Revolution captivated the world, Ukraine is once again embroiled in a crisis that involves thousands of protestors in the capital’s center and a battle for control of the country.
This time, the resolution of the crisis will determine whether Ukraine continues to move forward toward democracy or backtracks toward the arbitrary, oppressive environment that existed prior to the Orange Revolution.
When President Viktor Yushchenko dismissed the parliament on April 2, he unleashed a political firestorm that had been smoldering for months. The dismissed members of parliament immediately refused to capitulate and encouraged street demonstrations on Independence Square – the former hub of the Orange Revolution. This inevitably led to numerous international headlines touting the possibility of renewed mass civil unrest and conflict.
This, however, is no revolution. In fact, it lacks even the smallest manifestations of a popular protest movement. The number of protestors on the street is but a tiny fraction of those in 2004, the atmosphere is tired and bitter, and the Ukrainian public as a whole has chosen largely to ignore the political scuffle between their president and their parliament.
So, while Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych refuses to accept the decision of President Yushchenko to disband parliament, and while President Yushchenko demands that the government and parliament must bend to his will, most of Ukraine is trying its best to go about its own business – at least for now.
These facts, however, should not diminish the potential importance of events occurring in Ukraine. No matter how the situation ends, it will have far-reaching effects – some potentially negative, but some potentially very positive – for the country’s drive toward democracy.
The greatest potential negative effect for Yushchenko and the opposition politicians supporting him clearly would be created by the outbreak of violence. Serious injury to just one Ukrainian would stain Yushchenko’s administration irreparably. A number of international analysts – in particular those writing from Russia – have suggested that this scenario is likely. These suggestions have been well and irresponsibly stoked by the rhetoric of both Yanukovych and dismissed parliamentary speaker Oleksandr Moroz. But, while any situation can turn ugly very quickly, there seems little appetite on the street for a real physical confrontation.
Perhaps even more important, Prime Minister Yanukovych stands a good chance of returning to his post after a new election, and his backers depend on domestic stability to maintain their business interests. It would be unwise and illogical for them to provoke a violent confrontation under these circumstances.
The biggest risk to Yushchenko’s position may come from the Constitutional Court, which is hearing an appeal of the president’s decree from 53 members of parliament. Yushchenko’s legal position is not strong, and the “loyalties” of a number of the Constitutional Court judges are unknown.
Should the Constitutional Court find Yushchenko’s decree to dissolve parliament unconstitutional, President Yushchenko would face humiliation, and likely would serve the rest of his (perhaps abbreviated) term as an ineffectual lame duck.
While this scenario is more possible than a violent confrontation, most Ukrainian legal analysts suggest that the Constitutional Court – which has not ruled on a case in eight months – will put off a decision on Yushchenko’s decree indefinitely.
Nevertheless, in the past, President Yushchenko has avoided any action with even the slightest hint of a potential negative outcome.So, given this, why did he choose to go forward?And why are political and civic activists generally supportive?
Of course, only President Yushchenko can ever truly understand why he did what he did. But, his rhetoric suggests that he saw himself backed into a corner with no way out but to dissolve the parliament.For the first time, the president seemed to fully comprehend the oft-stated goal of the majority coalition in parliament to transform Ukraine into a full “parliamentary republic” by concentrating all power in the hands of the prime minister and parliament.
In the last seven months, thanks to superb political maneuvering and what Yushchenko called unconstitutional expansion of the governing coalition, the majority slowly began to make good on its threats.Yushchenko lost all input on economic policies, could not pass favored legislation, and saw Yanukovych halt or stall progress toward NATO, WTO and European Union membership.The president, quite simply, was being politically purged.
Also in recent months, many business owners in Ukraine – including those supporting the president – became alarmed by what they saw as the return of certain arbitrary economic policies that existed prior to the Orange Revolution.The questionable privatization of the Luhanskteplovoz holding company (which was quietly sold for half of its estimated value) no doubt was of particular concern.Given this, it appears that many of the businessmen supporting Yushchenko may have pushed for a bold move.
The move was originally demanded several months ago by Ukraine’s main opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko. The former prime minister accused the Yanukovych government of returning to oppressive methods used by former President Leonid Kuchma.She and her allies suggested that the country’s leaders were endangering the freedoms Ukrainians had fought so hard to win in 2004.
In late March, these charges were given credence.Representatives from the Prosecutor-General’s Office (PGO) suddenly searched the apartment of former Interior Minister and former Orange Revolution organizer Yuriy Lutsenko and then accepted a request from the parliament to examine Tymoshenko’s dealings as head of a gas intermediary in the mid-1990s.Both Lutsenko and Tymoshenko had announced that they would lead major protest actions in the spring.
At the same time, the Ukrainian National Television Channel 1 cancelled its only political debate program, “Toloka,” after Tymoshenko and Vyacheslav Kyrylenko of Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine bloc appeared on the program.This also followed on the heels of a number of incidents of reported pressure against local and regional media outlets.
There is little disagreement that the atmosphere in Ukraine had become significantly more difficult in recent months.The “lawlessness,” of the government, wrote Anders Aslund in The National Interest, was “palpable.”
Given this, it is not surprising that a large portion of the country’s elites and activists would rather brave the current protests and a new election than maintain the status quo.They now are beginning to understand that democracy is not built in a day.It is not a straight, clear path. But should Ukraine hold a free and fair election in May, should voters send a message that politicians will be held accountable, no matter what the final outcome, the country will have taken another small step forward.
Tammy Lynch is a Senior Fellow at Boston University’s Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology & Policy.
