ELECTIONS 2006: Ukraine slips comfortably, and safely into democracy (04/23/06)

ELECTIONS 2006: Ukraine slips comfortably, and safely into democracy

by Peter Borisow

Ukraine's future, independence and identity were all in play in the parliamentary elections this spring as chaos menaced the political landscape. There was a serious fracture in the Orange Coalition. Scandal engulfed the presidency. There were 45 different political parties vying for a place in the eternal sunshine of the prosecution immune Verkhovna Rada. The Party of the Regions, packed with rich oligarchs and led by Viktor Yanukovych (who lost to Viktor Yushchenko in 2004), was running first in the polls.

Moscow and its friends had hired the best American advisors and image makers that money could buy. Washington was, once again, trying to sit on both sides of the fence. After the gas crisis this winter, there was concern that the West might sacrifice Ukraine on Russia's rich gas-fired altar. Yes, they finally revoked Jackson-Vanik, but who would potentially benefit from that more than Ukraine's Russophilic oligarchs? Washington announced a new ambassador to Ukraine the week before the elections. Although it was described as a "routine rotation," even the really stupid ones know that routine rotations aren't done the week before a critical election.

Also of concern was the relatively low number of international election observers this year - less than half of those in 2004. That smaller number of international observers was compensated, however, by the large number of poll watchers from Ukraine's many political parties. Every party was entitled to have two representatives at the polls, and many took that literally. With so many competing eyes watching, no one was going to pull a fast one without being noticed. Where there were any complaints, everyone knew about them very quickly.

Complaints were mostly about mechanical issues - too few poll workers, not enough voting booths, cramped facilities. There were as many as five different paper ballots, some over three feet long. National, regional and local elections were being held simultaneously. Many older voters were confused, some taking 10 minutes in the voting booth to fill out all the forms. Others wandered around polling stations looking for someone to help them. People were filling out the ballots just about any place they could find a flat surface. The crowds waiting to get into the polling places were large, sometimes in the hundreds.

Thank God Ukrainians are among the most patient people on earth. Although many grumbled, most waited patiently and voted. And, once again, individual Ukrainians proved they were equal to the challenge. The atmosphere among the poll watchers from competing parties was collegial. Perhaps because they had done it before, perhaps because they were just more comfortable with the concept of free voting, this time the tension, hostility and paranoia that was present in 2004 was simply not there.

When the polls closed at 10 p.m., the massive task of counting all those votes became a reality. In Dnipropetrovsk, an area expected to be problematic - it's Yulia country, hotly contested by Regions - a location with two adjacent polling stations sharing the same building provided an interesting contrast. One was run by an older crowd of folks who could at one time have been party apparatchiks, while the other was run by a 20-something crowd, the next generation. The younger group was better organized and more efficient, but the older group was getting things right as well. Ukrainians had adapted successfully to the democratic voting process.

The trend emerged soon after the Central Electoral Commission began tallying the votes. Of the 45 parties that entered the election, no more than five or six would qualify for the Rada. The extreme players, on both the right and the left, failed to meet the 3 percent threshold. While it was sad to see old nationalist warriors like Stepan Khmara miss the boat and Pora's young veterans failing to qualify, there was palpable satisfaction among virtually everyone that radicals like Natalia Vitrenko were left by the wayside. None of the old Kuchma crowd survived. Even Volodymyr Lytvyn, who started the campaign with over 10 percent support, crashed and burned.

Despite all the pre-election anxiety, good old Ukrainian grassroots wisdom found the common sense center and solidified there. By the end of the counting it was down to five parties: Regions, the Tymoshenko Bloc, Our Ukraine, the Socialists and the Communists.

The Ukrainian people had declared their independence from the politicians of the past. They rejected both Moscow's and Washington's plans for Ukraine's future. They found their own political identity - Ukrainian, pro-democracy, pro-European, free enterprise with a social conscience.

The Party of the Regions was the big loser. Although the Western press was bizarrely headlining a Regions "victory," the reality was the opposite. The Regions group dropped from 47 percent support in 2004 to 35 percent. Their only allies to survive the election, the Communists, proved to be a dying dinosaur - geriatrics sustained by fractured memories, IV fluids and Moscow's funding. Relentlessly retired by God onto the trash heap of history, the Communists would not survive the next round of elections. Without them Regions was down to 32 percent. All their money and slick advertising failed to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. In danger of becoming marginal players, Regions will now have to change to stay relevant and avoid similar extinction.

Yulia Tymoshenko was the biggest winner. She did not win by simply re-playing the fiery Joan of Arc who rallied the maidan at its darkest hours. Despite her differences with some of the president's men, she stood her ground, always wrapping herself in both blue/yellow and orange, always professing her loyalty to the nation and to the president. The people loved it. She got more votes than anyone had predicted, even making inroads in eastern areas previously deemed solidly pro-Regions. She held the center and captured those disaffected with Our Ukraine. She built a new, larger center around herself. Far from being just a pretty face who could give a good speech, Ms. Tymoshenko proved she is one of the smartest politicians in Europe.

The second winner, albeit so far unsung, was President Yushchenko. To appreciate his success, we need to put in perspective the Orange Revolution and his role in it. After the scandal of the second round in 2004, world politicians started looking for a win-win solution, a compromise that would be a "Victory of the Two Viktors" (Yushchenko and Yanukovych) - a division of influence in Ukraine between Moscow and the West. It was the half million ordinary Ukrainians who stood in the maidan and refused to leave who turned the crisis into a real victory for Ukraine. They made the Orange Revolution a success, and they chose their heroes.

Mr. Yushchenko's fate was sealed by the ham-fisted attempt to kill him. He became the inescapable face of the revolution - a face that suddenly reflected all the evils that had persecuted Ukraine throughout its history and tormented its present. When he was inaugurated as the democratically elected president of Ukraine, he didn't just have to hit the ground running - he was expected to work miracles, to instantly fix not just decades, but centuries of wrongs.

President Yushchenko was stuck with the previous corrupt regime's hostile legislature. His inner circle of trusted friends had experience mostly in opposition and revolution. The transition to trustworthy allies capable of governing was not only inevitable but also inevitably tumultuous. Along the way, Moscow - still dreaming of regaining its rapidly atrophying empire - did everything imaginable to destabilize Ukraine. And, Ukraine's oligarchs and wannabe oligarchs, interested only in whatever would make them rich or even richer, grabbed what they could for themselves while the party lasted.

Despite all this and his constant and painful health issues, Mr. Yushchenko took Ukraine through a democratic election process that can serve as a model for any country in the world. Ukraine is proceeding united into the future as a democracy. Three hundred fifty years of Russian colonialism, even a quarter century of genocide that killed 18 million people - fully half of Ukraine's population in the mid-20th century - had not destroyed the soul of Ukraine. Little more than a year after being given their first opportunity in three and a half centuries, Ukrainians slipped comfortably and safely into democracy.

The third winner was Moroz. Long maligned as a Trojan horse by his rivals, the head of the Socialist Party proved to be a mature leader, neither taking advantage of his leverage to gain personal wealth nor holding out for impossible terms. As internal affairs minister, the Socialist's Yurii Lutsenko became a symbol of the war on corruption and one of the most popular members of the Yushchenko administration. As soon as the vote was clear, Moroz was the first to stand front and center, ready to do his bit for the democratic coalition.

The biggest winner, of course, was Ukraine itself. Now, there is no doubt there will be a free and independent Ukraine in our children's future. For a while, at least, our sacrificed ancestors can rest in peace. How fitting that a new Ukraine, free, democratic and Ukrainian, has risen this spring, right on the eve of Easter.

Peter Borisow, president of the Hollywood Trident Foundation, served as an election observer during Ukraine's parliamentary elections on March 26.

| Home Page |