FOR THE RECORD: Ambassador Herbst speaks on democracy in Ukraine

Following is the text of U.S. Ambassador John Herbst's speech on "Democracy in Ukraine" delivered on December 23, 2003, at the Institute of International Relations, Taras Shevchenko National University, Kyiv.

We are here today to discuss a very large topic: democracy and Ukraine's future. Forgive me if I prove unable to give this subject the rigorous treatment that it demands. I am a diplomat, not a political philosopher. But as a representative of the oldest continuous republic on earth, and as a friend of Ukraine, I have something to say. Let's start with some basics. Since the Soviet Union fell apart, the U.S. has supported the transition to democracy and a market economy in all the Newly Independent States (NIS), including Ukraine. We have likewise supported their complete independence and territorial integrity.

At the same time, the establishment of democracy is the stated policy of the Government of Ukraine. It is one of the commitments that Ukraine takes on as a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The government has likewise declared its intent to seek integration into the Euro-Atlantic community, including membership in NATO and the EU [European Union]. This community is the greatest collection of free societies that the world has ever seen. Membership offers Ukraine an opportunity for freedom, prosperity and security. All members of NATO and the EU, and those about to enter, are democracies. That is a requirement for membership.

As Americans, we would like to see democracy flower here for two reasons. First of all, the U.S. and Ukraine share many common interests. We would like to establish a deep, long-term friendship and more, but that can only happen if Ukraine is a true democracy. Secondly, we would like to see long-term stability in Ukraine and history teaches that democracy, well grounded in the ethos of an open society, is the best way to ensure both enduring stability and felicity. That, in turn, will contribute to European security and stability.

Transition to democracy: Ukraine's strengths

We are not dogmatic in our expectations for democracy. We do not believe that a full-fledged democratic culture can spring up overnight. We understand the tragedy of Ukrainian history over the past centuries. We know, too, that Ukraine suffered the worst that the Soviet Union - one of the most inhumane regimes in world history - had to offer.

With this history, Ukraine was bound to encounter obstacles on the way to democracy. And so it has. But Ukraine has also shown remarkable strength. In terms of democratic development among the NIS, Ukraine has been in the forefront. The 1994 election witnessed a real transfer of power. There are strong opposition parties. They exert substantial influence in public life, and have a real chance of coming to power. Politics in the Rada, however imperfect, reflect this. Ukrainians should be proud of the fact that this is not a rubber-stamp institution.

Listening to the debates in the Rada, involving strong competing parties, one can see the makings of real democracy. It is also possible in Ukraine to criticize the government and there are even media that, you might say, specialize in this. Political prisoners, in the sense that we find them in other NIS and in other places around the world, are not part of the Ukrainian world. Civil society is active and effective. Non-governmental organizations, think-tanks and charitable groups have used their expertise and resources to address some of the country's biggest problems: HIV/AIDS, illegal trafficking in persons, corruption and human rights.

All of these developments are very real achievements. But it would be a great mistake, inconsistent with the stated goals of Ukrainian political society, if people toted up these achievements and said, "that's enough for our first two decades of independence." After all, many serious problems remain.

Transition to democracy: the problems

The major media, especially the broadcast media, do not at all reflect the full spectrum of opinion. The information they provide is carefully managed. And just to make things clear, "temnyky" are sent out to provide "guidance" for the media.

To better control the information available to the public, "special attention" is paid to those media that dare to criticize authorities. Tax inspectors, building inspectors and the police tend to find more problems with these media. Advertising revenue has a habit of drying up. Paper becomes harder to acquire, along with printing services. For some brave journalists unwilling to play along, there are more decisive measures. One of the great scandals of Ukraine is that principled journalism is a very dangerous profession.

Yes, opposition parties are strong. But they often find themselves facing administrative methods to limit their activities. The business interests that support the opposition - like their counterparts in the media - are subject to the close attention of tax, building and other authorities.

Ukraine had the honor within the NIS of managing the first peaceful transfer of power at the national level. Since then, the elections have become more problematic. Our great hope is that next year's election will be free and fair and bring marked improvement in the electoral process in Ukraine. The great gifts of the Ukrainian people and the wise leadership of the country - with its eyes set on Euro-Atlantic integration - make this a real possibility.

But this outcome is by no means certain nor, some would say, likely. The skeptics can point to a whole series of disturbing incidents when opposition parties sought to conduct political events in Donetsk, Sumy and other cities. Suddenly, large halls in fine condition were under renovation, or bus companies refused to provide transportation services for events, or permission was refused by local governors to use public squares, or the local media were unavailable. Legitimate concerns have likewise been raised about police harassment of activists collecting signatures against the indirect election of the president, or about pressure designed to persuade locally elected officials to resign.

Advancing toward democracy

But Ukraine can be different. Indeed, it has been different and better in the past. But to be better, all players in the elections must take the high road. We were pleased to see President [Leonid] Kuchma say that he would not seek re-election, in keeping with the two-term limit mandated by the Constitution. The president's call for a code of conduct for all parties in the election is also a good sign. But the responsibility for a free and fair election in the first instance hinges on the government itself. There is a need to ensure equal access to the media for all parties. All parties must be able to organize political events without hindrance all over the country. This also applies to the right of the Communist Party to campaign without hindrance in Lviv or Uzhhorod. Some critical structural questions must also be addressed. Currently the Central Election Commission is due to be appointed. As new members are appointed, it is essential that a broad spectrum of political views be represented: that there be balanced representation. There is a need for improved voter registration procedures, the judicial review of election-related cases, the regulation of vote counting and election monitoring, including exit polling.

Getting past the cynics

Ukraine must also get past the naysayers who claim that, given its dreadful totalitarian past, Ukraine is not ready for democracy; that it is not natural for a society to move so quickly from despotism to democracy. I met recently with an otherwise intelligent Ukrainian who claimed that freedom of speech was not a high priority for the people of Ukraine. That free and fair elections were a Western standard. That the "Ukrainian standard" was the use of administrative methods in Donetsk to prevent lawful political activity. Now I salute this man's honesty, because he says in public what those who orchestrated Donetsk decided in secret to do. But I certainly question his judgment. His judgment would doom the Ukrainian nation to a future in many respects similar to its past - subject to the arbitrary rule of powerful people.

In democratic countries, it is considered normal for parties to campaign in areas where they are weak because if they sway just a few percent of the voters there, it could change the elections outcome. It also seems logical to conclude that by strengthening support in regions where they are weak, parties would strengthen the unity, not threaten the disunity, of the country.

Georgia

In the wake of events in Georgia, we have a whole new class of naysayers. They claim that the U.S. orchestrated events in Georgia to create a new government. This is a simple fabrication. We have had excellent relations with Georgia and President [Eduard] Shevardnadze since the country's independence. We have provided substantial material assistance to the country and support for its territorial integrity. At the same time, in Georgia as elsewhere in the NIS and around the world, the U.S. has championed democracy. Long in advance of the run-up to Georgia's elections, we conferred with President Shevardnadze and others in the country on the need to hold free and fair elections. That obviously did not happen.

When people in the opposition expressed outrage at the obviously rigged outcome of the elections, and took over the Parliament, we counseled both Shevardnadze and the protesters to find a peaceful, lawful solution to the problem. We encouraged no specific outcome, just a non-violent one based on dialogue. We note that the interim government in Georgia has no plans to remain in power. New elections are scheduled for January. It is very important that they be free and fair.

The importance of civil society and NGOs

Some naysayers take a slightly more sophisticated tack. They claim that non-governmental organizations, especially those funded from abroad, are subverting the lawful order in countries like Georgia. Let's take a look at this. Non-governmental organizations funded by the U.S. and other democratic countries run programs designed to promote democracy and an open society. They offer training in political organization, in monitoring elections and the media, in establishing fair voting lists and procedures. They provide information to the general public about their rights as citizens and about the issues in the election. This support is not offered to just one or two parties or to promote the interests of any group. If here or in any other country, some NGOs receiving our funding undertake partisan activity, they do so in express opposition to our principles, and we will ask them to stop.

Our NGO-operated programs are open to all parties. While some have chosen to make greater use of these programs than others, virtually all parties have participated. The list includes the Social Democratic Party of Ukraine (United) and the Agrarian Party in addition to Nasha Ukraina [Our Ukraine] and the Socialist Party. The Party of the Regions and the Communist Party were only two of the organizations so pleased with the work of the International Republican Institute that they wrote letters of recommendation for it.

For those who believe that the use of administrative measures of repression is the "Ukrainian standard," of course the activity of the NGOs may be considered subversive. But for those who support democracy, whatever party they favor, NGO activity should be welcome. NGOs play an important role in making sure that it is the Ukrainian people, and not influential insiders, who in fact elect the leadership of the country.

There has been much talk in Ukraine in recent months about constitutional reform. Ukraine, like all societies, has the right to change its Constitution and determine how to organize its democratic structures. While all countries have the right to change their constitution by established procedures, it is important that such changes in fact enhance democratic life. Ultimately, democracy is about fair play and procedures open to all. It is about rule of law and the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial powers. Legitimate questions can be asked as to whether it is fair to change the rules of the political game at such a late stage. After all, the presidential elections are scheduled for 10 months from now.

We have and want no say in who wins the elections; we do however share the interests of the Ukrainian people in a fair, truly democratic process. Some critics claim that we favor parties in the opposition. This is nonsense. Looking at the vote of members of the opposition on such issues of importance to us as the dispatch of Ukrainian troops to Iraq or Liberia, it is clear that the opposition is not reluctant to take stands that contradict our interests. Looking at how some in the opposition espousing market principles voted against intellectual property rights, it is clear that, here, too, we are not talking about angels, or those who would do our bidding.

But it was James Madison, the author of the American Constitution, who noted that he was devising a system of government for men, not angels. Since he could not count on men and women, in this case Americans, to restrain themselves, he aimed to set limits by law - fairly enforced - on the exercise of power. Such limits are the best guarantee of freedom. And freedom is exactly what we wish for Ukraine and its people.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, January 25, 2004, No. 4, Vol. LXXII

| Home Page |