UKRAINE: The Orange Has Been Sliced

By Zoltán Dujisin Reprint | | Print |

Analysis by Zoltán Dujisin

BUDAPEST, Sep 15 2005 (IPS) - The latest upheaval in Ukrainian politics has produced mixed feelings. Some are concerned that last year’s ‘orange revolution’ brought in a government as corrupt and incompetent as the one it replaced; others see the dismissal of the entire cabinet by President Viktor Yushchenko as a healthy sign of democratic accountability.

The disputed presidential election in December 2004 eventually ended in Yushchenko’s favour, after his vote rigging accusations led to a repeat of the elections. The new government enjoyed considerable support mostly because it appeared as the only alternative to a corrupt regime in this post-Soviet republic of 50 million.

After eight months of few tangible achievements, a handful of scandals and increasing social disappointment, Yushchenko decided last week to sack the government, including one of the symbols of the ‘orange revolution’, Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko.

Timoshenko’s role throughout the ‘revolution’, termed orange for its western leanings against the blue of the more Russian supporters, has been unanimously recognised. She was a leader in mobilising and maintaining people in the streets during the protests that forced a new vote. She is the only figure in Ukrainian politics capable of rivaling Yushchenko in popularity.

The scandals were quick to come in the new government. The first broke out this summer over the suspiciously extravagant lifestyle of Yushchenko’s son. The president’s reaction was clumsy, aggressive and came too late, and culminated in a public apology.

But last week’s events were simply too much for the government to handle. Various officials made insinuations of widespread corruption and illegitimate links to private interests within the cabinet. The accusations led to several resignations.

Yushchenko held an emergency meeting with his ministers, and after divisions were seen as unbridgeable, he fired the entire cabinet, claiming it had lost “team spirit”. Few were surprised by his decision.

The main divisions were over the two most powerful leaders under the president, Timoshenko and national security secretary Petro Poroshenko. Their rivalry had begun over the post of prime minister, which Timoshenko won due to her popularity. They have frequently disagreed ever since, giving the impression that two parallel governments were at work.

Timoshenko’s perceived rashness, short-term policies and populism were known to annoy the president, who often cautioned her. Yushchenko also favours a more liberal approach against the state-oriented economic policy propelled by Timoshenko.

The prime minister and the president first clashed over the issue of re-privatisation. Timoshenko hinted at the possibility of reviewing about 3,000 privatisation deals. Yushchenko halted her under fears this would harm foreign investments. They later disagreed over oil price caps and currency strengthening measures taken by Timoshenko.

Average Ukrainians have not remained indifferent to governmental instability. Inflation is rampant, oil prices have doubled, poverty remains widespread, and for those who had supported the revolution, there is a feeling of disenchantment with the leaders who had promised accountability and an end to the corruption and incompetence symptomatic of the previous government.

These were perceived as the core values of the ‘orange revolution’ that never carried a coherent ideology within it. The coalition that overthrew the previous government was united mostly by its rejection of the practices of former president Leonid Kuchma..

“The corruption didn’t come as a surprise,” says Olena, a Ukrainian student. “Everyone is corrupt in Ukraine. Those of us who voted for Yushchenko didn’t think he was the best option: he was the only option.”

Nonetheless, there is optimism in some of the press, which feels such radical steps would never have been taken before last year’s elections. “The periodic overthrow of power, which is being painted here as such a frightening phenomenon, is nothing more than democracy,” the Russian daily Kommersant commented.

Ukrainian daily Holos Ukrayiny saw the developments as “a logical finale for the former cabinet”. The opposition-minded Kiyevskiye Vedomosti took a more hostile stance, claiming that the president’s entourage which “often boasted its high moral standards, has become morally bankrupt.”

The sacking of Timoshenko may have opened a new gap in Ukrainian society before the parliamentary elections due 2006 that will bring in a new premier with increased power. Speaking on television, a “betrayed” Timoshenko declared she would “not run for election with those people who have discredited Ukraine today”, hinting at an independent candidacy.

Orange supporters will have to decide who better symbolises the ‘revolution’, moderate Yushchenko or charismatic Timoshenko. Meanwhile the pro-Moscow opposition will attempt to regain power by exploiting these disagreements, and might seek a convenient alliance with the ousted prime minister.

Yushchenko’s move gives him a fresh start and could put him above petty political quarrels in the eyes of public opinion. On the other hand, Timoshenko will be able to claim she was not allowed to finish her job.

The premiership will become the most coveted post in Ukraine after constitutional reform early next year, and the president might be tempted to halt the reform. Nevertheless, another fierce electoral battle should not come as a surprise.