Of usable people

Twice now the President has invited Ukrainians to the polls – both times as a last resort. Four weeks ago he discovered that their civil rights had been violated and that it fell upon him to defend them. Now they are due to go to the polls to defend the same President from those ‘bad guys’ who want to take over.

In fact their rights have been repeatedly violated for the entire twenty-seven months of Yushchenko’s presidency. He has never asked for their opinion – neither when agreeing to some flawed political reform, nor when signing the notorious memorandum with the ‘bad guys’ and thereby stunning the citizens into speechlessness, nor when agreeing to appoint his defeated rival as Prime Minister, nor when… But let it all remain in the past. Ukrainians are tolerant and forgiving – they can surely come and help out.

Looking at the recent opinion polls, Yushchenko knows that Olexandr Moroz will never make it to the new parliament, and this fact alone is reason enough to press for an early election. Besides moral reasons like “betrayal must be punished”, there is a pragmatic one: to make room in the political field for a third force – namely, liberals under social democratic banners who are quite eager to defend the interests of employers and big capital. Unfortunately, there is no one left to defend the interests of employees…

Apart from these interests, numerous questions have arisen from the opinions of experts and voters.

Crisis

“Ukraine is having a wonderful time.”

V. Yushchenko, March 21, 2007

“The deliberate stoking of the political crisis in the parliament continues, threatening our country and people.”

V. Yushchenko, April 2, 2007

On March 23, the sociological service of the Razumkov Center began to poll the citizens of this country, the one that had been “having a wonderful time”. The poll was still underway when the President reported that there was a grave political crisis and attempts had been made to usurp power (something the people had already been aware of). 73 percent of respondents answered the question “Is there a political crisis in the country?” in the affirmative. Nine percent, who must have heard Yushchenko’s interview on March 21, did not notice the crisis.

Respondents were asked whose activities were aggravating the crisis and whose activities were helping to resolve it. Their answers to the first question were as follows: 47 percent blamed the aggravation on the parliament; 45 percent on the President; 44 percent on the opposition; 43 percent on the Premier and the ruling coalition equally; 40 percent on the Presidential Secretariat and the Cabinet of Ministers equally; and 39 percent on the Parliament Speaker.

Efforts to resolve the crisis were assessed as follows: 33 percent of respondents gave credit to the Premier; 27 percent to the President; 26 percent to the government; 25 percent to the Parliament Speaker, 23 percent to the coalition majority; 21 percent to the opposition and the Presidential Secretariat equally; and 18 percent to the parliament.

To put it in common terms: they’re all in the running…

40 percent of respondents said that the courts neither aggravated nor allayed the crisis.

49 percent of citizens excluded themselves from the list of “crisis subjects”, saying they were neither aggravating the crisis nor helping to resolve it. 27 percent agreed that “the people of Ukraine are helping to resolve the crisis”; six percent had the opposite opinion; and 18 percent declined to answer.

Current Situation

“Whether in economic policy, democratic social reforms, or the fight against corruption… the achievements of the ruling coalition are evident.”

V. Yanukovych, April 13, 2007

Leonid Kuchma, too, used to say that only the blind couldn’t see the country’s progress under his leadership…

Today, 61 percent of Ukrainians characterize the situation in the country as nasty. In particular, every third Ukrainian citizen considers it to be “bad” and 28 percent call it “very bad”. Only five percent believe it is not bad.

The situation looks bad in the eyes of 55 percent of residents of the southern regions, 57 percent in the central regions, 62 percent in the western regions, and 67 percent in the eastern regions. As to further prospects for the country, the picture looks even grimmer: 71 percent of Ukrainians believe that the country is heading “the wrong way” (74 percent in the east and 65 percent in the south); while only 11 percent hold the opposite opinion.

Is the ruling coalition to blame? Yes, it is.

Firstly, in November of 2006, 100 days after the Yanukovych government took office, 49 percent of Ukrainians assessed the situation in the country as bad, of whom only 19 percent called it very bad; 64 percent believed that the country was going the wrong way and 13 percent held the opposite opinion.

Secondly, answers to the question about changes following the formation of the coalition majority and the government revealed an alarming trend. 49 percent of respondents were sure that between August 2006 and April 2007 the situation changed for the worse; 38 percent saw no changes, and seven percent saw positive changes.

For the first time since April of 2005, changes for the worse were noted in all areas listed in the questionnaire. In April of 2005, there was only one area – prices and tariffs – where the index of changes (difference between the percentages of positive and negative assessments) was negative (-64). This is natural, because nobody likes growing prices. 100 days after the “Orange Government” took office, assessments of changes in all other areas were generally positive. Respondents even noted a slight improvement in the material condition of their families (+4).

In December of 2005, despite the prevailing disillusionment with the Orange leaders, indices of changes remained positive with regard to the freedom of expression (+26), democracy (+16), Ukraine’s international image (+9), observance of civil rights and freedoms (+2), and pension provision (+1).

100 days after the Yanukovych government took office, almost all indices were negative except changes in family welfare. Ukrainians have hardly noticed those “changes for the better” that Yanukovych had promised them – they are simply glad that things are not getting worse.

According to a poll in June of 2006, when Yanukovych took office, 17 percent of Ukrainians were living from hand to mouth. By April of 2007, the number had not changed much – 18 percent. Last year, 39 percent of Ukrainians said they could not afford anything more than food. Now the number is 34 percent. The number of those who earned enough for subsistence but had to save for years to buy a fridge changed from 36 percent to 37 percent. The number of those who were well-to-do but could not afford a car grew from six percent to eight percent. And those who could buy a car and more were as few as before – less than one percent…

Yanukovych ought to pay attention to the people’s negative evaluation of his government’s performance over the past year: the index stands at -40.

The Powers That Be

We never quarreled with President Viktor Yushchenko. He is our president and I am indignant at all these attempts to drive a wedge between us and him.

Yaroslav Sukhiy, March, 2007

The traditional questions about approval ratings should be set aside, because the poll was conducted both before and after Yushchenko decreed to dissolve the parliament. Let us look at those characteristics less vulnerable to sharp fluctuations.

One: general evaluation of the top leaders’ activities.

President Yushchenko scored 2.7 points by the five-grade scale for his performance in 2005 and 2.5 points for 2006 and 2007.

Premier Yanukovych scored almost 3 points in November of 2006 and 2.8 points in April of 2007.

Two: public opinion as to whose interests the said persons defend.

In April of 2005, 55 percent of Ukrainians were sure that President Yushchenko acted in defense of national interests; 32 percent believed he defended his personal interests and the interests of his close entourage; 13 percent were undecided.

Two years later, the positive attitude to Yushchenko reduced by half: only 24 percent of respondents were sure that he acted for national interests. The number of those who held the opposite opinion grew up to 61 percent. 15 percent were undecided.

The attitude to Yanukovych in April of 2007 is about the same: 59 percent of respondents believe that he acts primarily in defense of his personal interests and the interests of his political force; 27 percent think he takes care of national interests; 14 percent are undecided.

Such attitudes to both leaders are also nearly equal in regard to “three groups of interests” – the interests of the country, the interests of ordinary people, and the interests of small and mid-size businesses representing the middle class.

12 percent of respondents are positive that Yushchenko defends the interests of the entire country, and 13 percent say the same about Yanukovych. 9 percent of respondents believe that Yushchenko acts in the interests of ordinary citizens. 11 percent think so about Yanukovych. As to the interests of small and mid-size businesses, the figures are 11 percent and 13 percent respectively.

The same picture is with the negative answers: 31 percent and 29 percent of respondents respectively believe that Yushchenko and Yanukovych do not defend national interests. Not defending the interests of ordinary citizens: Yushchenko – 46 percent; Yanukovych – 40 percent. Not defending the interests of small and mid-size businesses: Yushchenko – 27 percent; Yanukovych – 28 percent.

Both leaders must be very, very upset…

Transparency

“I know many things which, unfortunately, I cannot speak about, because these things involve certain nuances that can disappoint society in many ways.”

V. Yushchenko, April 12, 2007

There is no proper government without transparency. In other words, the one who governs should never say what is quoted in the above epigraph. He should not be afraid of disappointing society: this society is already disappointed, deeply and hopelessly…

Transparency is a sine qua non for public control over authorities. The citizens hire managers and the latter are supposed to act in the interests of their “employers”, not their own interests. They are at least supposed to safeguard the citizens’ rights and freedoms.

The Ukrainian citizens have found at last that their leaders are bound to comply with the principles of proper government. By the five-grade scale, they evaluate the importance of these principles as follows: civil rights and freedoms – 4.3 points; transparency – 4.2 points; possibilities for citizens to influence authorities – 4.2 points. They evaluate the leadership’s efforts to facilitate the implementation of these principles more than modestly: civil rights and freedoms – 2.4 points; transparency – 2.3 points; possibilities for citizens to influence authorities – 2.1 points.

In these terms, the president, the parliament, and the government scored less than a “C”: 2.7, 2.6, and 2.5 respectively.

The law enforcement and taxation bodies are the least transparent: the Interior Ministry and the Security Service (SBU) – 2.3 points each, courts and prosecutors – 2.2 points each.

Since August of 2006 almost all transparency indices have changed visibly for the negative, except those of the SBU (+9) and the Defense Ministry (+33). The highest negative indices are with the Cabinet of Ministers (-34), the parliament (-31), the Prosecutor General Office (-29), and courts and taxation bodies (-19 each).

Thus, public administration in general and certain governing bodies in particular are not transparent and not controllable by society.

So what is in the way of proper government? The poll gives a clear answer: these governing bodies do not want to be transparent and controllable. 56 percent of experts maintain that the biggest obstacle is the ruling elite’s resistance to public control, as they want their own advantage-seeking interests to remain concealed from the public eye. 21 percent of experts see the main obstacle to transparent administration in a lack of efficient public control (weak civil society institutes, low level political and civil culture, etc.). 18 percent of experts believe that authorities themselves lack the political culture to implement the proper public policy.

That is why the powers that be keep the information they possess within their closed circle, and then complain about negative public attitude to them. The absence of openness breeds rumors and suspicions.

Of course, taxpayers do not necessarily have to know the location of this or that special military unit or the real name of an intelligence agent in some banana republic, or the names of those who design a high-precision anti-aircraft missile. But what exactly are the “things” and “nuances” that President Yushchenko fears to disclose lest we Ukrainians become “disappointed”? Is it about a bribe taken by a Constitutional Court judge?

Public Control

“…The preterm election shall be held. It is the only way to impart to Ukrainian politicians the sense of responsibility before each of you, for you are the power, for you are the real driving force. You are the masters of this country. You constitute the source of power in Ukraine.”

V. Yushchenko, April 26, 2007

It would be nice were it so, but the facts tell a different story.

Who is the master of this country? The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (80%), whom the president addressed on April 26, do not feel like masters of this country. Only 11 percent do, and nine percent feel nothing about it. Respondents evaluated their influence on the central government with a score of 1.5 points and on local governments – with 1.6 points. Small wonder – non-transparency rules out any public control or influence.

The index of changes in the ruling coalition’s and government’s performance since their formation is negative (except the Defense Ministry and the President with +12 and +2 respectively). The Cabinet of Ministers has -45, the parliament has -42, the courts have -32, the Prosecutor General’s Office has -26, taxation bodies have -17, and the SBU has -1.

Expert evaluations are negative as well. In each listed field of activity the coalition and the government are not up to the mark: reformation of public service bodies stands at 2.2; regulatory policy at 2.2; economic and social policy, implementation of the national budget, and taxation are all at 2.1; staff and energy policies are at 1.9; and privatization is at 1.8.

Correspondence of Authorities’ Activities to Society’s Interests

Evaluating changes in the government’s activities following the formation of the ruling coalition and the government, experts gave very low grades. Only the Defense Ministry shows a positive index, +16, and the SBU has 0.0. Experts also gave them less than a “C” for meeting the interests of society. This shows a direct correlation: the government’s policy meets the interests of society exactly the way it is controllable by society.

A Drop of Water and Law

“I want you to put your sense of responsibility on the scales of your conscience.”

V. Yushchenko, March, 2007

A wise man said long ago that one could see the whole world in a drop of water. To most ordinary Ukrainians, the drop that exposed the real world of authorities was the scandal around a Constitutional Court judge who allegedly took an enormous bribe. [The scandal broke out when the SBU disclosed an audio record of the judge’s conversation with a government representative who offered all manner of benefits in exchange for the desired verdict. Mass media published sensational materials about several apartments and large plots of land worth a total of $12 million acquired by the judge’s old mother within several months – A.B.] The Prosecutor General’s Office responded immediately. According to its official statement, “the investigation revealed no facts of corruption”, so the Security Service “provided false information”. The [presidential – A.B.] side, backing the SBU, said that the SBU had not furnished the records or any other materials to the PGO, so the latter had nothing to investigate. Therefore, the SBU said, the PGO lied. The judge said she had not taken the bribe, and her husband – a big shot in the mass media – advised TV viewers to read the Constitution, which “guarantees immunity to Constitutional Court judges”. Does it mean that this judge is beyond suspicion a priori?

In any civilized country, a judge or any other official suspected of corruption pulls the trigger at the temple or at least resigns and sues the accuser.

Experts were asked how the Ukrainian governing bodies abided by the law. President Yushchenko got 3.1 points of 5; the courts got 2.6 points; the parliament and the government got 2.4 each. Impressive, isn’t it?

Most experts admit the regrettable fact: the bodies that are supposed to safeguard the “legal field” in Ukraine and uphold the principles of a law-governed state are themselves imbued with legal nihilism. Therefore, the judicial system as well as the entire system of government in this country can hardly be trusted. Experts were also asked to evaluate some characteristics of Ukrainian courts. The answers need no comment: corruption – 3.6 points; dependency on executive authorities – 3.2; political neutrality – 2.3; transparency – 2.0. Can one defend his rights in the country where the law is trampled down?

Rescheduled Election

“…He is nothing, and his name is nobody. He is not a political leader. He is no leader at all, no political figure. He is nobody – just an ordinary man like millions of others.”

V. Kiselev, March, 2007

Congratulations to all the voters and rank-and-file members of the Regions Party! No other party leaders have ever explained so comprehensibly what their voters mean to them. Nevertheless, those who voted for Yanukovych in the 2004 presidential election and for his party in the 2006 parliamentary election will surely vote the same way again. So will the supporters of Yushchenko and his party.

There are two reasons. Firstly, there is no one else to vote for, and new political forces will hardly emerge by June 24 – the new date of the preterm parliamentary election. There might be new faces, but God knows what can happen to those faces… Secondly, Ukrainian voters live by the simple physical law of inertia: they still believe that reshuffles and shakeups can work. It is easier and safer for them to keep silent and give bribes to officials whose “tariffs” they already know than to try and force those officials to behave.

As it looks, nothing special is going to happen. Life will go on, and these powers that be will carry on for another year or two. We will have the same non-transparent and uncontrollable authorities. As before, they will apply laws selectively and keep talking about morality. This will go on as long as we tolerate them and let them stir us up against one another and divide us politically, territorially, or religiously.

Conclusion

There are nine things that make a difference between rich and poor countries. They are not natural resources (just compare Nigeria and Japan), not history (the examples are Egypt, India, and others), not education (take Ukraine, for instance). They are morality as the fundamental principle, honesty, responsibility, respect for laws and rules, respect for others’ rights, love of labor, willingness to save and invest, willingness to do more and better, and punctuality. Should we begin with punctuality?