PERSPECTIVES: Ukraine's bumpy road to democracy (03/12/00)

PERSPECTIVES

by Andrew Fedynsky

Ukraine's bumpy road to democracy

Two years ago, it took the Ukrainian Parliament 20 ballots and many days to elect Oleksander Tkachenko as a compromise chairman. Earlier this year, when Mr. Tkachenko lost the support of the majority, it took two and a half weeks and an unseemly scuffle on the Verkhovna Rada floor before he finally bowed to reality and gave up his position. This can be viewed as political theater, yet another sign of Ukraine's inability to function as a normal democracy, or it can seen as something far more profound.

For Ukraine, the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a revolution that toppled a system of boundless evil. It's impossible to quantify the physical, moral and economic damage Communism inflicted on Ukraine. Just take the Great Famine: privately, The New York Times correspondent in Moscow in 1932-1933 estimated that 10 million Ukrainians were killed in Stalin's collectivization campaign. Ukrainian agriculture has been crippled ever since. What is worse, Soviet terror with its vast network of informers imposed total control over society, stifling every sign of initiative and creativity. To survive, people became complacent, cautious and cynical. Those with power were arrogant and rude. That was reality in Soviet Ukraine and that was the social-political structure the Ukrainian Revolution was supposed to depose.

It was a strange revolution, though, more symbolic, it seemed, than substantive. No one lost his life; in fact, no one even lost a job. The hammer and sickle came down and the Ukrainian trident was put in its place. Nothing else seemed to change. The same managers who ran the factories and collective farms for the Soviets ran them in the new Ukrainian state and showed no intention of giving up control.

Unfortunately, these collective farms and government-controlled industries are also the reason for Ukraine's economic malaise. Without terror to glue it all together, the whole Soviet system collapsed during Gorbachev's "glasnost" era. And there's been nothing to replace it. People show initiative only to steal, solicit bribes or emigrate to the West. With Ukraine sunk in economic depression, every rational economist offers the same advice: eliminate the collective farm system, privatize the economy, develop an entrepreneurial class, open Ukraine to outside investment.

To Mr. Tkachenko this advice is pure poison. Formerly minister of agriculture in Soviet Ukraine, he believes in the collective farm system and opposes private property. Agriculture, he knows, is the basis of whatever wealth and power Ukraine has, and he was determined to control it. Money, jobs, Mercedes and dachas are at stake. As long as the collective farm system remains intact, Mr. Tkachenko and his constituency remain intact. As Rada chairman, he had the power to block reform and he did. A Communist to the end, his last act as chairman was to ignore a motion on his own dismissal. Hence the stand-off that followed.

As events show, however, the 1991 revolution where nothing seemed to change, turned out to be a revolution after all. Ukraine's course has not been straight or smooth and there are plenty of grave concerns, but for those who see geopolitical or merely sentimental value in an independent Ukraine, there's been a lot of progress. Learning from the mistakes of the ill-fated Ukrainian Central Rada government of 1918, President Leonid Kravchuk co-opted the Red Army in Ukraine and created one that is loyal to Kyiv, not Moscow. Then, under the leadership of central banker, now prime minister, Viktor Yuschenko, Ukraine created the basis for economic growth by establishing and maintaining a responsible monetary policy.

Most significantly, Ukraine shows no signs of the kind of conflict that is convulsing the Balkans and Russia: no ethnic cleansing, no shelling of the Parliament building, no invasions of troubled provinces. Ukraine's diverse and polyglot society has shown remarkable tolerance for one another. The bottom line difference for Ukraine is the country is now a democracy and all its hopes and opportunities flow from that.

Democracy, though, is a messy process and change takes time. There's no better illustration of that than the history of the United States. The American Revolution began in 1776. Twenty years later, President George Washington - having once led America's military against the British Empire - sent troops against his own citizens to collect a tax on whiskey. A few years later, in 1801 - a full generation after the Declaration of Independence - the United States endured a constitutional crisis, similar in a way to the one Ukraine just went through in the Rada. That's when vice-presidential candidate Aaron Burr took advantage of a quirk in the Electoral College rules and received the same number of votes for president as Thomas Jefferson, even though Jefferson had clearly been his party's candidate. The struggle was decided after 36 ballots and a week of political wrangling when Alexander Hamilton - America's first treasury secretary - tipped the balance in Jefferson's favor. Aaron Burr is now remembered mostly for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Jefferson, one of America's greatest presidents, became the first to use a political party to exercise control over the Congress.

It appears that President Leonid Kuchma is trying to do the same thing in his own country. In his re-election campaign last year, Mr. Kuchma made it clear he would work to adopt a reform package that would be acceptable to the IMF. He also promised to integrate Ukraine into Europe while maintaining good ties with Moscow. Mr. Kuchma's opponent blamed the IMF for Ukraine's problems and promised to restore Communism. Mr. Kuchma won comfortably and began to implement his promises. To do that, he needs a Rada majority he can work with and that's what the struggle in January was all about. Former president and now National Deputy Leonid Kravchuk helped put together a center-right coalition to oust Mr. Tkachenko. Power shifted and feelings were hurt, but no blood was shed. President Kuchma, though, couldn't resist the temptation to rub it in. "I would give 10 Communists now for a capitalist manager," he said on February 22 during his state of the nation address to the Rada. I'm sure the IMF took notice and approved.

Can Mr. Kuchma now deliver? First of all, the coalition that ousted Mr. Tkachenko will have to hold together to pass reform legislation. That's where President Kuchma's political skills will come into play. But even if they pass, will new laws make a difference? If Ukraine's leaders show personal integrity and the Ukrainian people seize the opportunity of free enterprise, then they will. But what about the Communists? They've lost election after election in Ukraine, but still command the loyalty of a lot of people, particularly in the economically depressed East. Ideally, they will evolve into a responsible political opposition. Realistically, you have to accept that they're capable of plenty of mischief.

There are lots of questions and plenty of room for both optimism and gloom. So is the glass half empty on Ukraine or is it half full? It all depends on whether you're pouring or spilling. It all depends. So hold on to your hats. Democracy is a bumpy ride.

| Home Page |