Yulia Tymoshenko’s failed attempt to ban negative ads of herself sparkle speculations about her authoritarian tendencies.
Bowing to pressure from free-speech advocates and political rivals, Yulia Tymoshenko’s political party dropped a controversial lawsuit banning “unfair” advertising against the prime minister, who is a leading candidate in the Jan. 17 presidential election.
But the damage may have already been done to Tymoshenko’s tattered reputation as a democrat. A Kyiv judge in the Pechersk district court, Serhiy Vovk, ruled on Sept. 22 that a video produced by one of Tymoshenko’s rivals – the Party of Regions – used colors and slogans from Tymoshenko’s own advertising campaign in a way that damaged her reputation.
The court ruling immediately fanned fears that Tymoshenko as president will have a governing style more like a dictator than a democrat, using whatever power she has to squelch dissent.
Her Batkivshyna Party announced on Oct. 5 that it decided to withdraw a lawsuit, a step that led the judge to cancel his ad ban two days later. The Regions Party video in question mocked Tymoshenko’s slogan “She’s working.” It included images of sad, destitute people and dispensed advice that the prime minister should stop “filling people with promises” and to “take a rest” instead.
While the Regions Party ad indeed mocked Tymoshenko, it would never have come close to being banned in truly democratic nations. Vovk, the judge who issued the pro-Tymoshenko ruling, didn’t stop with this ad. The court also banned “any individual or legal entities” from “posting” any “unfair advertisements against the head of Ukraine’s government” on billboards, via the Internet, radio and television.
To the shock of free-speech advocates, the ruling concluded that the ads against Tymoshenko were “anti-social in nature” in “discrediting Tymoshenko,” and by “increasing social tensions” could cause “other negative consequences.”
An avalanche of criticism followed. A broad range of political parties and non-governmental organizations complained that the ruling violated freedom of speech. Such anti-democratic sentiments are classic Tymoshenko, her critics say, and evidence of her dangerous and anti-democratic principles.
“It is unconstitutional to establish censorship all over Ukraine. It is illegal to limit the constitutional freedom of speech, repress the mass media,” said Serhiy Kivalov, a lawmaker from the Party of Regions who chairs parliament’s justice committee. “Instead of protecting citizens’ rights, a judge canceled them. And it was a political force that is running for power in a democratic country that had asked [the court] to do it.”
Kivalov is one of the unlikeliest persons in Ukraine to be advocating for citizens’ rights and free speech. He headed the Central Election Committee during the 2004 presidential election that was famously rigged, prompting the democratic Orange Revolution that led to a new vote.
The Party of Regions in general has poor democratic credentials. But in this argument, at least, the party led by ex-Prime Minister Victor Yanukovych – the current front-runner in the Jan. 17 presidential election – stood side-by-side with past critics, including human rights organizations, lawyers and mass media.
Ukraine’s Helsinki Union for Human Rights, a non-governmental organization representing lawyers and human rights activists and Olena Lukash, a parliamentarian from the Regions Party, sent petitions to the Kyiv court of appeals to cancel the Pechersk court‘s decision. Lukash also asked the Council of Judges and High Council of Justice to dismiss the judge.
Lukash said European courts usually uphold the citizens’ rights to criticize politicians, even if such attacks are “considered provocative or offensive.” She quoted an abstract from one such ruling: “Under the democratic system, the government’s activities should not only be controlled by the legislative and the judicial powers but also by the mass media and public opinion.”
Whether it was a slip of the tongue or not, Tymoshenko on the Savik Shuster TV political talk show on Sept. 25 revealed what many believe to be her attitude towards the people. “Who told you people don’t want dictatorship?” But she quickly recovered on the program, saying: “I would never allow censorship.” But then she also retreated again, saying: “I think criticism is fine, but dirty advertisement is banned by the law. And if it cannot be challenged in court, this is dictatorship and not a democracy.”
Valeriy Pysarenko, a lawmaker and Tymoshenko ally, said the court ban was related to a particular video produced by the Regions Party and has no relevance to criticism of Tymoshenko in the media. “The prime minister doesn’t control TV channels,” Pysarenko said. “They are controlled by tycoons. Government is roughly criticized by media all the time.”
And ads against Tymoshenko continue to appear. On Sept. 28 billboards mocking Tymoshenko’s “She’s working” campaign were posted in Mariupol, a steel-town city on Ukraine’s Azov Sea coast. Kyiv streets are plastered with them also, all done in the white-and-red style of Tymoshenko’s own ads.
Volodymyr Fesenko, a political analyst, said problems with unfair advertising cannot be solved through the courts. “It creates a very dangerous precedent,” he said. But Fesenko said “unfair advertisement” should be defined by law.
However, even the notion that “unfair” free speech can be defined or should be regulated – let alone banned – is antithetical to democratic values.
“Everyone has his own opinion on what discredits a politician and such opinions are often contradictory,” said Tetyana Montian, a Kyiv-based lawyer who has been outspoken on human rights issues.
