Research, Update

English

Policy Documentation Center

New Rukh: better than two old ones?
Vol. 6, No. 199, December 11, 2000
The process of active reshuffles and re-arrangement of political forces and alliances for the early
election season has already produced some new characters and trends. Among the general calls for
consolidation of pro-democracy political forces at the center-right part of the national political
spectrum, a group "For the Unity of Rukh" held its foundation congress on November 25, 2000 in
Kyiv.
The congress was reportedly attended by almost 600 delegates, representatives of different Rukh
organizations from all over Ukraine. According to a political legend, the new formation was initiated
by "grass-root organizations of Udovenko's and Kostenko's parties" (Ukraina Moloda, November 28,
2000). The key slogan that served as a constituent basis for the new entity and was reflected in the
congress participant's formal address to potential voters was the argument that "the Rukh was not split
up into two parts, but far deeper, at least into three [parts]. The third part [consists of] organizations and
individual Rukh members who did not join any official Rukh structure, do not recognize the split-up
and demand restoration of unity" (Chas, December 1, 2000).
The recent congress definitely favored the People's Rukh of Ukraine (NRU-Udovenko), while Yuri
Kostenko's party, the Ukrainian People's Rukh (UNR), was scarcely mentioned in the debates - which
looked strange, given the fact that "according to NRU spokesman Dmytro Ponomarchuk, he estimated
that about 70 percent of members of Kostenko's organization were present at the congress" (Den,
November 28, 2000). However, the claim was later refuted by Yuri Kostenko himself: "only one
organization, [of] Ternopil, where Bohdan Boiko used to work as the governor, was represented by a
substantial number [of members], in particular, the Husyatyn district organization of the UNR"
(Ukraina Moloda, November 30, 2000). Kostenko also added that "according to preliminary
information, representatives of the above organizations said they had been misled. They thought they
were going to attend a unification congress, but not the congress of yet another political party. That is
why they stay in the UNR" (Ukraina Moloda, November 30, 2000). Hence, the congress immediately
provoked a number of questions about membership criteria in the party of the "non-aligned".
The new formation was reportedly organized to pursue the noble goal of "restoring the single Rukh
organization" (Den, November 28, 2000). However, it is unclear how well and if at all the
consolidation process can be helped by the establishment of yet another political organization that also
claims the right to be titled "Rukh".
In order to pursue the declared purpose, the assembly resolved to establish a new political party. As any
political party, the new formation, called "For Unity of the Rukh!" there is a leader. In this case, rather
symbolically, the new entity has three heads: member of the NRU parliamentary faction Bohdan Boiko,
non-faction MP Georgy Filipchuk and member of the NRU Eduard Krech. It looks like co-chairmen of
the new "Rukh" intend to lead the two "old Rukhs to unification with the help of some "strong hand"
methods. Speaking to the congress about the attitudes of the leaders of the NRU and the UNR, Bohdan
Boiko argued: "I know those people very well. Unless there is pressure and threats, they will not think
about unification but about the top of the party's [election] list" (Silski Visti, November 28, 2000). It is
hard to guess what exactly is meant by the reference to "pressure and threats" and how they are going
to be included in the party- building process and inter-party relations. According to Boiko, "when the
real unification takes place, the organization [i.e., the new "Rukh"] will be self-dissolved" (Silski Visti,
November 28, 2000). Yet, judging from the picture presented by Mr. Boiko, the act of "self-
dissolution" will not occur in the near future. According to Boiko, "within a year he had conducted
negotiations about the unification with leaders of both Rukhs, but those did not produce any results"
(Den, November 28, 2000). Naturally, there is no guarantee that the ice of the split-up will be melted
by the second year of negotiations and that the situation will not become worse instead.
The initiators of the new "Rukh" have chosen the paradoxical way "from the opposite", seeking to at
either as mediators of the unification process or facilitators of the debates on the issue. In order to unify
two closely related political parties formed as a result of the break-up of one entity, a new party is
established to claim the role of a self-styled intermediary and a driving force at a time. A summary
document of the "third Rukh's" congress stipulates: "at this congress we want to work out common
grounds on which one could unite both all Rukh members and our voters <...> to develop mechanisms
of real unification, its specific terms, to offer the conditions for unification that would suit all" (Chas,
December 1, 2000).
However, the general role of an intermediary - a mediator, lacking political charisma who claims to
seek facilitating contacts between the parties to the conflict by means of establishing a new political
party with its own goals, interests and motivations - looks rather unnatural. The commitment to self-
sacrifice, voiced through the declarations at the congress that "we want to have the single party list, [to
see] Rukh identify its allies" (Den, November 28, 2000) does not look convincing but rather resembles
"velvet" coercion.
The speeches made at the congress disclosed a priority strategic goal of the new group: taking part in
the 2002 parliamentary election. "The dramatically negative result of the split-up was the critical
reduction of the number of Ukrainian voters prepared to vote for the broken-up Rukh organizations at
the next election," the address stressed. The situation "will mean the threat of losing the representation
in the Verkhovna Rada by the national democratic forces in general, which is extremely dangerous for
Ukraine's state security" (Den, November 28, 2000). Hence, according to Boiko, "voters of Ukraine
will not bear three Rukhs" - the conclusion sounds logical indeed! Other claims, though, are just on the
surface of the logic: "if the Rukhs will be unable to unite, they have to leave the political arena" (Den,
November 28, 2000). The conclusion sounds radical, given the common sense argument: if the
consolidation does not take place, the Rukh - no matter one or several of them - will be made to leave
the "political arena" by Ukrainian voters regardless of the parties' leaderships' wishes.
Analyzing chances and prospects of the new "Rukh", it is worth taking a closer look at the profile of its
leader, Bohdan Boiko, seen by some representatives of the Ukrainian right and center- right as rather
equivocal, particularly in the light of the NRU Central Board's proposal to nominate Boiko as Rukh's
candidate for the presidency in 1998, treated rather negatively by representatives of other national
democratic forces. Referring to the idea, leader of the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (CUN) Slava
Stetsko said: "It is hard to comment on the Rukh's actions nowadays..." (Segodnya, September 9,
1998).
Public cooperation between UNR leader Yuri Kostenko and Bohdan Boiko is a special case that
derives from the Rukh history before the break-up. The issue of nominating the party's candidate to run
for presidency in October 1999 causes major controversy and confrontation within the party, with Yuri
Kostenko and Bohdan Boiko being among the main characters of the political performance. In early
September 1998 the session of the Central Board of the Rukh selected a candidate to run for presidency
to be proposed for approval by the congress and to be agreed on by other national democratic forces.
According to scarce media reports, the situation developed as follows: "First, the nominations were
Vyacheslav Maksymovych [Chornovil] himself and ex-minister of the environment Yuri Kostenko.
Unexpected for many was the number of votes cast for Yuri Kostenko - 32. 18 voted for Vyacheslav
Chornovil... In order to "prevent the split-up in the party", Yuri Kostenko withdrew his candidacy from
the debate. Suddenly, ex-head of the Ternopil regional state administration Bohdan Boiko nominates
himself for the President's "headset" and received three fourth of the votes of the Central Board
member" (Vechirniy Kyiv, September 9, 1998). Commenting on the reasons for withdrawing his
candidacy, Yuri Kostenko argued: "the reason was absolutely different: [it was] the situation that
developed in the party. <...> [I] shall only say that Rukh must be reformed in order to remain the leader
of the national democratic forces" (Den, September 10, 1998). The dispute was supposed to be resolved
by the All-Ukrainian Congress of the NRU scheduled to take place on December 12, 1998. Shortly
before the congress regional organizations nominated their candidates to be endorsed by the party as its
choice for running for presidency. Former governor of the Ternopil region and head of the party's
Secretariat Bohdan Boiko was among the favorites of the nomination process, but chose to step down
in favor of the Chornovil-Kostenko option. Former Foreign Minister Hennady Udovenko and former
Minister of the Environment Yuri Kostenko had practically equal chances to be chosen as the Rukh's
nominees; therefore, participants of the congress split into "supporters of Udovenko" and "supporters
of Kostenko". Yuri Kostenko was not lucky that time: the party leadership approved Hennady
Udovenko and Vyacheslav Chornovil as its candidates for presidency. A few days later the Central
Board of the Rukh issued a resolution stipulating: "... taking into account the statement of one of the
pretenders for the candidacy for the position of the President, identified by the first stage of the IX All-
Ukrainian Assembly of the People's Rukh of Ukraine, Vyacheslav Chornovil, about the withdrawal of
his candidacy at the second stage of the IX All- Ukrainian Assembly of the Rukh, and taking into
account the written commitment of Hennady Udovenko, all NRU organizations [are ordered to] begin
active propaganda of the candidacy of Hennady Udovenko as the single pretender for candidacy for the
President from the People's Rukh of Ukraine" (Chas, January 22-29 , 1999).
However, the entire complex of events, ambitions, objectives and motives culminated in an open
conflict. On February 19, 1999, the majority of the Rukh's parliamentary faction denied confidence to
Vyacheslav Chornovil and elected Yuri Kostenko as its new leader. Vyacheslav Chornovil did not
agreed to the decision, and the faction split into two parts. Relatively well-known and influential MPs
who followed Kostenko included Dmytro Pavlychko, Vitaly Shevchenko, Ivan Drach, Vyacheslav
Kyrylenko, Ivan Zayets, and Oleksandr Lavrynovych. Hennady Udovenko, Lilia Hryhorovych,
Mykhailo Kosiv, Vyacheslav Koval, Les Taniuk chose to support Chornovil. The situation further
deteriorated after Chornovil's tragic death shortly afterwards, when the former co-thinkers found
themselves confronting each other. On April 2 Hennady Udovenko added to the confrontation by
publicly stating that the two organizations would continue to cooperate and do everything to bring the
"stray sheep" back to the party.
Bohdan Boiko, then deputy leader of the party and head of the party's Secretariat, did not support
Vyacheslav Chornovil at that time. Later on, he became a deputy to Yuri Kostenko and a member of
the Central Board of Kostenko's Rukh. For a relatively long time he remained with the new Rukh and,
commenting on caused for the party's split-up, argued that "the split-up in the Rukh was planned by
former KGB agents [who are] now people from the top leadership of the NRU" (Vechirniy Kyiv, July
13, 1999). Yet, his assessment of his own role in that mixed game.
Later on, in December 1999, after the presidential race was over, some sources hinted that "Bohdan
Boiko, apparently, looks for ways to return to the Udovenko Rukh" (Zerkalo Nedeli, December 11,
1999). Hence, unity of the Kostenko party camp became to display cracks. A few days before the party
congress the Ternopil regional organization of the Rukh (Kostenko) issued a statement describing the
decision to hold the new party's foundation congress as "ill-thought" and potentially leading to "legal
endorsement of the break-up of the party" (Vysokyi Zamok, December 15, 1999). Bohdan Boiko
openly called for negotiations with the other part of the Rukh (Udovenko) and merge the two parts. The
events developed at a high pace. On December 15, 1999, Hennady Udovenko and leader of the Rukh
(Kostenko) faction in the parliament gave a joint press conference to announce that some of the
members of the Kostenko faction had decided to join the Udovenko organization in a single faction of
the NRU. Bohdan Boiko gave his reason for the initiative: "unwillingness to join the "new" Rukh
whose foundation congress was about to take place" (Kievskie Vedomosti, December 17, 1999). A
group of members of the Kostenko faction, led by Bohdan Boiko, signed a joint statement, which, as
the Rukh's newspaper, the Chas, put it, "became a decisive stage on the way towards restoration of
unity of the Rukh". The statement solemnly announced "our readiness for reconciliation and
consolidation into the single faction of the People's Rukh in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine as the first
step towards the unity in the party" (Chas, December 17, 1999). The statement was signed by Bohdan
Boiko, Ivan Boichuk, Hryhory Manchulenko, Georgy Filipchuk, Yaroslav Dzhodzhyk, and Igor
Tarasiuk. The politicians announced they made the step "consciously, in order not allow deeper break-
up of the democratic forces and to restore the single influential and strong People's Rukh of Ukraine"
(Chas, December 17, 1999). Sitting next to Hennady Udovenko, Bohdan Boiko pathetically announced
that he had "joined the People's Rukh of Ukraine, and saw political prospects for that party only, but
not for the new formations that would exploit the Rukh's slogans and symbols" (Chas, December 17,
1999). Commenting on the organizational and legal provisions for the would-be UNR, Boiko argued:
"Establishment of yet another part of the right-[wing] kind is the legal proof of the break-up in the
environment of the right forces" (Ukraina Moloda, December 18, 1999). Using this reasoning, should
the recent establishment of the new "Rukh" be viewed as yet another proof of the fact? The issue is far
from being a merely rhetoric one.
The main characters of the performance, the UNR and the NRU for which the unification action was
reportedly organized, reacted to the establishment and ambitious declarations of the "third Rukh" with
substantial degree of caution and ambivalence. In a sense, the process of consolidation at the right side
of the Ukrainian political spectrum has been differentiated from the new initiative under the Rukh
brand name. Representatives of the UNR and the NRU differ in their perspectives on the party "For
Unity of the Rukh" . The unification process was praised at the new Rukh's congress by deputy
chairmen of the Rukh (Udovenko) Vyacheslav Koval and Lilia Hryhorovych, claiming they were
positive that "in the future, the NRU and the association "For the Unified Rukh" will meet at a
unification congress" (Holos Ukrainy, November 28, 2000). However, agreement between the two
"old" Rukh is needed for such a congress to take place.
NRU leader Hennady Udovenko was rather cautions and diplomatic in his assessment of the event,
saying that "we, on the one hand, were worried by the information about the establishment of the new
party. But on the other, the establishment of that party indicates that the people are worried about the
break-up that occurred in the People's Rukh of Ukraine. The newly-established party strives to unite the
two Rukhs. We will support it in that, if that is really so, if there are no other motivations. My meetings
with Bohdan Boiko - as he is a member of our faction - prove that he really seeks to unite the two
Rukhs (Ukraina Moloda, November 30, 2000).
Leader of the UNR Yuri Kostenko seemed more open and skeptical - probably given his previous
experience of dealing with Bohdan Boiko: "from the perspective of the idea that was used for the
speculations during that congress - that the party was being formed in order to unite the two Rukhs -
that did not look logical... I think that everything is being done for the sole purpose: to simplify
manipulation when it comes to real formation of election blocks" (Ukraina Moloda, November 30,
2000).
The story has yet another dimension. According to the theory of Ukrainian party building, any partisan
entity is formed with the involvement of certain political and/or economic interest groups. Commenting
on the possibility of applying the "oligarchy theorem" to the new "Rukh", Hennady Udovenko
admitted: "I have no doubt that the oligarchic forces are interested in winning the Rukh's electorate, for
our electorate is rather steady, independent on political change. Therefore, struggle for our electorate
will intensify as the parliamentary election period comes closer. As far as the forces that may be behind
Boiko and support him, I know nothing about that" (Ukraina Moloda, November 30, 2000). His
opponent, leader of the UNR Yuri Kostenko made his point far more clear: "speaking about the
financial part, I know that the money was given by the structures that you defined as oligarchic"
(Ukraina Moloda, November 30, 2000).
Hence, while the NRU (Udovenko) was busy forming a political alliance with the Reforms and Order
and the CUN, and while the UNR (Kostenko) was building a block with the Batkivshchyna, the third,
different Rukh segment emerged in the political market, and was immediately described by one of key
actors of the potential consolidation in rather negative terms. The UNR representative Yevhen
Zhovtyak, MP, put it bluntly that "probably, certain analytical centers have calculated that both of the
two Rukhs have a chance to make it to the parliament; that is why the creation of the third one was
initiated in order to make sure that none of the three makes it" (Holos Ukrainy, November 28, 2000).
The comments clearly indicate the relapse of division and rivalry as a chronic plague of the Ukrainian
right-wing political forces, clearly demonstrated during the 1998 parliamentary election. While the
NRU (Udovenko) publicly demonstrates benevolence to the new "Rukh", the attitude may not
necessarily be shared by its newly-acquired partners, the Reforms and Order and the CUN. During the
1998 election campaign Bohdan Boiko repeatedly "called on the Rukh members to have no illusions
about right extremist organizations like the National Front that have unleashed a slander campaign
against Rukh in the Galychyna" (Chas/Time, November 30, 1997). The National Front's steering force
was the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, currently a partner of the NRU. Though the Rukh's new
partners made no public comments about the future of their alliance in the new circumstances, but the
establishment of the new political party may hinder the reconciliation process and building a
constructive dialogue between the Ukrainian right-wing forces.


New Rukh: better than two old ones?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Policy Documentation Center