Is this the resolution?

Ten days on, and we may be close to a resolution of the crisis in the Ukraine. There’s definitely been some agreement between Kuchma, Yuschenko, Yanukovich and the mediators (Solana, Adamkus, Kubis and Kwasniewski) but, as ever, the devil is in the details. The basic points seem to be that there will be a revote, there will be constitutional reforms before the vote occurs, protestors will stop blockading government buildings and an all-party working group will implement changes based on the rulings of the Supreme Court.

The questions that remain to be answered though, are:

  • What form will the revote take? The full election, or just the second round? Will new candidates be allowed to stand, and will existing ones be barred from standing? Will more observers be allowed in for the elections, and will Yuschenko’s other requirements, such as limiting absentee ballots, be accepted?
  • What form will the constiutional reforms take? The general opinion seems to be that the Prime Minister and Cabinet will gain powers from the Presidency, but is this to weaken a potential Yuschenko Presidency? And will the reforms address the regional issues?
  • Where do the protestors go now? Blockades are over, but will some remain on the streets to keep the pressure on?
  • Finally, what will the Supreme Court actually rule and when? It seems the election process can’t really begin until its deliberations are completed?
  • As I said, reaction seems to be mixed amongst both the media and the bloggers as to whether this is the end of this stage of the crisis, or whether it still continues. See the Kyiv Post, PA/Scotsman, Le Sabot, Foreign Notes, Notes from Kiev and SCSU Scholars for more.

    In related news, The Argus notes that while the events in Ukraine may have inspired protestors in Tajikstan Uzbekistan, while attention’s been focused elsewhere, Russia is demanding Abkhazia reholds its recent election.

    Finally, I’ve received a report from Tarik Amar, who reported from Ukraine on John Quiggin’s blog last week. He’s been talking to the people in the tent city and you can read the full thing below the fold.

    Written by Tarik Amar

    KYIV, UKRAINE, NOV 29:Sitting in an Internet Caf? on Kyiv’s central Independence Square among plenty of foreign correspondents who seem to know neither Ukrainian nor Russian well ? the exception being the Poles ? I have begun to wonder about what we, the West, get to know about the current revolution in Ukraine. Making my way through the permanent orange crowd that is holding the capital city’s center for opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, I went to the hard core of the vast tent city set up on election night when the long-expected Kuchma-Yanukovych’s regime’s attempt to steal the election became reality.

    The tents’ inhabitants spend most of their time standing around the perimeter of the slushiest camping ground I have ever seen, defying a freezing drizzle to talk to the crowds around them. Explaining that I am a historian and write about Ukraine, I am invited to climb across a rather symbolic fence improvised from park benches and let into the tent city itself.

    There nobody hesitates for a second to answer my questions and have them taped. Many insist on having their real names recorded. For two hours I walked around in the early winter dusk squeezing through between low and tightly packed tents, some fires where shashlyk is being grilled, and a big screen constantly showing the independent, hence pro-opposition Fifth Channel.

    While most tent dwellers are of student age or younger, there is a fair number of the middle-aged as well as a very old lady, huddling on a wet tent tarpaulin, covering her head with a make-shift cap made from Yushchenko-orange plastic. I asked one of the chief organizers when he began to feel that a rebellion was necessary. He explained to me that he was a lawyer trained in Ukraine and abroad. Having taken part in what he calls “the revolution of 1991”, when Ukraine was released into independence by a crumbling Soviet empire, he tells me he was disillusioned afterwards. Still, after the first round of the elections, marked already by ostentatious fraud and threats, he and others started to organize for the showdown they saw coming. At the same time, he did not expect so may people to join them. This, he tells me, is the first time that “Ukraine has stood up.”

    Asked what disillusioned him most during Kuchma’s rule, his answer is quick: The killing of opposition journalist Hrihori Gongadze, and the very strong evidence that President Kuchma ordered it . Although the organiser was enjoying rapid promotion as a government lawyer, this murder convinced him that “the regime has gone so far that we cannot change it by purely legalistic means.” Civil resistance became inevitable. Once there Yuschenko becomes President, the lawyer wants all the murky affairs of the Kuchma regime to be unraveled by truly independent courts.

    He also thinks that for most Ukrainians, the final straw were the “elections” in the town of Mukachevo earlier this year. It was then that the current regime staged a virtual dress rehearsal for its attempt a coup during the Presidential elections.

    Volodymyr is a retired miner from western Ukraine, and insists that he has nothing against Russians or any other nationalities. In fact, he tells me without a hint of irony, he had a multinational upbringing. After World War Two, the Soviet authorities deported both his parents to Central Asia and he was born there. He played and went to school with Russians, Germans, and Kazakhs, and other nationalities. Yet, he is also clear about the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has no right to intervene in Ukrainian elections. Referring to news ? by now confirmed by the very serious Russian newspaper “Komersant” ? that plain-clothes Russian special forces are protecting Kuchma’s Presidential Administration, Volodymyr says they must go. He will remain peaceful, but he wants it to be known that he is not a push-over and if Ukraine’s sovereignty is
    attacked, he will not run but fight.

    Mykola, a young history student, says that for him breaking point was reached when he looked through archival propaganda of the Khrushchev and Brezhnev periods, and found it frighteningly reminiscent of that used by Kuchma and Yanukovych. He, too, has no trouble with Russians or the Russian language but Putin’s policy during the Ukrainian elections was “not honest.” Mykola does not want to be bribed with Putin’s transparent offers of double citizenship and 90-day residence permits (most Russians cannot get those) in Moscow: “And what right does he have in general to intervene in our domestic policy?”

    For Yury, too, the “very crude, very ugly” election propaganda of the Yanukovych camp was a turn-off. He points out to me that not only the voters of Yushchenko were subjected to attempts at deception and vote stealing by the regime. Again, without any sarcasm, he explains that those who were for Yanukovych were also deceived because the rigged election results made them think that they were a majority. Now they are disappointed at finding out how few of them there really are.

    Yury’s girl-friend, Elena, is a young psychologist working for an advertisement agency. I want to know what she expects from life after a Yushchenko victory. What she wants most is the guarantee that she can live without politics. Being among the most visibly mobilized Ukrainians in a richly mobilized country, she insists that she does not believe that politics will stop being about power struggles and money, too. She has no difficulty believing that Yushchenko will stick to the law and respect the people. Under such a government she will be
    able to leave everyday politics to politicians who will keep within bounds.
    One thing all agree on is put most pithily by Mykola: “the faster into the EU, the better.” Significantly, I have not found anyone who dreamed of EU cash raining down. Rather some were worried that integration into the EU economy might be very hard for Ukrainian companies. Yet, several also told me that what is more important is that the EU will keep demanding high standards of legality and good
    governance.

    In general, nearly everybody I randomly picked to talk to told me about the regime’s heavy-handed methods backfiring. Where Yury and Mykola were put off beyond endurance by propaganda of Soviet crudeness, Roman, a highschool student tells me that for him everything was clear when the corrupt Central Electoral Commission announced an alleged Yanukovych victory within 24 hours, while it had taken ten days to count votes after the first round. Ira, standing next to him, tells me that her limit was passed when she went as election observer to a small village during round two. There she found that some people believed the thoroughly mendacious regime propaganda depicting Yushchenko as a “fascist.” I don’t tell her that these stories are believed in not only by remote Ukranian villagers, cut off from all sources of information but regime media, but also by Western journalists who lack basic language skills and information as well as ethics.

    (Some names have been changed at the interviewees’ request.)

    7 thoughts on “Is this the resolution?

    1. If there is any sort of revote, I hope they can borrow India’s machines. State-of-the-art, portable in a suitcase, and tamperproof. They functioned perfectly for a billion-plus sized democracy as diverse as any nation on Earth.

    2. Basically, for the same reason the Parliament voted against Yanukovych: opportunism, sense of times, fear of a backlash for going too far against public will.

    3. Also because, like in many developing democracies (and even some more established ones), the Ukrainian courts are regarded as more independent and less corrupt than the political branches.