By anon on Mar 10, 2010
LOL.
Estonia, latvia, Hungary, moldova., Greece, Switzerland, Czech Republic a host of other states all elect the head of state by a Constitutional majority of their respective Parliaments. Even the United States of America does not directly elect its head of state.
A two-thirds majority of the Parliament is much harder to achieve then a simple majority of the people directly electing their head of state. A two-thirds majority of the parliament is not an easy task to secure. Anyone who has their support would more democratically represent a greater number of people.
Cost $0 effectiveness and accountability much more…
By UkrToday on Mar 13, 2010
You just don’t get it.
By anon on Mar 15, 2010
Five years that could have and should have Eben spent building institutions and trust ion government. Five years that achieved nothing, even the so call “democratic” advancement has not happened. All Yushchenko achieved was to deepen the division and betrayed all those that placed faith in change. In doing so he has set back Ukraine’s democratic and economic development ten to fifteen years.
============================
Share Deals
By habika on May 22, 2010