Research, Update

English

Policy Documentation Center

Party preferences: consolidation vs competition
Vol. 6, No. 196, November 20, 2000
Notwithstanding the long period of ambiguity of the rules of the game for the next parliamentary
elections - it is still unclear whether the election system will be changed for the majoritarian or the
proportionate only, or will remain the 50/50 mixed - most of representatives of political parties in the
Ukrainian parliament appear to favor a proportionate electoral system. The first reading of a new draft
election law that would envisage introduction of a proportionate system was held on November 18,
1999 and was supported by 320 MPs. However, little progress in this area has been done since then,
and the final discussion of the new election law has been postponed indefinitely.
In a way, current views about the would-be electoral system reflect the situation of 1997, when the
proportionate system was favored by two major political forces with real grassroots organizations and
party history: the Communist party and the Rukh. A national daily reported yesterday that
"Communists and the Rukh members" represented in the parliament's Committee for State Building
and Local Self-Governance "believe that holding the elections based on a proportionate system will
accelerate political restructuring of the society and contribute to enhancing accountability of deputies to
the people" (Ukraina Moloda, November 16, 2000).
However, President Leonid Kuchma appears to have a different opinion on the system to be used to
elect a new parliament. He believes that the proportionate system-based elections could be held when
"there is a bi-cameral parliament in Ukraine". But if the implementation of the April 2000 referendum
results is delayed, "in that case the President speaks radically in favor of a mixed electoral system"
(UT-1, November 17, 2000). According to President Kuchma, nowadays in Ukraine "there is an
unjustifiably large number of political parties. But whom do they represent, the President asked, and
answered: everybody just wants to leapfrog to become [people'] deputies" (UT-1, November 17, 2000).
However, the obscurity of future electoral chances notwithstanding, Ukrainian political parties continue
developing and acting, gradually changing the national political landscape. Alongside with quantitative
changes and proliferation of left-wing and right-wing parties alike (to date, 106 political parties have
been registered), the processes of qualitative changes are under way, directly linked to issues of
leadership and transformation of political orientations and interests.
A classical example of the above is the transformation of the right-wing side of the Ukrainian political
spectrum. Some substantial changes have occurred in the Ukrainian Republican Party (URP) that has
lost much of its appeal and electorate within the past years but, due to the image of its "heroic past"
remains a well-known and "indicative" political party. On November 10, 2000, the party's 11th
congress elected one of its earlier leaders, Levko Lukianenko, to chair the party again. The decision
was supported by 284 delegates, while the active party chairman, Oleksandr Shandriuk received the
support of 233 delegates. Levko Lukianenko, 73, chaired then prominent URP in late 1980s - early
1990s. When asked to comment on his return to the party leadership, he explained the party's choice by
the fact that for some period of time "the former party leadership's willingness to continue supporting
Yevhen Marchuk [whose bid for the presidency the URP endorsed in 1999] had caused dissatisfaction
of the party members and led to rather serious contradictions within the party" (Tovarysh, #45,
November 2000). Nowadays, "after the attacks on the government personified by Victor Yushchenko
and Yulia Tymoshenko who have done quite a few positive things such support is no longer possible,"
the new URP chairman said (Tovarysh, #45, November 2000).
In September 1999, shortly before the presidential election, Levko Lukianenko argued: "[I] have
known him [i.e., Marchuk] since 1990. <...> [I] believe that they [i.e., the right-wing political forces]
will back Marchuk in the election... He is not going to become more left than he is, neither now, nor
later" (Pravda Ukrainy, September 14, 1999). However, the political map has changed since then and
political interests and affiliations have been adjusted accordingly. Commenting on his earlier support
for Yevhen Marchuk at the 1999 presidential race, the would-be comeback URP chairman, the
honorary chairman and official representative of Yevhen Marchuk in the 1999 campaign Levko
Lukianenko explained: "I also stood for Yevhen Kyrylovych [Marchuk] for I though that at the point he
was the most suitable [candidate] for the role of the head of the state. However, our agreement with
Marchuk was not made properly, i.e., rights and commitments of the parties were not specified. Our
candidate lost and joined Leonid Kuchma's team that he had resolutely criticized during the election
campaign. Meanwhile, the URP is an opposition party" (Silski Visti, November 2, 2000).
The new ex-chairman of the oldest Ukrainian democratic party Oleksandr Shandriuk who, according to
Levko Lukianenko "have done almost nothing for two years" (Silski Visti, November 2, 2000) is
unlikely to remain idle. There have been suggestions that Mr. Shandriuk and his followers might plan
to establish a new version of the Republican Party, but it is still hard to judge whether such intentions
are adequate to his resources and whether that will lead to a public split-up of the URP.
Hence, the pro-Yushchenko wing of the URP has been victorious at the recent party congress. The
transformation may be regarded as significant not only to the party but to Levko Lukianenko himself.
After the public dispute between Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Yevhen
Marchuk and some key figures of the Ukrainian government the URP, notwithstanding the relative
long relationship with Marchuk, switched to public support for the Yushchenko government and
changed its orientation at other political actors accordingly.
In the past parliamentary election (March 1998) the URP joined a right-wing election block, the
National Front, a consolidated effort bid of the URP, Ukrainian Conservative Republican Party led by
Stepan Khmara and the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists. At the early stage of the National Front's
campaign the joining declaration was also signed by the radical right State Sovereignty of Ukraine, the
Ukrainian Christian Democratic Party, the Lviv regional organization of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists, the Transcarpathian, Chernivtsi, and Luhansk regional organizations of the Ukrainian
People's Movement Rukh, and even the Luhansk regional organization of the People's Democratic
Party. Later on, however, those forces either embarked on independent campaigns or joined other
groups. The National Front expected to gain votes of supporters of nationalism in Western Ukraine and
radicalism of the kind advocated by the URP in Central Ukraine. In general, the block consisted on five
political parties and 12 public associations, and competed with the Rukh for the same electorate.
In 1997-1998, however, no consolidation of the Ukrainian right-wing forces, primarily the National
Front and the Rukh, occurred. Leader of the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (CUN) Slava Stetsko
admitted that the right-wing parties "could succeed should they join efforts with the Rukh" but still
criticized Vyacheslav Chornovil's idea about transforming the Rukh, the Prosvita and the CUN in a
single political entity (Kievskie Vedomosti, March 14, 1997). In her view, "the Rukh leadership did not
want unification but only wanted to lead those who wished to work under the auspices of the Rukh"
(Vechirniy Kyiv, March 5, 1998). As a result, the National Front failed to overcome the 4-percent
threshold introduced by the Law of Ukraine "On Election of People's Deputies of Ukraine" for political
parties and blocks. The National Front received only 721,966 votes, and its representatives could make
it to the parliament only as winners in three majoritarian constituencies. Meanwhile, Slava Stetsko got
almost 57 percent of the votes in the majoritarian constituency #89 of the Ivano-Frankivsk region.
Hopefully, national democrats can learn the lesson and will manage to avoid mistakes and separations
suffered by practically all political parties representing the right wing of the political spectrum. Unless
both parts of the Rukh and other right-wing parties reconcile to the idea of forming a viable block, the
Ukrainian right have no chance to win. Some signs made by the right indicate growing understanding
that winning the forthcoming election without consolidation of efforts will be highly problematic for
any of them, particularly given the deep crisis that undermined the Ukrainian national democratic
movement after the break-up of the Rukh. Nowadays, a variety of situational coalitions and
partnerships are being considered. One of the initial steps has been made by the parliamentary alliance
of the Reforms and Order and the CUN MPs into the 15-strong Reformy-Congress faction. However,
notwithstanding promising signs and efforts, no real unification of the two Rukhs has occurred so far.
Although both of the Rukhs have declared their strategies as aiming at support of the Yushchenko
government, they appear to target different governmental forces. The Ukrainian People's Rukh
(Kostenko) has been favored by Vice Prime Minister for Fuel and Energy Yulia Tymoshenko and is
very close to her political party and parliamentary faction, the Batkivshchyna. At the end of January
2000 it was announced that "UPR and the Batkivshchyna party have signed a political agreement to
establish in the parliament a block of factions acting within the parliamentary majority" (Segodnya,
January 18, 2000). The document stipulated coordination of public speeches and voting solidarity.
Nowadays this relatively lasting alliance and particularly the affiliations and interests that back it
critically reduce chances for forming an alliance with other right-wing forces and particularly "the
other Rukh". And it looks like the idea of such an alliance finds too little support in the Presidential
Administration... Leaders of the Udovenko Rukh seem to be aware and apprehensive of the uncertainty
of prospects for making such a block and some dilemmas that may arise in connection with links
between the Rukh (Kostenko) and the Batkivshchyna. As Taras Chornovil, MP, put it, "I had a meeting
with President Leonid Kuchma. At during [the meeting] he voiced deep interest in unification of the
NRU, PRP and UNR [i.e., the Rukh (Udovenko), the Reforms and Order and the Rukh (Kostenko)].
However, the head of the state was negative about the inclusion of the Sobor [led by Anatoly
Matvienko] and the Batkivshchyna in the process, for he believes that would take us beyond the
confines of the parliamentary majority and unite [us] with the left forces" (Ukraina Moloda, November
2, 2000).
While prospects for unification of the right-wing forces appear to be hindered by serious obstacles, the
Rukh (Udovenko), the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Reforms and Order seem to be
increasingly motivated to bring the Rukh (Kostenko) closer to their prospective alliance. The official
publication of the Rukh (Udovenko), the Chas, wrote on November 17, 2000 that "the political block of
parties: the People's Rukh of Ukraine, the Reforms and Order and the Congress of Ukrainian
Nationalists addressed members of the Central Provid [i.e., the Board] of the Ukrainian People's Rukh
with a proposal to join the block." According to the statement, similar proposal was made before, on
February 14, 2000: "then we expressed our belief that "the establishment of Ukraine as an
economically developed, democratic European state is possible through the only way - through the
unification of all patriotic forces of our state" and invited the Ukrainian People's Rukh "to join the
process of forming a coalition". Hence, the right-wing block has matured to ask a straightforward "yes
or no" question. Noteworthy, the address reads: "We believe that a block of right-centrist forces may
not be confined to our four parties only; all parties that have political agendas similar to ours' will be
invited to join. The statement, however, does not specify any parties with "similar agendas".
Meanwhile, so far the Rukh (Udovenko), supportive as it is of the Yushchenko government, is reluctant
to show rapprochement with the center-left Batkivshchyna. According to Hennady Udovenko, "there
can be no mechanical merger of the two Rukhs" and "the party's positions among the electorates will
not grow better because of the merger". However, in September 2000 Hennady Udovenko did not
exclude "a probable possibility of negotiations with parties of the Christian direction" (Ukraina
Moloda, September 15, 2000).
Centrist parties are also aware of the need for joining efforts and building coalitions and blocks. The
distribution of forces in the "center" has changed since the 1998 elections, with the emergence of the
Democratic Union (Volkov), the Working Ukraine (Derkach, Pinchuk, Tihipko, Sharov), and the
growing "Solidarity" (Poroshenko). Substantial changes in the sector have been signified by the
congress of the Working party on November 18 that elected former Vice Prime Minister and former
Minister of Economy Serhiy Tihipko, MP, as the party's new leader. Other leadership positions were
offered to Andriy Derkach to become the chairman of the party's political executive committee and
Yuly Ioffee to become the head of the political council. According to the media reports, "the issue of
blocking with other parties for taking part in the 2002 parliamentary election will be addressed by "the
laborists" only after the congress" (Interfax Ukraina, November 13, 2000). Therefore, let's wait for a
while...
November 18 was a remarkable day for Ukraine's recent political environment. Five political parties -
the Party of Regional Renaissance of Ukraine, the Solidarity party, the Party of Labor, the Party for the
Beautiful Ukraine and the All-Ukrainian Party of Pensioners - announced a merger under the leadership
of the Solidarity party that has been making rapid progress in receiving increasing media attention and
building up its political score. A few months ago, on July 18, leaders of the five parties (encouraged by
the Solidarity leader Petro Poroshenko) issued a joint statement about their agreement in principle to
merge into a single political party. Initially the unification congress was planned to take place on
October 21, 2000. Later on, the organizers explained the delay by purely technical reasons: "Some of
the regions did not manage to hold regional party conferences on time to elect delegates for this
congress, [therefore] the unification had to be postponed till a later date, November 18" (Vlada i
Polityka, October 27, 2000). However, on November 17 leaders of the would-be unified entity had to
face an unexpected and rather unpleasant surprise: five representatives of the Peasants' Party and their
leader Serhiy Dovhan, one of the "founding fathers" of the Solidarity faction in the parliament, left it.
Yet, the separation of the "Peasants" will hardly be a serious impediment to the ability and ambitions of
Poroshenko's Solidarity.
Although the next parliamentary election in Ukraine is scheduled to take place in about 18 months, the
time passes fast enough for new political formations to hurry up to become known by potential voters.
The process of political party promotion is costly and difficult; it requires substantial outreach efforts
and development of local structures. The notorious "administrative resource" remains a strong factor
that influences the election outcome. As the experience of previous campaigns shows, the use of the
"administrative resource" stimulates political parties and improves their chances to win; therefore,
stronger political parties are seeking to ensure favorable treatment by local authorities. This is
particularly true about "renewed", "replicated" and newly-created entities. Unlike the more traditional
Ukrainian political parties, they have not developed qualities and specific features that could be
recognizable for their potential voters. Therefore, they have to produce and advertise new images for
potential voters and interest groups. A number of recent opinion polls show that should the election be
held today based on the proportionate system, the parties that made it to the parliament two years ago
would most likely do it again and would hardly be challenged seriously by the newcomers. The 4-
percent "barrier" would be taken by the Communist party, the Socialist party, the United Social
Democrats, the Rukh chaired by Hennady Udovenko, the People's Democratic Party, the Greens, the
Reforms and Order, and Yulia Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna. Some problems with overcoming the
qualification threshold would be faced by the part of the old Rukh now chaired by Yuri Kostenko and
Oleksandr Volkov's Democratic Union (see Holos Ukrainy, November 11, 2000). While the list may
not be an absolutely accurate one, it still reflects general trends and perspectives on political parties, as
well as the general electoral inertia. Therefore, new political formations have to accelerate their self-
promotion efforts. The results are likely to be observed in the near future.


Party preferences: consolidation vs competition

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Policy Documentation Center