ROUGH DRAFT: On the campaign trail (10/10/99)

ROUGH DRAFT

by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau

On the campaign trail

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this presidential campaign season is how President Leonid Kuchma, whose domestic policies have been assailed by what seems like every sector of society - Communists, national democrats, villagers, coal miners, businessmen - retains the lead or is near the top in most pre-election voter polls.

People blame him for the rampant cronyism and corruption that has engulfed Ukraine and for inconsistent and haphazard economic reform efforts. If Ukraine had an orthodox democratic electorate uninhibited by seven decades of totalitarian rule, voter backlash could be expected to put a quick end to Mr. Kuchma's political career.

But this is Ukraine, politically unpredictable and unconventional, and the trend suggests that a sufficient number of voters will support the incumbent president to get him to a run-off, currently scheduled for November 14. It is highly probable that the the man who has not been able to move Ukraine out of its deep economic rut will get another five years to try to shape the machinery of state into a Western model.

Mr. Kuchma's campaign team has mounted an aggressive attack against the leftist candidates, who the president openly admits are his main opponents, primarily because the segment of the electorate most disenchanted with the current head of state consists of pensioners with miserly incomes and fond, albeit distorted, memories of the glorious Soviet past. Most importantly, they will definitely vote in October.

Simultaneously, the president can afford to ignore his right flank because his campaign team is fully aware that the national democratic forces are politically divided and disorganized, offering little threat.

He rules the roost on the air waves, where images of the president as a thoughtful, enlightened and concerned leader abound - and not just on the government-controlled UT-1 channel. His campaign team keeps tight reign over what is broadcast by ownership or intimidation of the major channels.

Ironically, one positive result is that several television channels lately have aired documentaries shedding more light on Ukraine's tragic Soviet past. The Stalin-dictated purges of Ukraine's intelligentsia and the mass graves outside Kyiv in the Bykivnia forest, the 1932-1933 Great Famine, and the NKVD-ordered executions in Lviv after World War II have all been the subjects of recent television broadcasts.

Of course, the political reason for this is obvious: to portray the Communists as bad people and the president as the only leader capable of preventing a possible red "revanche" should a leftist come to power. Unfortunately, this tactic reeks of political opportunism and detracts from the seriousness of the subject matter.

Yet, the general feeling one gets when talking to residents of Kyiv, Lviv or even Crimea who express an inclination to support the president is that he is the best hope for Ukraine if only because by now he should have the experience and the expertise to lead properly.

The president himself has bolstered that thinking to an extent, most recently when he admitted that it took him three years to fully understand his job and the role of the presidency.

People will tell you they believe the president will want to leave a positive historical legacy of the Kuchma years, which means that the economy must begin to grow and jobs must be found for the populace.

Another often-heard remark is that things have already hit bottom with this administration and inevitably the situation will begin to right itself, if only a bit. With a new administration everything would begin from ground zero, again, including the placement of an entirely new government and administration, whose members will want to enrich themselves before enriching the country.

The attitude reflects the cautiousness and conservatism of the electorate - once bitten twice shy, as the saying goes - but also of a deeper fear that the more things change the worse they become.

Again, this is explained in part by the terror instilled in the people during the Soviet era. It also reflects what one person from Lviv told this writer was a national desire for some consistency and stability. As he explained, Ukraine's history is one of an ever-changing tide of rulers and political systems. The nation is simply tired of political experiments. That certainly is food for thought, especially given that in the 20th century this country has experienced all the major political "-isms" that abound - monarchism, communism, fascism and now capitalism and democratic liberalism - and all in their most virulent forms.

Unfortunately, now, when the nation finally has attained at least a smidgen of control over its fate and destiny, is not the time to rest.

Despite numerous candidates, the electorate does not have much of a choice in the upcoming elections. That is indisputable. Mr. Kuchma's record does not instill great optimism. However, the strongest challengers, Communist Petro Symonenko, Progressive Socialist Natalia Vitrenko or Socialist Oleksander Moroz and Verkhovna Rada Chairman Oleksander Tkachenko of the Peasants Party are not viable candidates for a nation bent on democracy. They all have expressed an inclination to return at least partially to a system that is morally and ideologically bankrupt and could return Ukraine to its enslaved past. However, they have either the money, the organization or both to sustain their candidacies, and an electorate sufficiently disenchanted with the present to reconsider the past.

However, the leftists are having a hard time finding unity. The Kaniv Four coalition - Messrs. Moroz and Tkachenko along with Yevhen Marchuk and Volodymyr Oliinyk - is built on individual self-interest and may soon crumble, according to Mr. Marchuk. Ms. Vitrenko also has proclaimed that the only viable candidacy is her own, as has Mr. Symonenko. Whether they can coalesce around a leftist candidate in the second round, if there should be one, is far from certain.

On the national-democratic side, unfortunately, the splintered forces simply don't have a chance because they have discredited themselves by their own infighting. A united Rukh Party could have played a power broker's role at a minimum - even if its chances to win the presidency had remained almost nil. Now those voters who might have supported a Rukh candidate are making the least offensive choice. And that is another reason Mr. Kuchma should be able to prolong his presidency for another five years.

| Home Page |