I can only imagine how tired Ukrainians must have become of what passes for political dialogue between the Yulia Tymoshenko and Victor Yushchenko camps. Here in the United States – as, indeed, in most of the democratic world – we also have political squabbles and disputes. They are a healthy part of what the public needs to know in choosing their elected officials. As we get closer to elections, the average American will be inundated with dozens of 30-second, provocative commercials on a daily basis.
But, thankfully, Americans also realize that – on the day after – the shrillness will end and there will be reconciliation – ceremonial if not real. That reconciliation will carry over into the newly-elected president’s term of office, and the rancor of the campaign will become muted as the political debate shifts to policy disagreements and occasional press conferences.
What passes for “democratic” political dialogue in Ukraine is both unseemly and embarrassing. Unfortunately, most of the “noise” comes from the president and prime minister, the two squabbling “Orange coalition” leaders and their supporters. The three other parties – after conducting themselves like a mob of adolescent hoodlums at the beginning of the new parliamentary session – have simply taken a back seat to enjoy the “show.” They understand the public’s revulsion and fatigue at the continuous mudslinging within the democratic camp, and are hoping to reap its electoral benefits.
Does anybody in the Tymoshenko and Yushchenko camps realize how ineffective their invective has become and how much credibility each has lost in the process? Does either of the two heads of government realize how they besmirch and demean Ukraine’s image in the world, and how more and more foreigners are coming to the conclusion that Ukraine is a hopeless case?
Although there is fault on both sides, it appears to me that the president – more than his prime minister – bears responsibility for setting the tone for his government. He is, after all, the person primarily responsible for Ukraine’s international stature. He can, if he chooses, in quiet discussions with his political partners and opponents, insist that all their “dirty laundry” remain in-house rather than be exposed for all the world – including Moscow – to manipulate and exploit.
Unfortunately, the president and, especially, his top advisers appear to be the principal provocateurs. If parliamentarian David Zhvania was responsible for Yushchenko’s dioxin poisoning in 2004, then Ukraine’s law enforcement should have the evidence and make it stick. If Yulia conducted treasonous discussions with the Kremlin, then she should be charged with the crime and proceedings begun to remove her from office. But if the evidence is not there, if there are only surmises and suspicions, then, Mr. President and Mr. [Victor] Baloha [Yushchenko’s chief of staff], bite your lip, bide your time, keep a watchful eye and remain silent.
It is not too late for the democratic forces of the country to regain the trust and confidence of its citizens. The first thing they must do is to agree that they will no longer air their disputes in public. They must repress, for the good of the country, all public manifestations of their personal dislike for each other. They must be seen as working together, despite their personal and political differences. In other words, they must be seen as a model of a working democracy…a system in which opposing views are discussed in a civil manner and compromises are reached for the benefit of their countrymen.
This one small shift in the manner in which Yushchenko and Tymoshenko and their staff conduct their transactions will restore domestic and foreign confidence in Ukraine and flow as a welcome, refreshing breeze over a very tired and burdened land.
