PERSPECTIVES: Three elections and the direction of Kyivan Rus' (12/05/04)

PERSPECTIVES

by Andrew Fedynsky

Three elections and the direction of Kyivan Rus'

There's an old French saying, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" - the more things change, the more they stay the same. Cynics looking to validate this world-weary perspective will certainly find it in the stolen election in Ukraine. Actually, though, this is a story of three elections, which will determine the future course of the whole Western world.

The first one was in March in the Russian Federation, where incumbent President Vladimir Putin ran against five little-known candidates. Apparently, unwilling to subject himself to an honest vote of the Russian people, Mr. Putin cleared the ballot of anyone who might have offered serious competition, disqualifying several candidates, even going so far as to arrest potential opponents. None of the candidates, with the exception of Mr. Putin himself, was given access to mass media.

Even then, the campaign and the election were heavily manipulated to insure an overwhelming Putin victory. After the election, Secretary of State Colin Powell delicately observed that the U.S. was "concerned about a level of authoritarianism creeping back into society" and urged Mr. Putin "not to throttle political dialogue and openness in society." Mr. Putin told Secretary Powell to mind his own business: "If we think there is something to think about, we will draw corresponding conclusions." He then went on to close down several independent media outlets and repeal elections for provincial governors. As they have in the past, the Russian people endured with stoic silence, if not apathy, at the erosion of their hard-won freedoms.

Having assumed powers that are more worthy of a tsar or Soviet-style dictator than a democratically elected president, President Putin started paying a lot of attention to Ukraine. Throughout the year, he met with President Leonid Kuchma on a monthly basis. Together they began pursuing a common Ukrainian-Russian economic space. Mr. Putin also promoted dual Ukrainian-Russian citizenship, establishment of a common currency and efforts to legislate Russian as an official state language in Ukraine - all this in the context of Ukraine's fourth presidential campaign since independence.

There the issue was defined by no less an authority than the great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, writing more than a 100 years ago about two versions of Rus': "Kievan Rus', was a part of Europe [with] its roots in universal, or at least in European culture," he wrote. "In this Rus', the ideas of goodness, honor and freedom are understood as in the West. But there is another Rus': the Rus' of the dark forests, the Rus' of the taiga, the animal Russia, the fanatic Russia, the Mongol-Tatar Russia. This last Russia made despotism and fanaticism its ideal; Moscow long remained the negation of Europe."

In the election campaign reform candidate Viktor Yushchenko promised to promote Ukraine's continued development as an independent country that would integrate more closely with Europe. Historians will recognize this as the path Ukraine pursued in the 1920s. That movement, the so-called "Ukrainian Renaissance," was drowned in blood and stifled by famine, on orders from the Kremlin in Moscow, which pursued policies that Tolstoy would have readily identified as "the negation of Europe."

In 1991 more than 90 percent of Ukrainians voted for independence, freeing not only themselves, but also the Russian people from the burden of empire. Finally, it appeared that peace, stability and prosperity would prevail.

But that was before Vladimir Putin. Brazenly campaigning for Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who promised to steer Ukraine more closely toward Russia - the exact opposite of what Mr. Yushchenko promised - Mr. Putin invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign and even barnstormed the country on behalf of "his" candidate, as if Ukraine were just another Russian province.

The disgraceful election outcome, of course, had all the earmarks of a KGB operation. The official U.S. observer, Sen. Richard Lugar, and a joint mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and NATO all observed a systematic abuse of state resources in favor of Russia's candidate, Mr. Yanukovych. Notoriously, the election, in a word, was stolen - "a concerted and forceful program of election-day fraud and abuse," as Sen. Lugar described it.

This year, of course, there was a third election, the one for president of the United States. Some Ukrainian Americans made much of the Senate Famine resolution and the fact that the Bush administration blocked its passage in deference to Russia's sensitivity about the word "genocide" in describing that atrocity. Ukrainians and others were also concerned over what they saw as George W. Bush's overly solicitous attitude toward President Putin. Referring familiarly to the Russian president as "Vladimir," Mr. Bush assured the people at the presidential debates that he would speak forthrightly to the Russian president and steer him toward a democratic course.

Many with bitter memories of Soviet imperialism and an earlier American president who said he could handle "Uncle Joe," saw President Bush's confidence in Mr. Putin as naïve. In view of developments, you can certainly argue that that view has been vindicated. Hopefully the president has learned a lesson and has finally shed whatever illusions he had about the KGB-trained president of the Russian Federation.

In their ordeal this November, the Ukrainian people demonstrated to the world that, regardless of the election debacle, which occurred through no fault of their own, that they are brave and determined and utterly dedicated to democracy. Deprived of a fair election and an honest count of their ballots, they voted with their feet, millions of them filling the squares and boulevards of Ukraine's major cities. What a spectacle to see such an overwhelming number of young people, energized and activated! This is the base from which to begin a new approach to a European policy.

Finally, there's the Ukrainian community in America and elsewhere who rose to the occasion to trumpet support for Ukraine's democracy and independence. Our task is only beginning. We've invested in academic, cultural and political infrastructure. We must redouble our efforts to educate the broader public that ancient Rus' indeed consisted of two distinct cultures - one based in Moscow and the other based in Kyiv. As the events of November demonstrated, Ukraine's destiny lies with Europe, just as Europe's destiny depends on an independent, democratic Ukraine.

Andrew Fedynsky's e-mail address is: [email protected].

| Home Page |