ell-being of its people.
Recently, it negotiated an energy deal favorable to Russia as if these were the good old USSR days. The prime minister was also clear about Ukraine’s “no” to NATO. He plans to delay an early entry into the WTO to “synchronize” the move with Russia.
Nor did his budget reflect great love for the people. If there are no changes in subsequent readings in parliament, the budget foresees a tripling of basic accommodation costs while holding incomes at current levels. The people are gravely concerned. One teary father of two said on a popular TV talk show: “If you won’t let us live, we won’t let you rule.”
Strong words, expressing deep frustration with the government’s indifference even as a cold winter sets in. The people are angry with President Viktor Yushchenko who, they say, betrayed them and the Orange Revolution by failing to prosecute the crooks and by disregarding their choice — an Orange forces coalition as the government – through delay tactics and eventually forfeiting the chance. He handed the power to Viktor Yanukhovych, his former arch enemy and, it appears, Russia’s puppet.
Yulia Tymoshenko, the leader of the government opposition, may be their only political hope. Her reaction to the budget was swift. She condemned the lack of support for underprivileged Ukrainians — pensioners and others falling under the poverty line of about Hr 360, some $70 dollars a month. However, she was given only three minutes of rebuttal time in parliament attesting to the need for structural changes there. The rest she voiced in the media.
She assailed the brudni dila – the dirty deal – as the Ukrainians refer to the RusUkrEnergo energy deal with Russia. It arose out of nowhere last winter and is murkier than a cesspool.
For instance, Energy Minister Yuriy Boyko said on television that he does not know whether it’s a private or government entity, or who the four owners might be. He couldn’t also say why he is negotiating a new energy deal with Russia, when Ukraine already negotiated a deal earlier this year. Under that agreement, Ukraine was paying about $95 for 1,000 cubic meters of gas. Now, the current minister is prepared to pay $130, and claim ignorance.
Such a minister or government would not survive in a Western democracy. The opposition, media and the people would be demanding and getting resignations. In Ukraine, as in Russia, there is, as yet, no punishment for such abuses. Hopefully, it’s on its way with a government opposition upholding the country’s and the people’s good by attacking the government’s criminal irresponsibility.
Price hikes in housing, heating and food costs portend a cold, and possibly hungry, winter in Ukraine. There are profound worries. The people recall the hundreds that froze last year in unheated apartments. In Ukraine, the fear that governments serve their own interests rather than those of the people is real; the government’s indifference is deadly dangerous.
The opposition leader is right to demand answers: How will most Ukrainians be able to make ends meet? And when will the government cancel the unfavorable energy deal with Russia?
There is no denying that the government is uncomfortable with this criticism. That is a good sign. Discomfort makes a government do the right thing for its people. The opposition leader is on the right track. However, it has only 84 seats in parliament’s 450-seat legislature. It will have more now that at least part of the pro-presidential Our Ukraine is moving into the opposition.
Initial analyses of the recently held Our Ukraine party convention indicate that there is still little clarity regarding roles, positions and policies. One thing is clear: Our Ukraine has created an unwieldy governing body, some 300 members, which will prevent decisive political actions. Also, one of its stars, Mykola Katerynchuk, has, as reported in the Post last week, quit the party, indicating a shakeout is in progress.
Since Yulia Tymoshenko has declared an open door policy for Our Ukraine and others in the opposition, it may be worthwhile for her, and Ukraine, to look at how other countries formulate their government opposition. Here is Canada’s current approach.
Earlier this year, Canadians gave the Conservative Party a chance to form the government. But, mind you, out of the 308 seats in parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives control only 124. The other seats are divided among opposition parties.
Now take into consideration that there are strong ideological differences among them. The Bloc Quebecoise, for instance, stands alone in seeking separation from Canada. The difference between the other two, the Liberals and the NDP, a socialist party, preclude a formalized union. All vote for or against a government proposal as dictated by the issue.
The Conservative government knows that if it does not accommodate some of the opposition’s concerns and suggestions, it will lose the vote in parliament. Thus, during the budget debate, the Conservatives put in enough social programs to ensure its passage with much of the opposition’s support. However, on Canada’s defense policy, environment and others, there is an ideological split between the government and the opposition.
Therefore, Canadians do not expect major initiatives here until a re-election is called. Most importantly, each party knows that Canadians are watching and deciding which of them to vote for in the next election.
What could Ukraine possibly learn from Canada’s experience? That:
1) It is not necessary to institutionalize a united opposition to prevent or support government initiatives
2) The opposition may be composed of one or several parties
3) The opposition supports the government on an issue by issue basis
4) The people will decide in the next election which party served them best.
BYuT and Our Ukraine do not need to waste time negotiating a relationship. Perhaps that lesson has amply been learned from the preparation of the time-consuming but meaningless document: the Universal. A united opposition document will be equally fruitless. Once they are working effectively as the opposition, they might turn to party consolidation. Their ideological similarities will help them do so. To begin with, however, they should focus on substantive political issues.
Ms. Tymoshenko should stay the course criticizing the government when warranted, putting forward alternative ways of running the country and supporting and getting support from the Our Ukraine opposition as often as she can.
And the Our Ukraine party? Ukrainians say it has wasted enough time preoccupied with its own self-interest. Now, it should start serving the Ukrainian people. In democratic politics, the people tend to be always right. At least in Western democracies. Not a bad thing for Ukraine to emulate. Oksana Bashuk Hepburn is President of U*CAN, a consulting firm. She is writing a book about the diaspora and Ukraine between World War II and the Orange Revolution.
