Politics

Like all former Communist countries, Ukraine adopted a democratic form of government. But since almost all of its political leaders were products of the Soviet, totalitarian school of politics, during the first decade of independence the essence of internal politics was the shifting, uneasy confrontation between democratic forms and authoritarian tendencies.

Although the new political elite emerged largely from the old Soviet nomenklatura, it possessed significant differences from its predecessor. By and large, the highest levels of the Communist party leadership were shunted aside. In their place came younger, ambitious, better educated second- or third-rank apparatchiki, frequently with a background in the Komsomol (Communist Youth League). They were joined by a much smaller but significant cohort of national-democrat politicians who rose to prominence during the 1989–91 period. In time, a third element consisting of “businessmen” or so-called oligarchs, many of whom had acquired their money dishonestly, emerged as a major force both in national and regional politics. For oligarchs, the most attractive aspect of election to public office was that it protected them from prosecution for wrongdoing. The relationship between business and politics is close everywhere, but in Ukraine, and other post-Soviet states, business was often associated with criminality. This could not but have a negative effect on the nature of politics.

The values and attitudes of this political elite were another mixture of the old and the new.

Throughout the 1990s the primary issue that confronted the Ukrainian political establishment was the redistribution of power, an especially thorny problem for those raised in the Soviet system of clear-cut political hierarchy. It was reflected, most importantly and dramatically, in the recurrent confrontations between parliament and the president. Initially, parliament assumed that it was the pinnacle of power: it promulgated sovereignty in 1990 and it declared independence in 1991. Parliament also initiated the creation of the major institutions of statehood – including the office of president – and passed the key laws of the land. Because parliament was the bastion, especially after 1994, of Communists and their allies, it appeared well placed to block any reforms that were not to the party’s liking. Indeed, the leftist majority in parliament repeatedly demanded that the government be organized according to the Soviet system of councils, of which parliament was the pinnacle.

Not surprisingly, Ukraine’s two presidents, especially Kuchma, viewed matters differently. Kravchuk attempted to establish his representatives as the highest authorities in the oblasts, but parliament blocked these efforts. When Kuchma was elected, he also tried to consolidate presidential power. On 18 May 1995 he pushed through the Law on Power, which was designed to establish a vertical chain of command with the president over the administration.

In order to avoid a bloody confrontation between president and parliament such as that which occurred in Russia in 1993, on 7 June 1995 the two sides concluded the so-called Constitutional Agreement. Its goal was to establish temporary principles for the division of power that would apply until a new constitution was formulated. Alarmed by the president’s growing power, the Communists and their leftist supporters in parliament continued to block all attempts to prepare a constitution that might enshrine these powers. Matters were complicated even more by the conflict that raged on within parliament between the national-democrats, who supported the president, and the anti-presidential left. As frustrations grew, Kuchma threatened to initiate a referendum that would allow him to disband parliament. Given the public disenchantment with parliamentary bickering, chances were good that the public would support him. This forced the legislators to act: on 28 June 1996, after a dramatic all-night session, they passed the long-debated constitution.

The presidential-parliamentary system of government, which the new constitution established, gave the president the right to form and lead the government without interference by the legislative branch, and it gave parliament the right to pass laws without intrusion of the executive branch. The constitution defined Ukraine as a unitary state, although an exception was made for Crimea, which received autonomous status.

Even with the new constitution, tensions between president and parliament did not subside. Because the Communists, especially after the 1998 parliamentary elections, formed the largest faction – but not a majority – in parliament, they repeatedly blocked the passage of legislation that Kuchma needed. Finally, the denouement came in early 2000. Again using the threat of a referendum, the president prodded the non-leftist majority – ironically referred to as the “Bolsheviks” – to unite and, in another dramatic confrontation, to eject the leftists, including the pro-Communist speaker, Oleks-ander Tkachenko, from their influential positions in parliament. The non-leftist majority, led by the new speaker, Ivan Pliushch, signalled its willingness to engage in constructive cooperation with the greatly strengthened president. It seemed that an important phase in the political wars had come to an end. Political parties

In democratic societies, political parties are the links between society and the state. They educate, activate, and integrate citizens into the political system. Without them, democracy is impossible. A major problem in Ukraine’s political system throughout the 1990s was that political parties were weak and slow to develop. Given the society’s Soviet heritage, this was not surprising. For many, the very word “party” was associated with all the negative features of the oppressive and intrusive Communist party. Even when new parties did emerge, their performance in parliament and elsewhere only disillusioned the general populace. Finally, the importance of parties was undermined by election laws, which initially allowed factories or civil organizations the same right as parties to nominate candidates for office.

When Article 6 of the Soviet Ukrainian constitution, which proclaimed the Communist party’s monopoly on power, was removed in mid-1991, the development of a multiparty system became possible. But the emergence of political parties did not reflect a consolidation of political forces; rather, it was the result of their splintering. The process was most striking within Rukh, the mass movement that at its high point in 1991 had the support of hundreds of thousands. In 1992, Viacheslav Chornovil overcame the bitter opposition of many members of the leadership and led the transformation of Rukh into a political party. But his victory was extremely costly. Masses of members, disillusioned with the infighting and Rukh’s subsequent policies, left not only the party but politics altogether. In 1999, Rukh was further weakened when, after the tragic death of Chornovil, it split into two fiercely antagonistic factions.

Other parties on the right had a membership of only several thousand each. Based mainly in western and central Ukraine, supportive of Ukraine’s integration in Europe, and strongly committed to state- and nation-building, this group of parties, referred to as National Democrats, formed the core of the right wing of the political spectrum. The extreme right, most notably UNA and its militaristic affiliate, UNSO, participated in several highly publicized incidents and frequently issued demagogic statements, but its influence on society was very limited.

The left wing of the political spectrum emerged from the remnants of the Communist party. Several months after the party was banned in August 1991, the Socialist party, led by Oleksander Moroz and consisting of many national communists, was founded to fill the void on the left. Its membership was about 90,000.

In October 1993, the Communist party was resurrected in Donetsk, a city that suffered greatly from the economic decline caused by the disintegration of the USSR. Led by Petro Symonenko, it attracted many disgruntled communists in the largely russified East who were unable to adjust to or profit from the new realities. Consequently, it was militant in its call for the restoration of the Soviet system, including close ties to Russia, the rejection of Ukrainian independence and the introduction of Russian as the second official language. The party’s mission was to block all reforms, especially those that encouraged a market economy. Because the old Communist party in Ukraine had had about 3.5 million members, its successor had a large base of recruits, and soon its membership reached more than 120,000, by far the largest party in Ukraine. Like its Soviet predecessor, the party was noted for its discipline and tight organization. The more the economy declined, the greater the party’s appeal. But it had serious weaknesses: it was backward-looking, dependent on the elderly for support, and lacking an imaginative leadership. Nonetheless, the Communists, benefiting from the protest vote, did well in elections and dominated parliament. They formed the strongest opposition to their erstwhile colleagues who now constituted the Ukrainian political and economic establishment.

The center of the Ukrainian political spectrum was amorphous, splintered, and ill-defined. It consisted of numerous small parties that were formed primarily to serve the interests of the “party of power” – a loose, informal, and fractious grouping of the former Soviet nomenklatura who now held high government positions. Other members of this constituency were business magnates, directors of industrial enterprises, and the regional elites from industrialized centers such as Donetsk, Dniepropetrovsk, and Kharkiv. These parties carried misleadingly democratic and populist names: the Workers Congress was actually a party of businessmen, the Party of Labor consisted mainly of factory directors, the Social Democratic party had hardly any workers in its ranks, the Liberal party represented the interests of the Donetsk political and business elite, while the Hromada party did the same for the rival oligarchic clan from Dniepropetrovsk. The Revival of Regions party was the political vehicle of a group of oligarchs closely linked with the presidential administration. Only the Kharkiv-based Party of Democratic Revival seriously espoused liberal ideas and values. For the most part, these parties were extremely small, rarely possessing more than 1000 members. As groupings of the elite, they were clearly not interested in mass membership. They were, however, extremely influential. This was reflected in the fact that President Kuchma and many of his closest associates came from their ranks.

When elections approached, the centrist parties attempted to form larger blocs. Thus, prior to the 1994 election, they formed the New Ukraine electoral bloc, led by Volodymyr Hryniov. In 1996, a number of centrist parties merged into the People’s Democratic party (NDP). In general, their main interests were highly pragmatic and selective: they concentrated on obtaining government support for their enterprises and maintaining their members on or close to the pinnacles of power. Such emotion-laden issues as relations with Russia, national symbols, or language policy, which greatly agitated the right and left, were of little concern to them.

The existence of numerous parties – by 1999 there were 71 – was not an indication of a fully functional democracy in Ukraine. Not only were most parties small, but they lacked a well-defined social base. Hence, their responsibility to a specific constituency was limited. What factors most influenced one’s choice of a party to support? Usually, region played a crucial role, with westerners favoring parties on the right, easterners those on the left, and central Ukraine wavering between the two. Consequently, almost all parties were regional, not national, in scope. Divorced from society, limited in their activity to parliamentary in-fighting, and focused on narrow partisan and personal interests, political parties were viewed with great skepticism by the general public. A telling indication of their inability to attract popular support was the fact that in a society of 50 million, only about 350,000–400,000 were members of political parties. In a poll taken in 1995, only 31.2% of respondents believed in the necessity of a multiparty system and only 8.8% were willing to grant power to any single party. Nonetheless, elections did demonstrate the need for political parties. And by end of 1990s there were indications that these parties were developing a better sense of what role they should play in society. Elections

In Ukraine, elections were those rare moments when the political elite was forced to pay attention to the general populace. The parliamentary elections in 1994 had two noteworthy features: they were the first since independence, and they were the first to occur on a multiparty basis. In general, these elections were fair and calm, but because they took place amidst a collapsing economy and plummeting living standards, they were highly disappointing to incumbents. First, most incumbents were not re-elected. Second, due to poor voter turnout, only 338 of 450 seats in parliament were filled. Third, political parties in general, hamstrung by an election law that worked to their disadvantage, did very poorly: more than half of the new deputies were independents. Fourth, the left surged back to prominence. Based in the industrialized East and using the economic crisis to their own advantage, the Communists won 20% of the seats. With their Socialist and Peasant party allies, they formed the largest bloc in parliament. However, while numerous enough to block legislation, the left was not strong enough to have its way. Consequently, parliament proved to be incapable of engaging in constructive activity.

Although the center did most poorly in the elections to parliament, it was from its ranks that the two major candidates in the presidential elections of 1994 emerged. The incumbent president and favored candidate, Kravchuk, campaigned on a platform that appealed to some elements in the “party of power” and especially to the nationally conscious population of the western and central regions: he stressed the achievements of independence, the need for state- and nation-building, and an orientation towards Europe. His rival, Kuchma, had the support of the eastern businessmen and enterprise directors, united in the Interregional Bloc for Reforms. A former director of Pivdednmash, the largest missile factory in the world, and a former prime minister, Kuchma was the classic representative of the east Ukrainian, largely russified nomenklatura. His campaign stressed economic issues and the need for closer ties with Russia, Ukraine’s main trading partner. He also promised his primary constituency, the urbanized, industrialized, russified East, that Russian would be introduced as a second official langauge. Even the Communists and their leftist allies, realizing that their candidate, Moroz, was unelectable, threw their support behind Kuchma. In July 1994, the final result of the presidential election was a close and unexpected victory for Kuchma.

The election results dramatically emphasized key features of the Ukrainian political landscape: the most obvious was the great difference between the nationally conscious West and the pragmatic East. But now it was clear that the far more populous East was the decisive element. Nonetheless, those who expected Kuchma to retreat from independence and to lead them back to the stagnant stability of the Soviet days – and there were many, notably the Communists, who did – were soon disillusioned. Within weeks of his election, Kuchma announced a promising program of pro-market reforms and, quickly learning Ukrainian, demonstrated his commitment to independent statehood. Soon, a radical reversal occurred: the president’s strongest supporters could be found in the West and in the national-democratic camp, while his erstwhile allies on the left became his fiercest opponents.

An indication of how Ukraine’s multiparty system was evolving came in the parliamentary election of 1998. In terms of issues, little was new, except that less emphasis was placed on issues of geopolitical orientation and language and even more on the economic crisis. There was, however, a crucial change in the electoral process: parties that received more than 4% of the total vote received a proportionate number of half of the seats in parliament. The other half went to the individuals who received the most votes in an electoral district. Since this raised the importance of political parties, the vast majority of new deputies chose to be affiliated with them.

Another feature of these elections was the participation of a greater number of businessmen and regional elites. The new Hromada party, led by Pavlo Lazarenko and based in Dniepropetrovsk, placed well, as did the Social Democrats, led by Hryhorii Surkis, Viktor Medvedchuk, and former prime minister Ievhen Marchuk. Another surprise was the strong showing of the Green party. This was not due to a rise in environmental concerns but to the backing, for pragmatic reasons, of business circles. In these elections, media exposure and ample funding played a greater role than previously. Nonetheless, it was the two bitter rivals, the Communists and Rukh, that still attracted the greatest numbers of voters: the former garnered about 25% of the vote while the latter attracted about 10%. The results of the vote were indecisive, with the Communists and their allies receiving about 42% and the parties on the right and center getting the rest. However, the better-organized left acquired a dominant position in parliament. Its candidate, Tkachenko, was elected speaker, and it dominated most of the parliamentary committees.

The second presidential elections in independent Ukraine occurred in 1999. Because of his inability to deal with the economic crisis, it appeared that Kuchma’s chances of re-election were extremely limited. Yet, in a scenario very reminiscent of Yeltsin’s recent success in the Russian presidential election, the unpopular incumbent won a relatively easy victory. How was this achieved? Taking advantage of his office to an extreme degree, Kuchma used administrative pressure to hobble his opponents. Moreover, the oligarchs, anxious to maintain the status quo, provided him with unprecedentedly large financial resources. This allowed the president to employ modern western techniques of influencing public opinion. Because he had almost total control of the media, sometimes to the point of censoring or blocking his opponents’ point of view, the president was able to refurbish his initially unappealing image. A coalition of four left-centrist candidates, the so-called Kaniv Four (Marchuk, Moroz, Tkachenko, and Volodymyr Oliynyk) briefly posed a threat. But their inability to cooperate effectively gave the president what he wanted – the lacklustre Communist leader, Symonenko, as his final opponent.

Constantly stressing the theme that his Communist opponent represented the return of the Red Menace, the president’s image-makers presented their candidate as the guarantor of stability and order. Confronted with two unappealing choices, the Ukrainian electorate voted for the status quo: Kuchma was re-elected with 56% to his opponent’s 37% of the vote. As in 1994, western Ukraine gave the incumbent president its complete support, proving the adage that the more populous East elects presidents, but the more nationally minded West supports them. The base of Communist support shifted markedly. It weakened in the East, especially in large cities, but strengthened in the villages of central Ukraine. Thus, the glaring East-West dichotomy of 1994 became somewhat less marked. While the electorate gave the left considerable support, this was more in protest against the dismal state of affairs than an expression of sympathy with Communist ideals. In any case, the voters clearly were not willing to vote the Communists into power. With the left defeated and the right disunited, Kuchma emerged from the election stronger than ever. Recurrent themes

Even though a pro-presidential majority was formed in parliament in January 2000, this was not enough for Kuchma. In a move calculated to assure his dominance over parliament, the president pushed through a referendum in April 2000. Its results supported proposals to create a bicameral parliament and to give the president the right, under certain conditions, to disband the legislature. It also deprived the deputies of their prized immunity from prosecution. The referendum marked a fundamental shift in Ukrainian politics. No longer was the division of power at issue; the president now had most of it, and there were those who feared that the threat of authoritarianism would confront Ukraine in the near future. But because the outcome of the referendum needed a two-thirds majority of parliament to be included in the constitution, many doubted that presidential-parliamentary confrontations were a thing of the past.

Soon after the presidential election, the language issue again came to the fore. Given the dominance of Russian, ukrainophones often complained that they felt like a “psychological minority” in their own country. The new Kuchma administration, which received its strongest support in the Ukrainian-speaking West, took some cautious steps to redress the situation. Support for this tendency came in December 1999, when the Constitutional Court upheld the article stipulating the Ukrainian should be the single official language – to the great dismay of the Russian government, which protested that this could lead to discrimination against russophones in Ukraine. There were ominous rumblings of discontent in Luhansk and especially Crimea. Nonetheless, supporters of Ukrainian were given positions of influence in the government, and it appeared that another attempt at Ukrainization would be made. However, even its staunchest supporters realized that in this complex, lengthy endeavor, success could not be guaranteed.