politics when a newly appointed head of government receives a first report card from political observers and the media, in general. This tradition began in earnest only in 1933 in America with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He inherited a panic-stricken nation still in the grips of a profound economic and social depression. And in his first 100 days, known as the New Deal, he did more than any other U.S. president has ever done. He transformed the country’s psychological mood and put it firmly on the road to economic recovery.
In the wake of FDR, many American presidents have scorned this practice, claiming that it is premature and unfair. John F. Kennedy, for example, did not hide his disdain for it. He stated that even 1,000 days would not be enough to tackle the enormous problems facing his administration and qualified his words, saying: “Nor will it be finished … in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet.”
For better or worse, this 100 day review remains a time-honored, international political tradition. Today, the spotlight of media attention falls inevitably upon Ukraine’s most important political figure, Viktor Yanukovych. Inevitably because Yanukovych and other Party of Regions leaders have unwittingly invited close, early scrutiny of their record with their incessant rhetoric, during the past six months, about the country’s “deep economic and political crisis.”
Resurrected just a year ago from the political graveyard, ironically, as a result of a strategic blunder by his arch rival Viktor Yushchenko, today Yanukovych stands at the pinnacle of power in Ukraine and almost daily overshadows the president. How has the new premier fared in dealing with the country’s daunting problems in just 100 days, and what are the critical challenges ahead?
To begin with, it should be acknowledged that many Ukrainians had very low expectations of Yanukovych and other Party of Regions leaders. This is not at all surprising given that most Regions leaders were trusted lieutenants of the corrupt former President Leonid Kuchma. Moreover, Yanukovych’s first premiership (2002-2004) was lackluster. However, even if one has an allergic reaction to Yanukovych and Regions, it is not difficult to acknowledge the following: During his first hundred days as premier, he accomplished what Yushchenko was unable to do during his entire presidency, namely good relations with Russia, the EU, and the U.S.
During his first 30 days, Yanukovych quickly restored warm relations with Russia and shortly thereafter extracted a guarantee of stable, reasonable prices for natural gas for 2006 and 2007 from Gazprom. Fence-mending with Moscow came easily for Yanukovych. It is no secret that Vladimir Putin has been his unconditional supporter in Ukrainian politics since at least 2004.
Within 60 days, Yanukovych received promises of more intensified partner relations with NATO and the EU. His Sept. 14 visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels was a major media event. There he told NATO and EU leaders that Ukraine would deepen cooperation with NATO but pause in its drive toward membership until public support was confirmed in a national referendum. Although Yanukovych’s statement stunned and angered Yushchenko and his handpicked foreign and defense ministers – they apparently still harbored illusions about Party of Regions’ leaders – it was received calmly by NATO and EU officials. In fact, Yanukovych simply told them what they already knew.
While in Brussels, Yanukovych also pleasantly surprised members of his parliament’s political opposition with his declaration that Ukraine would not join a customs union with Russia, stating that this would violate Ukraine’s Constitution; and he voiced support for the long overdue Ukrainian public information campaign on NATO. Not surprisingly, Yanukovych’s Brussels visit received mixed reviews in Ukraine and abroad. Interestingly, supporters and even some critics of Yanukovych observed that he “held his head high” during the meetings in Brussels, in contrast to “Yushchenko’s beggarly manner,” and that he left with assurances that today’s very good NATO-Ukraine and EU-Ukraine relations would be intensified in numerous areas.
Significantly, during his first 100 days, Yanukovych received unambiguous assurances from Washington officials that they desire to work closely with his new government and seek to expand good partner relations with it. Washington also made clear that it will closely monitor the new government’s intentions to deepen relations with NATO and to move genuinely toward WTO membership.
Yanukovych’s next 100 days will likely shed more light on three critical questions facing the nation. Will the country’s future economic growth – predicted as high as 8-10 percent over the next 3-4 years with radical economic reforms that attract substantial investment – trickle down to average Ukrainians; or as pensioners here in Ukraine often pointedly ask: Will we be able to spread it on our bread? The recent past provides little grounds for optimism. During Viktor Yanukovych’s first reign as premier (2002-2004) under President Kuchma, there was no “Donetsk economic miracle,” even with 12 percent economic growth in 2004. True, Yanukovych’s business elite investor-colleagues grew much richer, but miners and ordinary citizens did not. Today, many Ukrainians fear this scenario may be repeated.
Second, are Party of Regions’ leaders genuinely committed to depolarizing the country? Issues such as the status of the Russian language, along with NATO membership, continue to pull the country apart and are commonly exploited by politicians. President Yushchenko failed abysmally in addressing this challenge. His administration did not undertake a single specific project to bridge the wide gulf that still sharply divides the nation. Surprisingly, just days after being appointed premier, Yanukovych took a modest but positive step toward defusing the Russian language problem. Addressing an audience in Ukraine’s Russian-speaking Crimea, he stated that granting Russian the status of an official language in Ukraine was not politically feasible under current conditions. However, to show true progress in this Herculean task, Yanukovch will need to change the psychological mood of the country. He will need to provide tangible evidence, quickly and steadily, that he genuinely has people’s interests at heart and that he will mobilize the power of government to help citizens, regardless of their ethnic and regional background – a very tall order, indeed.
Finally, there is the critical problem of rampant corruption in Ukrainian society, politics and business, in particular. Are Yanukovych and the Regions-led coalition in parliament capable of adopting a long-term coherent strategy with an action plan to tackle corruption, or are we likely to see business as usual with the Donetsk vector dominating Regions’ decision-making and trumping sorely needed legislation proposed by the president? The recent defeat of President Yushchenko’s anti-corruption draft laws in a parliamentary committee chaired and dominated by Regions’ deputies is an ominous sign. It is no secret that Regions’ deputies adhere to iron party discipline in their voting. Thus, it is inconceivable that their defeat of anti-corruption proposals did not have the blessing of Yanukovych and other Regions party leaders. If serious, they can begin to show genuine commitment on this crucial battle front by approving the much needed legislation and by making immediate, transparent use of the $45 million recently proposed by the U.S. to fight corruption in Ukraine.
In summary, Viktor Yanukovych deserves a mixed report card for his first 100 days as premier. Clearly, his recent interaction with Moscow, Brussels and Washington is evidence of a decisive, pragmatic, and action-oriented style of leadership – unlike the wishful thinking, firefighting, endlessly bickering style of Yushchenko’s camp. The natural question, of course, is: In which direction is Yanukovych leading the nation?
Today, Viktor Yanukovych’s political capital in official EU and U.S. circles is surprisingly high. However, this can be squandered quickly. Yanukovych and Regions’ leaders should understand that their recent rejection of anti-corruption draft laws in parliament and their foot-dragging on legislation required for WTO membership are not confidence building measures. Rather, they are perceived by many in Ukraine and the West as placing Donetsk business-elite interests and Russian sensibilities above the public interest.
Lacking any moral authority, Yanukovych and his Regions-led government will need to move quickly during their second 100 days in order to provide compelling, growing evidence that they are reliable partners and responsible rulers. Time is not on their side. According to officials in Brussels and Washington, they will be judged solely by their actions. And if they are to build credibility and support at home and abroad, they will need to avoid the wide discrepancy between word and deed which has been a hallmark of the Yushchenko presidency.
Walter Parchomenko, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow with the Atlantic Council of the United States currently based in Ukraine. The views expressed are purely his own.
