May 31, 2007

Toward a Culture of Genuine Compromise in Ukrainian Politics

by Walter Parchomenko*

     Those who believe that Ukraine’s acute political crisis will end when the country’s two Viktors – President Viktor Yushchenko and Premier Viktor Yanukovych, break through the latest political logjam are gravely mistaken and in for much future disappointment.  Genuine political compromise is nowhere in sight on Ukraine’s political landscape.  The country has no tradition of political compromise or political coalition building.  Moreover, independent Ukrainian experts who glibly assert that the latest political crisis can end if feuding political leaders would only demonstrate political will, find the correct political algorithm and set aside political ambitions for the good of the nation, grossly oversimplify the political challenge facing the nation.  Any political agreement reached today between president and the Party of Regions-led parliamentary coalition will, at best, produce yet another frozen political conflict.   

     How can we better understand the daunting challenge of moving Ukraine toward a culture of genuine compromise in its national politics?  And what are the essential requirements for such a crucial transition?

     To begin with, it is important to acknowledge the following unarguable facts.  Generally speaking, Ukraine today has no genuine political elite.  More than two-thirds of its 450 member parliament reportedly is made up of millionaires, many of whom are so absorbed with their business affairs that they rarely attend sessions of parliament and even leave their voting cards permanently with colleagues.  Thus, for much of the country’s ruling elite building ever greater personal wealth unhesitatingly trumps any commitment to the public interest.  Average Ukrainians are keenly aware of this harsh reality and frequently lament, “Everyone wants political power, but no one wants to be accountable.”    

     Secondly, today’s sharp political crisis, unquestionably, was provoked by Premier Yanukovych and his Party of Regions led anti-crisis coalition in parliament.  This crisis is a direct result of their aggressive, publicly announced effort to build a two-thirds majority of 300 members in parliament by mid year.  Such an achievement would permit the Regions-led coalition to overturn presidential vetoes, propose constitutional changes, and even call for the impeachment of the president.  Significantly, it could strip the president of his current authority to act as guarantor or watchdog of the Constitution, leave the institution of the presidency with largely ceremonial functions, and give Regions party leaders, and their supporters, absolute unchecked political power. 

     President Yushchenko responded to this blatant, growing threat with his April decree calling for early parliamentary elections.  In justifying his decision, he stated that a parliamentary majority of 300 deputies is being formed “with a sack of money” and not constitutionally as a result of the choices made by voters during the March 2006 parliamentary election.   

     Thirdly, between national elections Ukrainian citizens feel profoundly abandoned and powerless to move their elected officials to promote their well being.  Only on the eve of new elections can citizens expect to be rediscovered and have their wages and pensions increased in the now traditional pre-election spending spree launched by Party of Regions leaders - a blatant effort to buy votes.   

      Lastly, nearly 16 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union corruption in Ukrainian politics seems unstoppable and it pervades education, medicine and society, in general.  Today’s ruling elite at all levels of government are products of a Soviet political culture whose citizens - living with a perpetual shortage economy and impoverished lifestyle, openly and proudly proclaimed, “not to steal (especially from the state) is a sin, and only fools don’t steal.”  Ukraine’s post-Soviet experience with grabitization of the best state assets and widespread political corruption, in general, convincingly illustrates that this core attitude and expectation is still alive and deeply entrenched.   

What can be done to move Ukraine to a culture of genuine political compromise?

     Promote genuine public servants.  Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president and principal author of its Declaration of Independence, was a man of great intellect and a seminal contributor to American political culture.  His life stands as a shining example of selfless public service during his countless years in political office and his subsequent time as a private citizen.  Ukraine’s ruling elite should take to heart Jefferson’s admonition, “When a man assumes a public interest he should consider himself public property.” 

     Ukraine’s ruling elite, generally speaking, today places its personal interests and those of its family, friends and domestic and foreign sponsors above the public interest.  Commitment to public service above personal gain, thus, remains largely an alien concept in Ukraine’s political culture.  Instead, the public is often viewed as the personal property of political leaders in their endless feuding.  During the heated political crises of 2006 and 2007 thousands of impoverished citizens, young and old, were courted by Party of Regions leaders, paid and transported to their nation’s capital from distant eastern and southern regions of the country.  In Kyiv they were left to picket for days, even weeks, in very difficult living conditions and to feign moral outrage with political opponents of the Regions-led coalition in parliament.

     Cultivate civility and tolerance in political discourse.  The late William Fulbright is another sterling example of lifelong public service.  A man of great integrity and uncommon wisdom, he served five six-year terms in the U.S. Senate and was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 15 years.  In his prolific writings and speeches he would often stress that the goal of accountable, responsible government should always be a vigorous competition of men and ideas within a context of shared values and institutions, and genuine civility and tolerance.  Only when a consensus of values exists in politics, Fulbright argued, can there be a true consensus of policy and support for a culture of genuine compromise in politics. 

     Ukraine today still has a very low political culture with no tradition of political compromise.  Genuine civility is sorely lacking in political discourse.  Even a casual observer of Ukraine’s countless television and radio debate style political talk shows will be struck by the conspicuously hateful daily exchanges between politicians of opposing parties.  Leaders of the anti-crisis coalition and their spokespersons, notably, heap insult and abuse upon their political opponents and the president, in particular.  They clearly do not respect the viewpoint of their rivals and argue not to find the truth but to destroy their opponents; this harsh political tradition pervades the post-Soviet space.  Interestingly, Party of Regions leaders, in an obvious effort to retain their kinder, gentler image, today cunningly use their Communist and Socialist Party anti-crisis coalition members to publicly smear President Yushchenko and call for his impeachment almost daily.     

     Inform and harness public opinion.  Informed public opinion, unquestionably, can serve as an effective tool to help promote democratic reform and civil society.  On those rare occasions where President Yushchenko has addressed the nation face-to-face on national television during political crises, he has earned greater public support.  Most recently, during the televised 10 May presidential roundtable called for by leaders of the anti-crisis coalition, President Yushchenko spoke eloquently and convincingly in great detail about the serious political threat facing Ukraine’s young democracy and about the logic underlying his decision to call for pre-term parliamentary elections. However, after more than two years in office and several political crises, Yushchenko, curiously, has still failed to systematically inform, cultivate, and harness public opinion, an important tool to help fight an entrenched, corrupt political elite which operates with a sense of impunity.

     Hold pre-term elections as needed.  Achieving a culture of genuine political compromise in Ukrainian politics is a very tall order, indeed.  It requires an army of genuine public servants who share democratic values and respect key institutions of government, strong political leadership, and sustained effort to honestly inform public opinion. For Ukraine, such a transformation today seems light years away and no less than mission impossible.  However, President Yushchenko’s call for timely, pre-term parliamentary elections is an essential step on the road to this non-traditional culture.   It can be a catalyst for cultural change and can begin the process of slowly cleansing the country’s political elite of individuals who callously betray their voters and selfishly build ever greater personal wealth at the expense of the public interest.  It can also send a clear signal to future political elite that pre-term elections are here to stay and will remain an important presidential tool to promote responsible, accountable government.

     If President Yushchenko has any lingering doubts about the wisdom of his decision to hold timely pre-term parliamentary elections, and about the power of informed public opinion to support democratic reform, he should heed the words of Thomas Jefferson:  “Educate and inform the whole mass of people.  They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty…I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.”

*Walter Parchomenko, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow with the Atlantic Council of the United States currently based in Ukraine.  The views expressed here are purely his own.