Ukraine has been awash in rumors that Viktor Yushchenko, who was sacked as prime minister on April 26 by an alliance of Communist and pro-presidential deputies, will return to Ukrainian politics as head of a unified block of political parties, including Reforms and Order and a united Rukh.
But the June 9 declaration signed by the leaders of the two Rukh parties on forming a bloc and stating their intention to reunite will only be a success if they agree on a single leader, writes Mykola Nesenyuk, who thinks it is unlikely that popular former Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko will agree to head any unified party.
Furthermore, the attitude of ordinary Rukh supporters to the pact remains unclear, argues Nesenyuk in the following article, which appeared in the Ukrainian daily Den on June 12 and was translated by BBC Monitoring.
There has been no massive reaction by the population after the document called the declaration on the reunification of Rukh was signed on June 9. The masses of people who rallied under the banners of both Rukhs [Yury Kostenko’s Ukrainian People’s Movement and Hennady Udovenko’s People’s Movement of Ukraine] in front of the parliament in April demanding that deputies leave the then prime minister, Viktor Yushchenko, alone were surprisingly passive this time.
There is a simple explanation: the organizers of the masses were nearly all present in the conference hall of the Kyiv University of Technology, where the “historic” document was signed. In order for them to demonstrate the people’s enthusiasm, they will have to return to the regions and explain to their supporters what actually happened.
No one is seriously trying any longer to explain the behavior of Yushchenko, who, along with his high rating, was present at the moment when the two Rukhs announced their intention to unite.
It seems that Yushchenko’s talks about nothing are now perceived as such, and observers are too tired to look for deep pretexts in his streamlined statements. It is much easier and more expedient to comment on statements by politicians who clearly speak about their positions.
Unlike the masses of people, who were not moved by the desire of the two Rukhs to unite, the head of state swiftly commented on the event aboard his jet and called the intended alliance a “game.”
What could explain Leonid Kuchma’s quite harsh position? Perhaps he still remembers that both Rukhs have declared themselves in opposition, that Kostenko’s Rukh members took an active part in the Ukraine Without Kuchma movement, that members of Udovenko’s Rukh voted for the law on impeachment and many other things.
There is no doubt that the organizers of the very long process of uniting the Rukhs expect to get the support of their traditional voters, who constituted over 8 percent of the active electorate three years ago.
But in addition to the joint political brand name, the Rukh members from both parties need a single leader. The fact is that without one the Rukh brand may not work properly. This is where the main problem facing the newly re-united national-democrats is hidden.
The leaders of both Rukhs have no illusions about their own charismatic leadership following the results of the 1999 presidential election. Meanwhile, the moves being made toward Yushchenko increasingly resemble the throes of an unreciprocated emotion.
It is not so important that the former prime minister does not agree and is unlikely to agree to head the united Rukh and the electoral bloc created around it. This is impossible due to the fact that, through a statement by Ihor Yukhnovsky, both Rukhs recently declared themselves in opposition to the “communist-oligarchic” regime.
Yushchenko never said and never will say a thing like that. Plus, the regime turned out to be not completely communist-oligarchic, as the new prime minister was approved without the communists’ votes.
Hence, the Rukhs will now have to demonstrate better foresight. The process has already started: the declaration on uniting Rukh does not make it clear when this union will be completed.
As to the very term “game,” which was used by Leonid Kuchma with regard to the intention of the Rukhs to consider uniting at some time, there is nothing offensive in it. All politicians and all political forces are playing games. The question is how serious the game is and how expensive the toys are. For political players, the toy is power: some get a little, some get a lot.
The two Rukhs’ declaration of their intention to unite is in fact just the beginning of a new political game. Now it is the turn of the other players.
