ANALYSIS: Yuschenko's ouster not a blow to democracy (05/06/01)

ANALYSIS

Yuschenko's ouster not a blow to democracy

by David R. Marples

On April 26, the 15th anniversary of the Chornobyl disaster, the Ukrainian Parliament dismissed Prime Minister Viktor Yuschenko. Western observers (the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times) have hailed his departure as a blow to democracy in Ukraine, pointing out that Mr. Yuschenko is the most democratically minded and popular politician in the country. But is this really a blow to democracy? One can argue otherwise.

Clearly, the forces that chose to remove Prime Minister Yuschenko would not appear to have Ukraine's best interests in mind. The prime minister was formerly chairman of the National Bank of Ukraine; he is a reformer, and a man who had taken a notably independent stance during the Gongadze affair, when tapes produced by a former bodyguard of the president, implicated the latter in the murder of an opposition journalist and led to mass demonstrations against President Leonid Kuchma.

Mr. Yuschenko was also notably restrained during the government's arrest and re-arrest of the former Vice Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, which was ultimately halted by the Supreme Court of Ukraine. Ms. Tymoshenko, a former ally of another ex-prime minister, Pavlo Lazarenko, had made a fortune through gas profits, but had subsequently fallen afoul of President Leonid Kuchma and joined the opposition.

Mr. Yuschenko's removal was widely expected, since he has never been slow to speak his mind and he is unpopular both among the "oligarchs" who control Ukrainian business, and the Communists, whose power base lies in the eastern cities. Parliament voted 263-69 to remove him, as a result of support for the motion from a variety of political groups embracing the Communists, Labor Ukraine, the Greens, the Social Democratic Party (United), the National Democratic Party and the Democratic Union.

Paradoxically, the combination of votes (however foolish and self-serving the motives) is an indicator that democracy is alive in Ukraine. In no other post-Soviet country, excluding the Baltic states, could the Parliament have used such authority. The president is almost certain to agree to the decision, which will lead to a caretaker government for 60 days until a new prime minister is appointed. Thus, a certain balance of power has been maintained between the government and the legislature.

Though this demonstrates the limited power of the presidency, it also reflects the changing nature of the Verkhovna Rada. It need not be perceived as entirely retrogressive or, as suggested by Western observers, a stronghold of the Communists. The latter belief is simply untrue. The Communists have the largest party, but are nowhere close to a majority. They have formed only a temporary working alliance that would not operate if directed toward a broader purpose, such as a return to more state control over industry, for example, or subsidizing unprofitable companies.

Further, the removal of Prime Minister Yuschenko simplifies the situation for the Ukrainian opposition. No longer need it weigh the odds of removing an obviously corrupt government that includes a reformist and much-respected prime minister. Within the government, Mr. Yuschenko was obliged to remain silent on key issues, most notably the Gongadze affair and the government's attacks on demonstrators, particularly students. In opposition, he is likely not only to be an effective voice, but a genuine and realistic contender for president in 2004.

In turn, President Kuchma will not be aggrieved to see the removal of his greatest rival - and through events that appear to absolve him of any collusion. The president was visiting the Chornobyl region when the news arrived, and a more poignant setting for his expressions of regret could hardly have been imagined. The oligarchs who control the only vibrant part of the economy have been satiated, and a more compliant government should now emerge.

And yet, in the long term, the removal of Mr. Yuschenko can only weaken the Kuchma regime. Its already diminishing credit in the eyes of the West, particularly the United States, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, has surely expired completely; the opposition now has a focal figure around which to express its dissatisfaction; and the forces in favor of a market-oriented economy are divided.

On the one hand are those who have benefited from privatization, and particularly control over resources or conveyances (such as pipelines for oil and gas), and wield power from bases in Dnipropetrovsk and Kyiv; on the other are those who seek to reduce the power of the oligarchs, led by Mr. Yuschenko and the allegedly reformed Ms. Tymoshenko, but are nonetheless even more distant from the Communists and their allies who would like to return to a state-run economy and greater distance from the West. It is like the removal of a particularly obtuse puzzle on a chessboard. The players can now see more clearly the possible moves ahead. And that is not a bad thing.

David Marples is a professor of history at the University of Alberta.

| Home Page |