Oksana Bashuk Hepburn
Aug 03, 2006

Not since the possible intervention of Russian tanks to stop Ukrainians from electing their man during the cold days of December 2004, has Ukraine needed good pro-West advisors as much as it has recently. Kyiv is teeming with advisors from Russia and the West. Russia’s deserve their high per diems. Their proteges from the Party of Regions may well form the new cabinet. Those offering advice to President Victor Yushchenko – at least those belonging to the so-called pro-West category – should be fired. The president’s actions have been so bad, they defy understanding.

To begin with, he created a political vacuum, one of the greatest hazards in politics. Yulia Tymoshenko understood the danger and set out to cobble together an Orange coalition as soon as her Bloc won the most seats among the three Orange parties in the March 26 2006 parliamentary elections. Instead of support, the president’s Our Ukraine Party gave her grief. The on-again off-again talks prolonged the vacuum for three months. It allowed the fraud of Victor Yanukovych and his pro-Russian oligarchic Party of Regions to almost snatch victory from the Orange forces.

The political vacuum was an opportunity for Western friends to provide advice on how to move forward. Pressuring the President to do the right thing and give Ms. Tymoshenko the prime minister’s job again would have consolidated power and provided Ukraine with a reform-minded, pro-Western government. Of immediate concern, it might have safeguarded Ukraine’s energy sector from Russia.

There is little evidence that such mentoring took place. Last March, before the parliamentary election, I was assured by highly placed Western advisors that the best thing for Ukraine would be a three-way coalition: Our Ukraine’s president would be the national figurehead; the prime minister’s job would go to Ms. Tymoshenko, or the Party of Regions; and the remaining one would become the parliamentary speaker.

I was troubled by this scenario. What about punishment for the rigging during the 2004 presidential election? What about the vast differences in policies? What about the focus on Russia on the part of the Regions? Who would form the opposition? None of this seemed to matter. Having helped to topple Communism in Ukraine in 1991; having prevented the fraudulent Victor Yanukovych from stealing the presidency, some western advisors were ready to reverse these achievements. As it turned out, no such reversal was needed. The Orange forces, buoyed by Ms. Tymoshenko’s significant victory, had the necessary numbers in parliament. They did not need to compromise with the Regions. So why did the President compromise by failing to act in a timely manner and create a political vacuum?

A nasty joke is doing the rounds in Ukraine. The president, boxer Volodymyr Klitschko, football star Andriy Shevchenko are pushing strollers in the park; discussing the future for their baby sons. 

"Take a look at his jaw and big fists," Klitschko says, "he has the makings of a good boxer."

Shevchenko’s baby is kicking up a storm with his legs. ”Undoubtedly, my son will become a world class soccer player.” "What future awaits your son," they ask. Mr. Yushchenko? The president bends over, sticks his head into the stroller and replies “He’s soiled his pants and he’s quiet now."

History will not remember bad advisors. It may be unforgiving to the president for forfeiting an Orange government and taking Ukraine to the next level of democratic maturity. His popularity is less than 10 percent at present. Many reasons are offered. However, it is becoming clearer day by the day that Ms. Tymoshenko was frozen out to accommodate Russia’s control of Ukraine’s energy sector. Ordinary people are horrified that the possible ceding of control of the Ukrainian gas transport system, to Russia, is being contemplated.

Had Ms. Tymoshenko been the prime minister of the Ukrainian government, many believe this would not have happened. She would have fought against the possibility of further Russian control over Ukraine’s energy assets and argued the danger of such concentration to the West.

It is hard to understand why the West, the United States in particular, would allow the political situation in Ukraine to deteriorate this far at a time when Russia’s energy dominance is causing global concern and when its political tone is turning bellicose. It is inconceivable that America and others fell asleep in Ukraine. Yet it happened. And, this is not the first time.

Recall, how the West, following the lead of the United States, agreed to centralize the nuclear capability of the former USSR – shared between Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan – in Russia’s hands. Also, how Ukraine’s interest in joining NATO some ten years ago were scuttled to accommodate Russia’s objections. Bad decisions then and an another bad one now. Allowing Russia to gain control of the USSR’s decentralized energy sector through the purchase of Ukraine’s pipeline would give Russia an energy advantage not just in Ukraine, but globally. Like nuclear power and NATO membership, energy is a political weapon. As Ukrainians says – with such friends and advisors, who needs enemies?

Ms. Tymoshenko appears to understand the importance of timely political moves and the danger of political vacuums. She understands the value of keeping energy control out of Russia’s hands. She understands power. At the time when she still could have been prime minister, she clearly articulated that she would not share power with the Party of Regions. The latter would need to become the opposition to the government, she argued.

At that point in the talks held by the parties to the Orange coalition, it would have helped enormously if knowledgeable Western friends and advisors had offered a basic lesson on good democratic governance: opposition to the government in power ensures its service to the people rather than to itself. Such enlightenment might have made a difference. Instead, in the president’s quarters, there was much muddying of political waters with talk of power sharing and heading-up ministries and committees between the Orange forces and the Party of Regions. This talk continues.

After her right to lead the government was trumped by Socialist Party leader Oleksander Moroz as much as by the political vacuum that had transpired, Ms. Tymoshenko demonstrated once again her sound knowledge of the workings of democracy. Unlike the president’s Our Ukraine members, she did not opt to plead to the Party of Regions for leftover posts. She recognized that such a move would neutralize the bloc’s political effectiveness. Instead, she declared her intention to go into opposition. 

This move should serve her well. If she follows the western parliamentary model she will empower her team by creating a shadow cabinet, critically follow the government’s policy, respond with better options, and be visible in the mass media as the alternative to the government. All of this will be ready by the time Ukraine goes to the polls again.

Ukraine is learning political lessons the hard way, perhaps it’s the only way. Nonetheless, bad calls by politicians and advisors need to be accounted for and given the developments of the least three months, heads should roll. This too, is part of learning how democracy works.

Oksana Bashuk Hepburn is a consultant who travels regularly on business to Ukraine. She is authoring a book about her experiences.