COMMENTARY: Ukraine's election is pivotal (10/10/04)

COMMENTARY: Ukraine's election is pivotal

by Michael McFaul and John Didiuk

One of the decade's biggest events in Europe is happening at the end of October - the Ukrainian presidential election. The process by which the next leader of Ukraine is decided will determine that country's future orientation for years to come.

If the current government in Ukraine allows for relatively free and fair elections as the process for selecting the president, then Ukraine will be able to maintain the prospect of consolidating democracy and integrating fully into European institutions. If, however, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma does not allow the people to decide who will replace him, and instead wields the power of the state to undermine the democratic process, then Ukraine will have little chance to consolidate democracy, and no chance of further integrating into Europe. Instead of becoming the next Poland, that is a rising power in the heart of Europe, Ukraine will become yet another post-Soviet autocracy, following Russian dictates with no chance at all of joining the Western community of democratic states.

Tragically, Mr. Kuchma, his aides and his candidate in this pivotal election, Viktor Yanukovych, do not understand the stakes in this vote. Earlier in the decade, President Kuchma was a pariah in the West, and for good reason. The evidence now appears overwhelming that he played a role in the murder of journalist Heorhii Gongadze. It was also clear that Mr. Kuchma deliberately deceived the United States about his role in the sale of the Kolchuha passive radar systems to Saddam Hussein through a Jordanian intermediary. During the first years of the Bush administration, U.S. officials placed the Gongadze and Kolchuha affairs at the top of the list of priorities in U.S.-Ukrainian relations.

The war in Iraq, however, offered President Kuchma the opportunity to alter the list. By sending troops to Iraq, Mr. Kuchma became a U.S. ally in the global war on terrorism. President Kuchma apparently believes that the 1,650 soldiers he sent to Iraq was the small price he had to pay for President Bush to forget about Gongadze and the Kolchuha, and at the same time give him a free pass to do whatever it takes to insure that Mr. Yanukovych becomes his successor. He has calculated that Mr. Bush will give him the same leeway that the American president has given Vladimir Putin as the Russian president rolls back democratic practices.

So far, Mr. Kuchma's calculations seem accurate.

The leading challenger to Mr. Yanokuvych, Viktor Yushchenko, survived a suspected poisoning in September, but the event elicited little reaction from the Bush administration. The Committee of Voters of Ukraine, a non-partisan election monitoring organization, has reported that the Ukrainian state is stacking the electoral commissions with Yanukovych loyalists to make easier the possibility of falsifying the election, but so far no response from the White House. Ukraine's national media is completely dominated by Mr. Kuchma, making a free and fair election near impossible. Government pressure has also been brought to bear on the independent media, including the programs of the U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty which were abruptly cancelled last February. American indifference thus far to these anti-democratic developments suggests that President Bush may not grasp the path-dependent consequences of this Ukrainian election. A democratic vote at the end of the month might literally be the kind of breakthrough event that pushes Ukraine down the path of democracy for good. An undemocratic vote could have the exact opposite effect, ensuring autocratic rule in Ukraine for decades.

Yet, Western leaders are treating this election as just another vote in a transition society. President Bush himself has said nothing about Ukraine. His closest advisor for this region of the world, National Security Advisory Condoleezza Rice, also has remained silent on the issue. Dr. Rice's silence is especially troubling since she was the Bush official who so rightly delivered a strong message to Mr. Kuchma in the summer of 2001 (before September 11) about the perils of lying and undermining democracy. Mid-level Bush administration officials have met with their counterparts in the Ukrainian government and stressed the importance of free and fair elections. But that's it. There have been no explicit statements about the consequences of a falsified election.

President Bush could correct this dangerous situation in 15 minutes. He could make a brief statement at the White House expressing the importance of free and fair elections in Ukraine and the consequences of a stolen vote. At this stage, Mr. Bush's remarks are unlikely to change the behavior of either Mr. Kuchma or Mr. Yanukovych. But a bold statement may change the calculus of others now helping the Yanukovych cause. And, most importantly, a clear message from White House will help inspire the people of Ukraine to demand a free election. And if the election is not free and fair, then the Ukrainian people need to know that the United States will stand with them if they mobilize to reverse a tainted vote.

At this pivotal moment in European history, President Bush must make clear whose side he is on.

Michael McFaul is the Helen and Peter Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and associate professor of political science at Stanford University. He is a non-resident senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

John Didiuk worked at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv in 1997-1999 and served as an international observer in the last Ukrainian presidential election. He is currently a law student in Boston.

| Home Page |