26_1-8

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 No.<strong>26</strong> APRIL 24, 2018 TOPIC OF THE DAY WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA By Ivan KAPSAMUN, The Day The coming presidential race is a little less than a year away. However, an active re-grouping of forces and candidates’ preparations have already begun. We talked about the special features of the coming election with head of the department of electoral technologies at the Situation Modeling Agency Valerii Honcharuk. How would you characterize the main players, major candidates before the election of a new president? “The presidential election will definitely determine the nature of the subsequent parliamentary election that will take place in the fall of 2019. I think, therefore, that the main political forces (both those represented and unrepresented in parliament) will nominate their candidates. However, current candidate support figures are not yet indicative, so they only testify to the fact that there are no obvious favorite or favorites so far. Yulia Tymoshenko and Petro Poroshenko lead in all opinion polls, but their support is still so low that any third-party candidate can get into the second round. It should also be noted that both Tymoshenko and Poroshenko have high disapproval figures, so anyone who gets into the second round can defeat either of the two, theoretically speaking. “Of course, a very serious game has already begun regarding selecting a partner for the second round of voting, which suggests the possibility of a third-party candidate emerging. Therefore, it is not surprising that we can see in recent opinion polls names which are rather problematic in terms of politics, like those of Sviatoslav Vakarchuk or even Volodymyr Zelenskyi. It shows that the niche is there, the more so that a lot of the electorate are still undecided. “I think the main players who are represented in parliament will act cautiously. The People’s Front behavior is indicative here, as they say through Arsen Avakov that they have not decided who they will support in the election: maybe they will nominate their own candidate, maybe they will support the current president, or maybe they will nominate a third, alternative candidate. Therefore, bargaining is just beginning. “In addition, we see that in the government itself, too, not everything is running smoothly. For example, there are conflicts at the level of law enforcement, anti-corruption agencies, including one between Yurii Lutsenko, Artem Sytnyk, and Nazar Kholodnytskyi. On the other hand, some people say that Volodymyr Hroisman’s term in his position is not infinite either, hence, some kind of a squabble takes place around it too. Also, the election will necessarily be affected by the situation in eastern Ukraine, the possibility of an escalation, broader hostilities, etc. Of course, the economic situation in the country will be of great importance as well. Thus, it is unlikely that someone will come up with an accurate longterm forecast a year before the election.” The Hroisman cabinet turned two years a few days ago, and people say increasingly frequently that its head has started charting an independent course a long time ago. Should one expect his participation in the election as a member of some alliance? “For Hroisman, it is important to get key decisions passed at the level of parliament, so he enters situational alliances with various political players. Often we see that he is even more supported by the People’s Front than the Petro Poroshenko Bloc itself, which has a very complex composition. A third of its MPs are already openly declaring their opposition to the president. But I would not yet make any predictions as to whether On the chances of a third candidature Valerii HONCHARUK: “Tymoshenko and Poroshenko have high disapproval figures, so anyone who gets into the second round can defeat either of the two” Hroisman will be able to enter the presidential election as an independent player. After all, one must take into account the fact that he does not have strong support from any parliamentary force. Accordingly, in order to bid for something, he needs to go through another election race. At the same time, it seems to me that there are not enough votes at the moment to dismiss Hroisman. There will also not be enough votes for any new prime minister to be confirmed.” You mentioned two “non-political” names: Vakarchuk and Zelenskyi. What are their chances of winning, and who might be their puppet master? “Vakarchuk, unlike Zelenskyi, has some political experience. We know that he was once an Our Ukraine MP. But this was a negative experience, so he was unable to become a true legislator. I do not rule out that the part of the democratic camp that is opposed to the president will bet on Vakarchuk. But then the question arises: who are his team members? There may be problems here. For example, Viktor Pinchuk’s shadow may appear behind Vakarchuk, and that of Ihor Kolomoiskyi – behind Zelenskyi. In such circumstances, it will be difficult for Vakarchuk to conduct an election campaign.” What are Oleh Liashko’s chances of winning? “Liashko will try to play a game of his own and, of course, will run for president. And he can be assured of winning the fifth, fourth, or third place. If he will unexpectedly go through to the second round, then the vast majority of voters will vote not so much in support of his opponent, but rather against him. It is because Liashko is a rather extravagant and notorious figure who has his own voters, but this is not enough to win the election.” Nationalist forces (Svoboda, the National Corps, the Right Sector...) held a joint march against the oligarchs recently. It is well-known that they have a niche, but is it enough to qualify for a major role in the election? “I think that all these marches are rather more aimed at the parliamentary election. And here, one should also understand that nationalist forces have their own limited niche and support base. We know that in the last pre-revolutionary parliamentary election that was held under Viktor Yanukovych’s administration, Svoboda got 10.5 percent of the vote, while the next election, held soon after the Euromaidan, saw them failing to clear the electoral threshold, as they got just 4.7 percent. To be fair, they had competitors in 2014, like the Right Sector and others. If they unite before the next parliamentary election, then of course they will have a real chance to clear the threshold. As for the presidential election, the support for, say, Sketch by Viktor BOGORAD Oleh Tiahnybok is lower than for the party itself, that is, it is far from being sufficient for victory. As for other leaders, such as Andrii Biletskyi, their support figures are even lower. In general, it is quite possible that key players will use nationalist forces in their games, because these groups are inherently active, mobile, can be aggressive, etc.” Let us analyze the opposite camp now, namely former voters of the Party of Regions. Here, Yurii Boiko and Vadym Rabynovych are still contesting the leadership. How realistic are their chances? “The phenomenon of the For Life Party, created by Rabynovych and Yevhen Muraiev, is similar to the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, led by Natalia Vitrenko. Such a project can claim a certain portion of voters, not exceeding 10 percent: this is quite radical pro-Russian electorate. But they have absolutely no growth potential, given that their most ardent supporters are cut off in the occupied territory. For his part, Boiko relies on a more moderate section of the electorate, but this moderation may not actually benefit him, because such voters are more passive. Another problem of the Opposition Bloc is its disunity. I think that in the presidential election, Boiko will strive not for victory, but for a respectable result on the eve of the parliamentary election. In that latter race, he will be able to obtain a more solid result, which will open up the possibility of getting into a coalition and receiving certain ministerial posts.” Last week, the media run a story about the oligarchs Ihor Kolomoiskyi and Hennadii Boholiubov secretly meeting in Geneva with ex-chief of the Presidential Administration Borys Lozhkin. “Of course, we discussed Ukrainian realities, politics, and prospects for the future, including the fact that Poroshenko will never win presidency again,” Kolomoiskyi stated later, as quoted by radiosvoboda.org. In your opinion, who and how do Ukrainian oligarchs manipulate before the coming election? “There is no united oligarchic class in Ukraine, they are skeptical of each other, and therefore compete with each other. Accordingly, the oligarchs will not play in the same camp. It is clear that Kolomoiskyi will under no circumstances support Poroshenko, and will use his resources to help other players win. Meanwhile, Rinat Akhmetov or Pinchuk will be more likely to put eggs in multiple baskets. This is the long-established pattern of their behavior. Also, we must take into account that other oligarchs, like Yurii Kosiuk, Oleh Bakhmatiuk, or Kostiantyn Zhevaho have grown stronger as well, and they will play their own games too, because they have enough resources. The incumbent president is able to run a full-fledged election campaign too.” Why, in your opinion, despite all the tragic events in Ukraine that ought to have changed the system, voters have to choose among the old guard again? Why is vertical mobility not working? “Unfortunately, we have not had evolutionary change and renewal of the political elite. It seems that after the Euromaidan, many young people (public figures, war veterans, journalists...) entered parliament without too much political baggage, experience and responsibility, but they have not been able to show themselves as forces for good, and have failed to turn into full-fledged leaders or to introduce constructive projects. The system has absorbed them. Thus, yesterday’s ‘idols’ have discredited not only themselves, but also their ideas. So far, Tymoshenko and Poroshenko remain the main players out of this crop of candidates.”
WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA TOPIC OF THE DAY No.<strong>26</strong> APRIL 24, 2018 5 By Ihor SIUNDIUKOV, The Day ideological differences for the sake of working for the benefit of Ukraine. This in fact becomes the life-or-death The destiny of a thinker, like that of an artist, often problem of Ukraine itself. In reality, Lypynsky, as a political theoretician of the Hetmanate, a profound historian, turns out to be unexpected or even chimerical. Forgotten, distorted, rejected, and cursed by a researcher of the Bohdan Khmelnytsky era, a diplomat, contemporaries still in his lifetime, this person a sociologist, and a political writer, had to watch with pain “suddenly” (in reality, not so suddenly) stages a and indignation “the process of self-immolation, in which comeback dozens of years later. His key works are read our house is burning down” (his own words). anew, “at a fresh glance,” attentively, respectfully, and Lypynsky is and, frankly speaking, will remain opportune and topical for a long time, for he warned: “No- critically – and we, the now remote descendants of this prominent personality, surprisingly discover how many body will build a state for us unless we ourselves build prophetic thoughts he left for the future, how much he one” (we can also supplement his view as follows: “No enemy will ruin our state unless we ourselves ruin it”). Is a managed to foresee, and how many mistakes (including serious) he cautioned us against. deep political, socioeconomic, and, above all, moral crisis All this ideally fits in with the image and legacy of Viacheslav Lypynsky, a true “general designer” of Ukrainian ment assures us that “the worst is already behind us” – of Ukrainian society in 2018 (even though the govern- state formation, who lived a dramatically short life (49 years what else can a government like this say?), is all that is only). Now that our state has had to counter the most acute going on now not a most convincing confirmation of dangers and threats at least in the past 27 years, with Russian aggression being in no way the only threat of this kind, word, “ripens,” until the people rally around it (for the Lypynsky’s thought: until a true elite, worthy of this the following call of Lypynsky is exceptionally timely: at a people will know that the elite pursues no other goal than difficult hour, it is absolutely necessary to throw away all serving the state), Ukraine will remain endangered. LYPYNSKY INCOGNITA Towards the 136th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding Ukrainian political thinker, the “general designer” of Ukrainian statehood ● “HE DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN PATRIOTISM AND CHAUVINISM” Bohdan ZEK, Senior Research Fellow, Volyn Local History Museum; Candidate of Sciences (History): “The figure of the Ukrainian historian, politician, and diplomat Viacheslav Lypynsky (1882-1931) is particularly topical today. While we were just reading his works in the early 1990s stage of state formation, now we are thinking over their content. There are a lot of things to reconsider, for our state is a quarter of a century old. Like in 1918, Ukraine is fighting against an aggressor and, at the same time, has to seek the necessary ways of domestic development. “Unfortunately, Lypynsky is still a ‘terra incognita’ for Ukrainian society, and our politicians are flouting with particular zeal his warnings and repeating 100-year-old mistakes. The scholar shared monarchic views and favored strong power in the person of a hetman, albeit in a democratic state. In his opinion, the ruling strata and the opposition should adhere to one principle only – to work for the people’s benefit, not just struggle for power. He distinguished between patriotism and chauvinism, and, what is more, Lypynsky, who came from a well-known Polish family, became a true Ukrainian, which not all of us manage to do. So let us pay attention to his works. Isn’t it time to understand what we should first do tomorrow?” ● “THE NO. 1 TASK WAS TO UNITE THE STATE AND SOCIETY” Tetiana OSTASHKO, historian, Den/The Day’s contributor, researcher of Viacheslav Lypynsky’s scholarship and life: “In my view, the most topical idea Lypynsky put forward and defended is territorial patriotism of Ukrainians: all those who were born in Ukraine, recognize its statehood, and consider themselves citizens of the independent Ukrainian state, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, and political views, have the right to call themselves Ukrainian patriots. They are such if they confirm this with real deeds. It is this patriotism that the Ukrainian state should be based on. “Lypynsky’s ‘theory of elites’ is also of paramount importance. The elite (if it is really an elite) is obliged to assume all responsibility for the state of affairs in society. Lypynsky was never tired of emphasizing that Photo from the website WIKIPEDIA.ORG VIACHESLAV LYPYNSKY (THIRD ON LEFT) AT RUSALIVSKI CHAHARY FARMSTEAD. ON HIS LEFT IS PEASANT LEVKO ZANUDA WHO DIED, SAVING LYPYNSKY’S MANUSCRIPTS (1915 PHOTO) ‘people can never be wiser than their elite.’ We must take into account and analyze these words. Responsibility of both the elite and the people is an exceptionally important category today. “Tellingly, although Lypynsky was a conservative (as a political thinker), he conceded (and even insisted on) the opposition and pluralism, for the No. 1 task was to unite the state and society. Lypynsky was convinced that Bohdan Khmelnytsky, the great Hetman of Ukraine, managed to resolve this problem in the 17th century. He thought that Hetman Skoropadsky was also to take this course of actions. “In the 1920s, Lypynsky repeatedly requested both the Ukrainian intelligentsia, which he believed had failed to stand the test of statehood, and the ‘producing strata’ of the population to find out soberly and honestly why statehood was lost and how to restore it. His famous ‘Letters to Brothers- Agrarians’ are about this. Incidentally, the Ukrainian Union of Agrarians- Statists, a political organization Lypynsky led at the time, was not a party, which he always stressed. For this would run counter to his persuasion: the future Ukrainian state must not serve the narrow party interests but ensure a free harmonious development of all strata and classes.” Europe and new challenges Participants of a security conference discussed the success of nationalists and populists, what danger it poses, and how to fight this phenomenon By Natalia PUSHKARUK, The Day Within the framework of the 11th Kyiv Security Forum, a discussion was held lately on the topic “Threats to European Democracy and Security: An East European Crisis.” It is known that populist, nationalist, left-wing forces are gaining in popularity in many countries, and voters are casting more and more votes for them. This can be seen from the results of the latest election in Germany (where the right-wing Alternative for Germany party gained more than 13 percent of the votes), Italy (where the left-wing Five Stars Movement gained over 30 percent of the vote), and Hungary (where the right-wing conservative Fides party of the incumbent Viktor Orban won outright with 49 percent of the vote). The Day collected the most interesting expert opinions about this trend, as well as other threats to Europe’s security. ● A SHORTAGE OF IDEAS Karel Schwarzenberg, Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic (2007-09, 2010-13), stressed the trend of the collapse of traditional parties and pointed out that such processes were taking place in Germany, Italy, France, as well as in the Czech Republic. Populist and extremist political forces emerge because of the fact that the traditional parties that appeared at the end of the 19th century, like Liberals, Social Democrats, or Christian Democrats, “have not demonstrated new ideas” over the past 50 years. “When you get for breakfast a cup of tea which has already been brewed two or three times, you will not drink it, and, of course, you will not buy ideas which have been shown to be unworkable on several occasions either,” he stressed. Populists, meanwhile, have taken advantage of the fact that modern leaders do not understand the problems of the new generation, so they win voters by being “not boring.” “Active citizens were interested in politics before, in the age of Margaret Thatcher or Francois Mitterrand, because they were interesting individuals. Today we see rather gray politicians and do not have prominent personalities,” he explained, citing his country’s president Milos Zeman and Prime Minister Andrej Babis as examples. ● WHAT IS THE SECRET OF ORBAN’S SUCCESS Director of the Center for European Neighborhood Studies Peter Balazs spoke about the secret of Orban’s Fides party’s victory in the legislative election held in Hungary on April 8. According to Balazs, a majority of voters, or 52 percent, did vote against the current prime minister, but due to Hungarian electoral legislation, his party got two thirds of seats in parliament while winning just 48 percent of the vote. He explained that this political force, unlike all the others, had not published an election platform. At the same time, the only target of Fides’s rhetoric was the issue of refugees and migrants. The expert confirmed that there was an unprecedented influx of migrants three years ago, but they mostly sought to go to Germany, while “nobody even wanted to stay in Hungary, because the language is very difficult and the wages are low.” The speaker also said that the victory of Orban had been enabled by fragmentation of the opposition. “But we also underestimated the power of propaganda that was aimed at rural areas. It is very similar to Brexit... when certain segments of the population are very receptive to populist rhetoric,” Balazs emphasized and added: “They worked very hard to influence rural areas where people do not speak a foreign language, do not have Internet access, read a single local newspaper, and 90 percent of these newspapers belong to the government.” Joachim Schuster, a member of the European Parliament representing Germany, addressed the topic of relations between Ukraine and the EU in his speech and offered two conclusions on the issue of stability. “Now the economy of Ukraine is at a low level while poverty is high. But on the other hand, it is also necessary, in the next few years, to talk about accelerating economic growth and improving income distribution, so that various segments of the population benefit from it. There will be a lot of efforts to that end on the part of the IMF and the EU,” said Schuster. He also said that the fight against corruption in Ukraine “was suspended somehow,” which has led to certain consequences, namely 600 million in macroeconomic assistance that has not been disbursed. ● WHAT POPULISTS PLAY ON “Since the end of the Second World War, European countries have built up certain constitutional systems that protect people’s civil rights and freedoms, and today these achievements are threatened by two dangerous trends in Europe: nationalism and populism,” opined Minister of National Defense of the Republic of Poland (2007-11) Bogdan Klich. “Populist movements play on the fears of people, on certain sentiments, using them in their own interests, as tools for their own gain, undermining the constitutional order, and from time to time disrupting the mechanism of checks and balances,” the expert explained, adding that this has created a background on which the social design ideas are infringed, and this is a major threat. Klich cited a study by Freedom House, which evaluates transformation processes in 29 democracies since 1999 and says that 2018 will be the second consecutive year when there will be more new consolidated authoritarian systems than new consolidated democracies, both in Europe and in Eurasia. “Among 28 countries, 18 are experiencing a departure from democratic principles and norms,” he said. In Eurasia, the trend may be characterized by the spread of violent authoritarianism, while in central and eastern Europe, it is rather a new version of a departure from liberalism. At the same time, the illiberal approach, characterized by civic protests, publication of critical articles in the media outside government control, critical comments in social networks, and people’s vulnerability to excessive inspections and checks by government agencies as well as discrimination in employment – all this is also observed in platforms of populist parties, the number of which has almost doubled in Europe since 2000, growing from 33 to 63. Schwarzenberg added that “any populists have to justify their funding, so they look neither to the left nor to the right” and “make their policies attractive to all.”
Page 1 and 2: APRIL 24, 2018 ISSUE No. 26 (1158)
Page 3: WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA DAY AFTER DAY No.26
Page 7 and 8: WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA By Maria PROKOPENKO

26_1-8

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?