Keeping in mind Ukraine’s desire to join the democratic world, the importance of achieving minimal standards such as democratization of the institutions, the minimal state, transparency of the decision-making process and the respect of fundamental liberties and rights of the individuals must be stressed. A study of Russia’s parliamentary elections and Liberal movement in comparison with the situation in Ukraine in the year 2003 is of key importance to create a consistent image of threats to democratization in both countries. Threats that, we need to acknowledge too often appear from within the liberal movement itself.
Here in Ukraine, Liberals are more and more driven to coming up with a question of whether the current political situation in Ukraine is such that free, fair and genuinely competitive elections are possible?
The results of the Russia’s parliamentary elections caught surprisingly many democrats in Europe and Ukraine by surprise. Indeed, The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which had 400 observers in Russia in the build-up to and during the vote, described it as a "regression in the democratization of the country". Nevertheless it is self-evident that Fragmentation and Rivalry amongst Russia’s Liberals has contributed to the failure by far greater than the acknowledged numerous abuses by the leading party, the use of the administrative resources in order to promote leading party own candidates, manipulation and tricking voters, the use of illegal and non-ethical methods. Just as much as all the above listed, SPS and Yabloko’s (two leading Russian liberal groupings) decision to contest the parliamentary elections as two distinct and separate organizations and the conflicts that motivated such decision allows to consider that the democracy in Russia is in a real danger. Without a thorough analysis of pre-history of the Russia’s liberal collapse it can not be expected that Ukraine’s fragmented liberal movement will be able to avoid mistakes that led Russian liberals to a complete wipe-out in the Parliamentary elections.
The two parties which would be recognized in the West as genuinely liberal, and in favour of the free market, the SPS and Yabloko, both failed to reach the 5% barrier. Had they joined forces, it is likely that they would have slipped into the Duma. Divided, they have fallen. It is a shame that just as Russia’s liberals have shown their singular inability to come together in any meaningful sense. Ukraine’s Liberals seem to scatter in front of challenge just as willingly. In this regard calls for unity that emanated from SPS can be seen as part of a long-term strategy aimed at portraying SPS as the ‘reasonable, accommodating’ liberals in contradistinction to the ‘stubborn and uncooperative Yabloko consistently refusing to unite for the greater good of the liberal movement. Whilst any impetus for the unification of the two parties since the 1999 Duma elections has come from SPS, the sincerity of such proposals is open to question, and owes as much to tactical as to unifying considerations. The enmity between Yabloko and SPS parties continued, resulting in a loss.
Let us then, sincerely acknowledge that Ukrainian liberal movement has been an easy pray of parties’ leaders rivalry, political short-sightedness, lack of consistent development strategy and enmity. None of the liberal parties managed to pass to the Ukrainian parliament in the 2002 parliamentary elections. So does this imply a crisis of Liberalism as ideology and political technique in Ukraine or is it an alarm bell for liberals to take appropriate steps needed to re-establish broken links with those who are aware that only implementation of Liberal principles of the Rule of Law and Individual liberties and rights will assure consistent, non-declarative Euro-Integration on part of Ukraine.
Recent Expansion takes the EU to the borders of Russia and Ukraine. The former is too vast ever to join a Union that calls itself European, but the latter is not, and liberal must make their position clear on this subject – as long as Ukraine will remain burdened by shrivelled economy and international concern about human rights, it can only dream of meeting the tough requirements for economic reform and democracy. EU enlargement commissioner Guenter Verheugen said at the European Economic Summit in Warsaw that Ukraine’s accession to the EU is not on the agenda. We are sober-minded enough to understand how objective such opinion is with regard to Ukraine’s setbacks. I believe that Ukraine’s liberal movement must position itself clearly as standing in favour of bringing Ukraine to the standards of EU with all the implications. Ukraine is still lagging far behind the essential criteria to be called a democratic nation. I can not but cite IFRY’s statement (15.03.04) on the local and Presidential elections in Russia, this time applying it to Ukraine “democracy consists of more than just free voting.”
What do Liberals have to do to overcome alienation with the voter that has been often listed among plausible causes of the failure? The Union of the Right-Wing Forces and Yabloko found themselves sidelined but does this mean that liberals have to switch their political activities to the streets? As drastic as such a step may seem it is but a single of so many ideas that Liberals in both Ukraine and in Russian play with in the search for a way out of the present ordeal. Restructuring of Liberal movement is painful but is a demand. Defeat of the SPS in the Parliamentary elections, and likewise Yabloko’s defeat, are both results of objective processes that has been taking place in Russia’s society in the last 15 years and caused certain organizational , administrative and tactical decisions taken by leaders of the parties with tacit approval of the parties’ activists..
Obviously liberals have neglected systematically work with their potential voters before the Elections, meanwhile Liberal movement seemed to have entrusted itself totally to the outcome of agitation PR campaign. Such an approach allowed party leaders to carry out crucial decisions, deliberately avoiding open debate.
Liberal movement need to cope with its strong-leaders complex and apply demands of decentralization to itself. Our response to this may be strong emphasis on training and education of party activists and in this regard support of European liberal movement is very timely!
Why not pose the question of why liberal leaders do chamberize” decision making process? Do we have to agree with those of political analysts who have come up with a likely answer that to allow party membership to exercise the right to influence decision making runs contrary to goals of allegedly democratic leaders. We have to acknowledge that liberal movement is in need of democratization just as much as state structures are.
Alienation of liberal structures from public is not only not combated but is tolerated and favourably looked at as a vindication of so-called public acknowledgement of the leaders right to disregard the bulk of party members in relations with donors and the government.
Liberals have failed to represent liberalism. This notorious inability to conduct dialogue with public showed itself in the electoral campaign and then in the polls. Attempts of Russia’s liberals to point at alleged abuse of the administrative resource by the leading party as their excuse seem insincere. Isn’t this true that administrative resource is only effective in a demoralized, passive, indifferent society.
Liberals must prioritize the dialogue with public, this doesn’t imply refusal of dialogue with Government (by the way, disagreement with Government is a form of dialogue too.) Difference of opinion is the ground for a dialogue, supported by public and therefore productive and clearly spelled in terms of involvement of citizens. Liberal parties do have to turn to regional NGOs to legitimize their pretences to represent democratic movement and nation in general.
We can only speak of democracy if it is grounded in constitutional liberalism, which implies Independent judicial power, separation of powers and Assured liberties that no electoral majority could challenge. A Liberal democracy is but proto-democracy, a potential democracy and nothing else.
Subsequently this means that the “European” alternative that liberals feature is at the same time an alternative to Police State and Authoritarianism. Liberal opposition must though part itself from discredited opposition forces in Ukraine that no sober mind would call possessing any democratic credentials. Such a turn in Liberal strategy may appear marginal in the short-term perspective but in the long-term and middle –term perspective it has the benefit of consistency and adherence to principles. It is about resistance to repression and anti-democratic reaction on the one hand, and loyalty to democratic action on the other hand. Liberal opposition can not be marginal.
« return.