Orange to Blue?

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has officially dissolved the parliament, and new elections are set for December 7. He made no secret of why he thought the coalition broke up:

The democratic coalition – I am convinced, deeply convinced – was destroyed with only one thing – personal ambition. The personal ambition of one individual which was propelled by the thirst for power, and by a preference for personal interests over those of the country.

The coalition’s understanding and the coalition’s agreements are destroyed; the economic reform is not implemented; the fulfillment of electoral promises has grown into a total social populism, which has caused the largest inflation in Europe and the lowering of social standards of living, as reflected in the salary, pension, and many other social programs.

This really looks like the end of the Orange coalition. In the end, there could be only one. Now the question is whether all three parties will continue in rough parity, or whether one Orange party will decisively displace the other, or go into coalition with the Blues (Party of Regions, Yanukovych).

It’s up to the voters now, but it’s still sad to see so much time and opportunity squandered.

3 thoughts on “Orange to Blue?

  1. Complete and utter waste of time. Domestic priorities are completely neglected. The worst part is that this is a structural flaw which will require appropriate remedy, and at this point I’m not sure how that will be achieved, certainly not before Yushchenko leaves office in 2010.

    According to UNIAN, if the elections were to take place on October 3rd, 2008, the voters would have chosen the following parties:

    Viktor Yanukovych (Party of Regions) – 22.3%
    Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT) – 18.1%
    Viktor Yushchenko (Our Ukraine) – 9.4%

    The 3% barrier will also likely pass the Communist Party (about 6%) and a potential new political bloc around Arseniy_Yatsenyuk (about 5%).

  2. Why isn’t anyone questioning the very presumption that an all-out democracy is a good thing for countries like Ukraine? For democracy to function, there must be a solid foundation of grass-root law-adherence in place. Those trying to promote democracy in places with no such foundation are either ignorant or have an evil purpose in mind.

  3. What’s an “all-out democracy?”

    If by “grass-root law-adherence” you mean civil society groups functioning within the rule of law, then it does not seem to be a problem in Ukraine.

    Further, democracy does not necessitate one set of conditions to function. It requires some basic characteristics (e.g. freedom of expression, freedom of association, the “rule of law” NOT the “rule by law,” etc), but these can vary in their degree across a set of countries, which can all still be described as democracies.

    Finally, if you disagree with promoting democracy “for countries like Ukraine,” what do you propose as an alternative? If “grass-root law-adherence” is necessary for democracy, is not inherent in the concept of democracy this same idea of grass-root law-adherence (assuming I understand it the way you meant it originally, but please still clarify this phrase), and if so, then encouraging a country to develop a political system along liberal democratic principles is rather than ignorant quite enlightened.

Comments are closed.