Bad Week for Ukraine

January 19, 2010 in Current Events, international relations | Comments (0)

Tags:

Ukraine has just completed the first round of voting in a historic election for President. The old conservative Soviet era clique is back, after seeming to have been rejected by the people in the previous 2004 election. The people back then took to the streets in peaceful protest against a corrupt and authoritarian President – sadly the very one who has come out in front in this election – and forced a new election in which he was trounced.

What a difference a few years can make. Five years ago, Ukraine was alive with the promise of this Orange Revolution, which saw the democratic overthrow of the old, corrupt, Russian aligned Party of the Regions headed by the despotic Vicktor Yanukovych. Young people gained prominence as activists and democrats became the toast of the media. One of the highest profile supporters of his Orange Revolution was George Soros, who previously played a large role in the success of the pro-democracy movement in Poland with considerable success. He reached out to and provided support for the people who yearned for change.

After weeks of protests, Orange revolution leader Vicktor Yushchenko handily beat Yanukovych in the heavily monitored second election after the first was struck down by the courts because of widespread corrupt voting practices. The latter in his previous term as President was widely despised for his close ties with rich oligarchs who had become wealthy through the hand over of state assets to them and their cronies. Most of these oligarchs come from the eastern regions of the country in which people of Russian descent make up the majority. Their control over the Government of Ukraine was sustained through a system of intimidation, government favours and state power over institutions that owed much to the tactics of the Soviet system that prevailed prior to 1989.

While Yushchenko’s 2004 win was seen in the West as a victory by democratic forces. That view was not shared in Russia. There it was seen as part of a western effort to extend the zone of western influence into the previous zone of influence and over previous allies of Moscow.

Yushchenko failed to live up to the promise that people believed he offered five years ago. The majority of citizens of the Ukraine, particularly in the western parts of the country dominated by ethnic Ukranians, believed that he would break the old reliance on Russia, the tight association with the Russian speaking oligarchs, and the corruption of elections to thwart the expression of the people’s will. All of these were part of the promise of the historic 2004 elections. Instead, his presidency was marked by a worsening of economic conditions, continued corruption, stand offs with Russia over gas supplies and trade, and a failure to achieve unity with the European Community and NATO.

Sadly, the simple fact is that Yushchenko governed badly. He lost the support of the people. He fought with this key potential allies, including Yulia Tymoshenko.

This election, Yanukovych received over 35 per cent, current Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko 25 per cent, and Yushchenko a mere 5 per cent in Mondays’s election. The main factors were Yushchenko’s inability to sustain a coalition with Tymoshenko, the third dominate Ukraine personality of this decade and the charismatic leader of a faction that has managed to be agile enough to avoid entrapment by either of the other parties, his constant conflicts with Russia that appear to always leave Ukraine the loser, and his own abrasive personality.

Tymoshenko took most of the votes of the supporters of the Orange Revolution. She has given the appearance of favouring many of the democratic instincts of Yushchenko while avoiding the appearance of opposition to Russian influence. Today, while having many policy and personal conflicts, Tymoshenko and Yanukovych share similar positions on relations with Russia. Both argue that Ukraine can’t get along without good relations with Russian and blame Yushchenko for undermining Ukraine’s prospects by constant conflicts with Russia. Yanukovych promises that Ukraine’s will not pursue a NATO bid and will make Russian a second official language alongside Ukrainian. With great fanfare and much popular support, Tymoshenko made a deal last year with Russia to accept the shipment of Russian gas through Ukraine for European markets, something Yushchenko was never able to do.

The big loser is the Ukraine people. Democracy has a lot of respect after the failures of the last five years, and the resistance to corruption and autocratic government is much weakened as a political force. The young, so motivated the last time, are disillusioned and feel disenfranchised. The west has also been rebuked.

Regardless of who of the leading candidates from this round win the next round, Ukraine will once again be a Russian satellite, heavily influenced by Russian approaches to policy and interests. None of that is good. Part of the blame lies with the West which failed to pay nearly enough attention to Ukraine after the 2004 election. The US in particular became obsessed with Iraq, with unfortunate results for Ukraine.

The promise of the Orange Revolution can never be restored. That is a shame. The question now is whether Ukraine will ever find the democratic, western, progressive politics of Poland and other former Soviet nations.

Comments (0)

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment