Most of us would prefer if Ukraine avoided another constitutional crisis this year, since it would only detract from the implementation of the ambitious economic and administrative reforms President Leonid Kuchma has said are not working.
Of course, those who organized people to vote early and vote ‘yes’ in last week’s referendum ought to be congratulated. As soon as the tally was made public, Kuchma even said so.
Beaming profound thanks to the millions of voters who had approved his proposals to change how the country should be governed, Kuchma said those who had not supported his experiment in direct democracy were unpatriotic.
He advised them to rethink their politics. "I cannot help feeling satisfied today, because there were a lot of insinuations around the referendum. Those insinuations were initiated by Ukrainians, if they deserve the name, as they acted not in the interests of Ukraine but against this country," he said.
One of the critics Kuchma had in mind was the leader of the Socialist Party and its faction in parliament, Oleksandr Moroz. For months, he has doggedly accused authorities of inspiring the civic initiative behind the referendum in order to avoid assuming liability for the mistakes Kuchma should be held accountable for.
"There should be no one left who needs to be persuaded that any farce at all can be perpetrated in Ukraine," Moroz declared. He predicted that the results of Kuchma’s experiment in direct democracy would likely be used as a basis for "speculation by the true initiators of the referendum – the Ukrainian president and his entourage."
Indeed, lawmakers spanning Ukraine’s political spectrum have explained in excruciating detail to anyone willing to listen that the referendum was merely a campaign orchestrated by a clique of oligarchs set up under the president.
These traitors, many of whom are financed by international human rights organizations, advocacy groups, and assorted mason lodges, have now joined forces with Parliament deputy and Progressive Socialist Party leader Natalia Vitrenko, who maintains that last Sunday’s referendum was a farce.
"They tell us that the referendum was initiated by citizen groups. What citizen groups?" they ask.
Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko, who had previously avoided commenting publicly on the politically charged issue, has so far resisted being co-opted by enemies of the state. Waxing romantic after the vote, he compared pre-referendum Ukraine to a one-winged bird. With the referendum behind us, he said, Ukraine can spread its wings and soar.
One disturbing aspect about the whole affair was inability and unwillingness of most of Ukraine’s virtual third sector to monitor the vote. Many organizations said they had not received funding from their Euro-Atlantic patrons, who have become increasingly reluctant to meddle in Ukraine’s "internal affairs," or who simply viewed the referendum as a fait accompli.
One organization, the Committee for Equal Opportunities (CEO), a local non-governmental organization, did. It analyzed media coverage of the campaign for two months prior to the vote and predictably found that state-controlled and mogul-managed media agitated in favor of the referendum.
"It was awful, even worse than last fall’s presidential campaign," said Oleksandr Chekmyshev, CEO’s director.
According to CEO’s conclusions, television not only failed to provide a forum for explaining the questions proposed for the referendum, but also avoided entirely the central issue of whether it was legal to hold the plebiscite at all.
Another group, the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, which sent out several hundred volunteers to monitor the vote, said public officials had used their offices to promote the referendum and confirmed that a "’yes’ vote" campaign by state institutions was widespread, systematic and coordinated across the country.
These findings can help us draw a conclusion about the results of the referendum different from the official line.
Ukraine’s more than 30 million eligible voters remain disenchanted with government policies and really don’t care that much about the number of parliamentary chambers or deputies elected to represent their interests.
On the other hand, officials knew that if they couldn’t produce a ‘yes’ vote, they would be out on the streets the next day. Here, what we should pay attention to is the willingness of political appointees to work longer hours for low pay.
Such devotion to duty is a trait shared by their long-suffering Belarusian cousins, who have unswervingly implemented measures and fulfilled plans designed to achieve prosperity. As in Ukraine, if you were not with them, you were against them.
The critical juncture in that struggle occurred five years ago, when, following a campaign waged by state-controlled media, officials reported that an overwhelming majority of Belarusians voted in a national referendum to endorse kooky proposals proposed by their president.
