Domestic Politics

The Kuchma Years The political order that existed in Ukraine during Leonid Kuchma’s second term in office was characterized by ambiguity, a feature present in much of Ukrainian behaviour in the post-1991 period.

As in other post-Soviet countries (except for the Baltic republics) and unlike most East European states, it appeared that regressive, undemocratic tendencies were paramount. Kuchma’s presidential powers were extensive: except for choosing the prime minister, for which he needed the approval of parliament, the president could appoint and dismiss all other ministers; he appointed all governors, he had the right to dissolve parliament, and there were few checks on his control of the government bureaucracy. On the local level there was hardly any sign of opposition. And most parties in parliament were controlled by oligarchs who were eager to reach an understanding with the president. Moreover, the Communist Party, greatly weakened in the 1999 election, was also willing to cooperate with the president. Kuchma seemed to be all-powerful. Little wonder that the vast majority of Ukrainians did not consider their country to be a democracy.

As if to emphasize this point, 2001 began with depressing developments for the reform-minded.

The parliamentary elections on 31 March 2002 were, however, a setback for the president. Despite threats and pressures exerted by the pro-Kuchma forces, the turnout, almost 70%, was very large. The opposition did quite well. Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party won 112 parliamentary seats. His ally, Tymoshenko, also did well. Although not enough to control parliament, these results indicated that the opposition was vibrant and determined. Clearly, Kuchma and his supporters had badly underestimated the impact of freedom of association, right to demonstrate, growing civic organizations, and close monitoring of elections. However, the president was not ready to retreat. In June he appointed the tough and unscrupulous Viktor Medved-chuk to head the presidential secretariat.

Soon after, temnyki (secret instructions) issued by the presidential secretariat began to muzzle the media. A concerted if not entirely successful effort was made to buy over parliamentary deputies to the pro-president camp. Moreover, government tax officials began to harass opposition businessmen. Even the huge demonstrations, the largest since 1991, numbering about 50,000 protestors, that were staged in Kiev in September failed to deter Kuchma.

Much of 2003 was spent in preparing for the presidential elections the following year. Despite indications that he might run again – the Constitutional Court allowed him an unconstitutional third term – Kuchma decided to retire in 2004. Consequently, his major concern was to find a reliable successor. Three oligarchic clans – the Kiev group led by Viktor Medvedchuk and Hryhorii Surkis, the Dniepropetrovsk group of Viktor Pinchuk, and the powerful Donetsk clan headed by Viktor Yanukovych – competed in proposing candidates for the position. After much hesitation, Kuchma decided to back the candidacy of Yanukovych, who had strong backing in eastern Ukraine. Never one to leave matters to chance, Kuchma also wanted to weaken the next president by strengthening parliament, in case his choice for the post did not win. Such changes, and the likelihood of a fragmented parliament, would assure hard-line influence and limit the new president’s ability to prosecute Kuchma for his alleged crimes and misdemeanours. Hence Kuchma’s desire to alter the constitution, transforming Ukraine into a system in which parliament became more powerful and the president correspondently weaker. To secure Moscow’s supports for his plans, Kuchma brought Ukraine into the EEC in early 2003 and made generous concessions to Russian businessmen investing in Ukraine.

Clearly being groomed to become the next president, Yanukovych replaced Anatoliy Kinakh as prime minister in December 2003. As numerous members of the Donetsk clan moved to Kiev and began occupying key government posts, it seemed that the country was preparing for the reign of the retrograde Easterners. In March 2004 constraints were imposed on Radio Liberty broadcasts in the country. And in August Yanukovych proposed removing Ukrainian troops from Iraq. Meanwhile, Kuchma continued dispensing favours. In June his son-in-law, Viktor Pinchuk, purchased the huge Krivori zhstal steel plant for an absurdly low price. Perhaps more disturbing was a mayoral election in Mukachevo, in Transcarpathia, an oblast controlled by the Medvedchuk clan. In a highly controversial election, the pro-government candidate, with help from Kuchma himself, claimed victory. It appeared to be a promising test case for something much more important – the presidential election of 2004.

On 31 October 2004 the presidential elections began. They were preceded by another highly disturbing event: it was revealed that, after having supper with government officials, the opposition candidate, Yushchenko, had been, as it became evident later, administered dioxin poison. The poison did not kill him and he continued campaigning. However, the election itself, accompanied by numerous cases of government intimidation and interference was, according to Western observers, patently unfair. Even so it did not bring Yanukovych a victory: the results were about 40% each for both Yanukovych and Yushchenko. Since neither won a majority, a run-off election was called for 21 November. The Orange Revolution

In the final months of 2008 vast numbers of Ukrainians participated in a series of dramatic events that were unexpected, inspiring, and bore great promise.

The tensions that were building between Yanukovych, who was backed by Kuchma, and Yushchenko and his national-democratic supporters, came to a head when the run-off election between the two rivals took place. Official results showed that Yanukovych had won by 3%. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who, together with the many Russian political specialists who worked for the Yanukovych campaign, hurriedly recognized him as the new president of Ukraine. However, exit polls carried out expressly to prevent tampering with election results showed that actually Yushchenko enjoyed an 11% lead. Additional evidence poured in indicating that the election results had been manipulated. It was a crucial moment. The Kuchma-Yanukovych camp had assumed that it could have its way with the election but it miscalculated. Massive protests against the falsified election results began on 22 November. A day later, about 500,000 demonstrators, determined but peaceful, marched on parliament, wearing orange ribbons or carrying orange flags, the colour of the Yushchenko campaign.

Lviv and several others cities refused to recognize the election results. An even more serious confrontation with the government occurred shortly thereafter. To emphasize his rejection of the election results, Yushchenko appeared in parliament, which was half empty because Yanukovych’s supporters had abandoned it, and he took a symbolic presidential oath of office. Although it was not legally binding, the taking of the oath demonstrated that Yushchenko and his growing number of supporters were clearly moving from massive protests to open confrontation with their opponents.

In southern and eastern Ukraine, and especially in his home base of Donetsk, Yanukovych’s many supporters held firm. Local officials mounted several large demonstrations backing his election as president. Moreover, at the Severodonetsk conference, there were frequent threats to subdivide Ukraine into a federation – an option that was not sanctioned by the constitution – or even to break off and form a separate state. An effort was also made to bring large numbers of miners from the Donbas to Kiev. However, outnumbered by the masses of Yushchenko supporters, the miners had little impact in the capital. Nonetheless, on 24 November the Central Election Commission, itself implicated in the falsification of election results, declared that Yanukovych was officially recognized as the victor of the election.

This decision only deepened the crisis. Despite freezing weather, pro-Yush-chenko demonstrations continued, sometimes bringing close to a million people into the streets of Kiev. Supporters, especially numerous from western and central regions, poured into the city. An extraordinary atmosphere reigned in the capital. Constant streams of newcomers were housed in public buildings and in private homes, fed in hastily established public kitchens or by generous, supportive Kievans, and, most impressive, they remained calm, polite, considerate, but clearly determined to attain their goal – a fair election. About 10,000 protestors, mostly young people from all over Ukraine, established a tent city on the Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) and main avenue, Khreshchatyk, indicating their determination to protest as long as necessary. Numerous members of the emerging middle class, concentrated in the capital, came out to protest. The sight of vast crowds of people demanding, in a civilized but committed fashion, their rights as citizens sparked the imagination of many. Among many Ukrainians political activism replaced the traditional passivity. Patriotism – many first learned the national anthem during these heady days – replaced the usual cynicism. Determined to force the government to concede, vast numbers in the central and western parts of the country joined in demonstrations, strikes, and sit-ins in their cities and towns. In order to prevent an illegitimate government from taking power, Yushchenko formed the Committee of National Salvation and declared a nationwide political strike. Clearly, an unprecedented and imposing display of “people power” was taking place in Ukraine.

Political developments reflected the extraordinary events. On 1 December the parliament strongly criticized the unconstitutional federalist and separatist threats of the Yanukovych supporters who had gathered in Severodonetsk. More importantly, it passed a vote of no-confidence in the government of Prime Minister Yanukovych. This was the equivalent of demanding its resignation. However, because the parliament had no means to enforce its decisions, Yanukovych and Kuchma ignored them. A decisive break in the political logjam occurred on 3 December. That day the Supreme Court, functioning under extreme pressure, announced that the recent election could not be recognized because of widespread fraud. Therefore, another run-off election between Yanukovych and Yushchenko was to be held on 26 December. A few days later parliament passed the necessary laws required to hold a new election.

The opposing sides, meanwhile, negotiated. Yushchenko, Yanukovych, and Kuchma – joined by President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland, President Valdas Adamkus of Lithuania, Javier Solana of the European Union, and Boris Gryzlov of Russia who served as mediators – spent long, tense hours in round-table bargaining. Finally, a compromise was reached: with great reluctance Yanukovych and Kuchma agreed to a new election. In return, at the insistence of Kuchma, who feared a strong president might wreak vengeance on his opponents, Yushchenko agreed to important changes in the constitution that weakened the powers of the new president. The stage was set for a new election.

The Ukrainian crisis had by now attracted widespread international attention. More than 12,500 observers from all over the world volunteered to go to Ukraine to ensure that the election was, indeed, fair. Canada alone dispatched 500 official observers, the largest group of election observers it had ever sent anywhere. With the whole world watching, the election, except for relatively minor problems, took place in a calm and orderly fashion. Yushchenko won 51.99% of the vote, and Yanukovych 44.20%. Although Ya-nukovych protested the results, his complaints were rejected by the Supreme Court as being without merit. On 10 January 2005, the reconstituted Election Commission declared Yushchenko the winner of the election and the next president of Ukraine. He took his official oath of office in parliament on 23 January. That same day a “public inauguration,” witnessed by foreign dignitaries and hundreds of thousands of exuberant Ukrainians was held in the Maidan Nezalezhnosti. Despite fears of violence and civil strife, the Orange Revolution came to a peaceful conclusion.

What led to the Orange Revolution? The growing unpopularity of the corrupt Kuchma government was certainly a major factor. Moreover, the pluralism of the Ukrainian political system, which allowed opposition parties to exist and mobilize their supporters, helped to explain the confrontation. There was, furthermore, a significant number of oligarchs who supported Yushchenko, an indication that a split had occurred in the ruling elite between those who favoured Kuchma’s repressive regime and those who demanded change and modernization. A relatively free media, parts of which reported openly on events and presented evidence of electoral fraud, also played an important role. But perhaps most decisive was the widespread feeling that citizens of Ukraine had civic rights, including the right to fair elections, and no government could deprive them of this. The confidence of the average Ukrainian had grown markedly, as evident in one of the protestors’ favourite chants: “Together we are many; we cannot be defeated.”

It was not long before other, less well-known aspects of the Orange Revolution emerged. Ukrainians learned that they had come very close to the violence and bloodshed that many feared. Stationed just outside Kiev, about 10,000 troops received government orders to move against the demonstrators. However, the timely intervention of Ukrainian intelligence services, unwilling to do Kuchma’s bidding, halted the deployment and prevented a bloodbath. It became known that the England-based Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky provided significant financial support to the protesters in order to foil the plans of his nemesis, President Putin. It was also revealed that some of the protesters, especially members of the youth organization Pora, which played a prominent role in the demonstrations, had received financial support and training from Western, primarily American, agencies. And lessons learned in the removal of Slobodan Milosevich in Serbia and in the Rose Revolution in Georgia were applied most effectively in Ukraine. This gave the Ukrainian events a geopolitical dimension, one that pitted Russia, anxious to preserve its sphere of influence, and the United States, eager to expand its reach into Eastern Europe, against each other. For Russia and especially Putin, the Orange Revolution represented a resounding defeat. Not only was it a point where Ukraine and Russia seemed to embark on different paths of development but it engendered in the Kremlin the fear that it too might have to face a similar demonstration of people power. From an international point of view, Ukrainian events were not only dramatic but pivotal. They meant that Ukraine finally broke out of the isolation and disinterest that had long enveloped it. The Yushchenko years

When he became president, Yushchenko had enormous political capital. In Ukraine millions stood ready to support him; abroad there were widespread declarations of admiration and willingness to help. All were waiting for the new, democratically elected government to initiate a period of fundamental, constructive reforms that would turn Ukraine into a successful democracy or, at least, place it firmly on the path to becoming one. What followed, unfortunately, was disappointment and disillusionment. Except for some initial and minor changes, no major reforms were implemented. Promises to punish those implicated in fraud were forgotten. After a brief downturn, corruption continued unabated. And the political forces that united to fight for a fair election soon turned on each other. Political crisis, petty politics, personal conflicts, and lack of progress became the hallmarks of the post-Orange Revolution period. A most promising opportunity to make Ukraine a better place in which to live faded away.

There were, no doubt, serious obstacles, both old and new, to progress. The constitutional changes weakening the presidency, which Yushchenko accepted in December 2004, proved to be debilitating. Ambiguous and poorly formulated, they created dual authority where the prerogatives of the president and the prime minister were contradictory and invited confrontation. To make matters worse, the personal rivalries between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko, never far below the surface, came to the fore. Looking ahead to the presidential election of 2010, Yushchenko hoped to be re-elected. Meanwhile, the ambitious Tymoshenko clearly wanted to be the next president. This confrontation lay behind much of the political infighting that characterized the post-2004 period. Despite his defeat, Yanukovych, with numerous supporters in the east and south, was allowed to re-emerge as an important political force. This only emphasized the continuing differences between East and West in Ukraine. Oligarchs backing one party or another were able to retain their influence by continuing to use state institutions and policies to protect their own business interests. Perhaps most damaging was the fact that the new government did not seem to have a concrete program or goal of what it wanted to achieve.

From the outset, the new Orange government, led by Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, encountered problems. In an effort to enlarge her already large base of support, Tymoshenko adopted populist, if economically questionable, measures. She raised salaries, pensions, and student stipends. Moreover, she tried to impose government controls on prices rather than allow market mechanisms to function. Businessmen, expecting greater liberalism, were shocked, and economic development slowed. Efforts, albeit limited in scope, were made to punish some of the corrupt government officials and election committee chairmen involved in election fraud. Expecting the worst, one of Kuchma’s ministers, Heorhiy Kirpa, committed suicide. A substantial number of government officials associated with the Kuchma regime were fired. But punishment of the guilty, so often promised in December 2004, did not go further. The worst offenders, such as Medvedchuk, Kuchma’s right-hand man suspected of engineering the election fraud, were never brought to trial. Moreover, it became known that corrupt oligarchs had found their way into the new government and the president’s office.

There were, however, some positive developments. The government did become more transparent in formulating its policies, the media enjoyed greater freedom, and non-governmental organizations continued to be active. The absurdly low-priced purchase of the Kryvorizhstal steel plant by Pinchuk was reversed. Soon after, the plant was sold to an international firm, Mittal Steel, for a respectable $4.8 billion. In April 2005, Deputy Prime Minister Roman Bezsmertny proposed a reform of local government that called for greater decentralization. However, his ambitious and much-needed plan was not implemented. In general, the first period of Orange rule presented a mixed and rather uninspiring picture. Meanwhile, infighting in the Cabinet of ministers reached the point where, on 8 September, Yushchenko decided to fire the entire government. Shortly thereafter, he appointed Yuriy Yekhanurov, a loyal and experienced supporter, to be the new prime minister and to form a new government. Thus, after only seven months in office, among mutual recriminations and ill feeling, the unity of the Orange coalition fell apart.

Hardly had the new prime minister settled in office when a new crisis arose. A bitter confrontation between Ukraine and Russia developed over the price of natural gas. On 2 January 2006, in order to pressure Ukraine, Moscow cut off its supply of gas. The Ukrainians, in turn, shut off the pipes that carried this gas to Western Europe. An international uproar resulted. The next day a compromise price was agreed upon and, for a while, the issue of Ukraine’s energy costs was resolved. Nonetheless, the incident emphasized once more how dependent Ukraine was on Russian energy supplies.

On 26 March 2006 there was another election to parliament. Yanukovych and his Party of Regions and their allies received 40% of the vote, while parties that belonged to Orange coalition, led by Tymoshenko’s BYuT (Fatherland) party, garnered 46%. But after the election, a nasty surprise awaited the Orange forces. Oleksandr Moroz and his Socialist Party, major members of the Orange coalition that defeated Yanukovych in December 2004, changed sides and joined Yanukovych to form, together with the Party of Regions and the Communists, a Coalition of National Unity. On 2 August, after four months of haggling and behind-the-scenes deal making, to the great surprise of many, Yushchenko appointed his recent and bitter opponent as the new prime minister. Many found it difficult to understand how the president, despite his assurances that he hoped thereby to bring East and West Ukraine together, could raise his erstwhile rival from relative political obscurity and make him the head of a new government.

Hopes that the two former opponents could work together were quickly dispelled. Once again the problem of dual authority and confrontations over who had authority to do what emerged. The emboldened Yanukovych clearly sought to emasculate the president. He challenged him on such issues as control of security troops and, in December, forced the resignation of presidential appointees in Cabinet such as Minister of Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasyuk and Minister of Interior Yuri Lutsenko. Seeing his authority deteriorating, Yushchenko implemented his usual option: on 3 April 2007 he dissolved parliament and ordered a new election. This concentration on political infighting and failure to address larger issues clearly tested the patience of Ukraine’s voters. Nonetheless, about 63% of them came to vote again in the parliamentary election of 30 September 2007. The 3,354 foreign observers declared the election was, by and large, fair. At least holding a fair election was a skill that the Ukrainian government, in contrast to most post-Soviet states, had mastered.

In the election, Yanukovych’s Party of Regions won 34.5% of the vote, Tymoshenko’s BYuT (Fatherland) 30.7%, and the pro-Yushchenko Our Ukraine-People Self Defence 14.1%. In addition, the Communists received 5.3% and the Lytvyn Bloc 3.9%. There was a clear loser: Moroz and his Socialist Party. Denounced for his political reversal about a year earlier, he and his party failed to attract enough votes to enter parliament. It was equally clear who the winner of the election was: Yulia Tymoshenko. Her BYuT party, together with other parties in the renewed Orange coalition, obtained a paper-thin majority in parliament of 228 deputies. As leader of the majority coalition, she once again became the prime minister of Ukraine.

The Tymoshenko government worked in an atmosphere of constant political crisis. Parliament was so evenly divided that it was practically ineffectual. Meanwhile, the president, hoping to diminish the popularity of Tymoshenko, the leading candidate in upcoming presidential elections in 2010, repeatedly criticized her. The result was debilitating for both. Tymoshenko’s popularity did decline. However, Yushchenko’s popularity suffered more, dropping to less than 10%. Once more the faith of Ukrainians in their leaders – indeed, in all politicians – dissipated. The government was unable to control widespread corruption. Oligarchs continued to exert influence in parliament, government, and the political parties. Most worrisome was the government’s inability to control rampant inflation, which, in 2008, reached more than 20%. The familiar perception that Ukrainian politicians always placed their own interests above those of the nation again became widespread. Many became so disillusioned that they even did not want to be reminded of the high hopes they had nurtured during the days of the Orange Revolution.

During three years, from 2005 to 2008, Ukraine had four different governments. These short-lived administrations were interested primarily in their own survival. And this meant that they had neither the time nor the will to address major issues, especially the pressing need for fundamental reforms. Moreover, the competing, divergent, and self-centred policies of Yushchenko, Tymoshenko, and Yanukovych, and other leading politicians, added greatly to the instability. As 2008 drew to a close, there was more of the same: the Orange Coalition in parliament broke apart; on October 8 Yushchenko dissolved parliament and called for new elections (only to back away from these moves soon afterward); Arsenii Yatseniuk, a Yushchenko loyalist and speaker of parliament lost his position. Without a speaker, fractured and unable to pass any laws, parliament practically ceased to function for several months. Meanwhile, Tymoshenko commenced talks with all sides of the political spectrum about forming a new ruling coalition. Finally, in December, a new coalition of BYuT, Our Ukraine, and the Lytvyn Bloc was cobbled together. Lytvyn, who had served previously as speaker, was elected to the post again. Tymoshenko attained what she wanted most: she remained prime minister. Reminiscent of soap operas, the chaotic politics appeared to be setting the stage for the next episode.

Viewed from a broader perspective, however, the depressing political scene could not obscure the major changes that had occurred. A hundred years earlier there were many doubts about the existence of a Ukrainian nation. Twenty years earlier, the country was an isolated, little-known component of the Soviet empire. Despite the political convulsions, in the early years of the new millennium Ukraine made significant progress towards democracy. Its institutions became more similar to those in other states, its leaders were internationally recognized, and its geopolitical importance was widely acknowledged. The disruptive confrontations and the immaturity of its elite notwithstanding, Ukrainian politics were being played more and more according to generally accepted rules.