KIEV, Ukraine -- Some Western policymakers continue to argue that  Ukraine's political system is unlikely to evolve into a full  authoritarian system along the lines of Russia and Belarus, President  Viktor Yanukovych will slow down his authoritarian blitzkrieg, they  argue, and the system will stabilize into a semi-authoritarian system.
In other words, Ukraine will stabilize at "partly free," the  semi-authoritarian status that Freedom House gave it throughout the  Leonid Kuchma era and to which it returned in 2010 after Yanukovych's  first year in office.
An alternative viewpoint that's gaining  ground is that Ukraine will decline further to "not free," the full  authoritarian status that independent Ukraine has never held. If this  were to take place, Ukraine would join the eight authoritarian CIS  countries (Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, and the five Central Asian  states) that are classified as "not free" by the U.S.-based rights  watchdog.
The Yanukovych administration has moved farther down  the path of authoritarianism in only one year in office than Kuchma did  in a decade. Both administrations resorted to taking political  prisoners.
Under Kuchma, members of UNA-UNSO (Ukrainian National  Assembly-Ukrainian People's Self-Defense) were imprisoned for their  alleged involvement in the March 2001 riots. Under Yanukovych, former  Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and her former cabinet members are  either under arrest or threatened with criminal charges.
Under  Kuchma, elections were falsified in 1999 and 2004 -- on both occasions  with the assistance of Yanukovych at the local and national levels.  Under Yanukovych, local elections were falsified last year.
Free  elections can only be trusted to democratic forces such as Yushchenko,  under whose watch high-quality elections were held in 2006, 2007, and  2010. Yanukovych is destroying the institution of free elections that  brought him to power.
In the 2002, 2006-07, and 2010 parliaments,  Kuchma and Yanukovych both sought to bribe, coerce, and blackmail  opposition deputies to defect to the ruling coalition. Usually these  were business leaders in the opposition, whether members of the Liberal  Party in 2002 led by Volodymyr Shcherban or the Party of Industrialists  and Entrepreneurs led by Anatoliy Kinakh in 2007.
The Communist  Party (KPU) never entered government under Kuchma, but has joined both  coalitions established by Yanukovych: the anticrisis coalition in  2006-07 and Stability and Reforms since 2010. The neo-Stalinist KPU is  anti-reform and anti-Western, and therefore any coalition that includes  such a political force cannot honestly be described as "reformist."
There  has also been regression on national identity questions. The KPU and  Yanukovych's Party of Regions voted against the 2006 law on the 1933  artificial famine (Holodomor) and the pages on the famine on the  presidential website were removed on February 25, 2010, the day  Yanukovych was inaugurated. In 2003, by contrast, Kuchma launched an  international campaign to support the designation of the Holodomor as an  act of genocide.
Collapse Of  Independent Institutions
Parliament became a rubber-stamp  institution under Yanukovych for the first time in its history, because  Kuchma never had a stable majority. Yanukovych's Stability and Reforms  coalition has bought in 50 opposition deputies, giving it more than 260  in total in the 450-seat Verkhovna Rada.
The courts are in far  worse condition today than under Kuchma. Supreme Court Chief Justice  Vasyl Onopenko told the "Kyiv Post" that "courts as judicial bodies and  judges have lost their independence. This is a direct threat to the  judicial protection of human rights."
After the summer 2010  reform of the judiciary. "the Supreme Court has been denied the ability  to perform its constitutional function," Onopenko said. "No one  guarantees the unity of case law and equal application of laws in state  courts. The Supreme Court, which previously did it, is now deprived of  such powers."
Yanukovych has marginalized the Supreme Court as  personal revenge for its December 2004 annulling of his second-round  election victory. In a February 11 interview with the BBC, Yanukovych  again repeated that the Supreme Court had infringed the constitution in  2004 when it annulled his election and that he had won a "free  election."
Under both Kuchma and Yanukovych, the unreformed  "siloviki," or security forces -- the Security Service (SBU), the  Interior Ministry (MVS), and the Tax Police -- have been used against  the political opposition and independent media.
Prime Minister  Mykola Azarov led the Tax Police throughout its first seven years of  existence (1996-2002). The SBU under Yanukovych has adopted  authoritarian tactics against academics, NGO activists, politicians, and  journalists for the first time since under its predecessor, the Soviet  Ukrainian KGB, in the pre-Gorbachev era.
In the 1990s the MVS was  more under democratic control than today, as its Internal Troops had  been taken away in 1991 and transformed into a National Guard. But these  were returned to the MVS in 2000 and have, like in other postcommunist  systems, become the president's praetorian guard.
On November 28,  2004, the MVS troops were ordered to Kiev by Prime Minister Yanukovych,  over Kuchma's head, to violently suppress the Orange Revolution. But  they were turned back by the army.
Journalists Disappear
Under Kuchma the murder of  journalist Heorhiy Gongadze became an international scandal after a tape  recording was released in which the president allegedly ordered  Interior Minister Yuriy Kravchenko to violently beat Gongadze.
What  is less well known is that journalist Ihor Aleksandrov was also killed  in 2001 in Donetsk when Yanukovych was governor of the region.
Last  month, "The Washington Post" asked Yanukovych about Kharkiv editor  Vasyl Klymentyev, who disappeared only seven months after Yanukovych was  elected. The MVS assumes he has been killed.
Yanukovych  nonchalantly replied, "Many journalists disappear all over the world."
Media  censorship took place under Kuchma, but the situation is worse today.  What differentiates the Kuchma and Yanukovych presidencies was that  total censorship under the former was impossible because of the strength  of the opposition, inside and outside parliament, and pluralism within  the ruling elites.
Yanukovych claims that "mercenaries" in the  West have been bought to write negatively about Ukraine and that the  Czech government was bribed to grant former Economy Minister Bohdan  Danylyshyn political asylum.
Yanukovych's worldview exports  Ukraine's domestic situation -- where Ukrainian journalists are often  paid to place articles and politicians and cabinet ministers are often  corrupt -- to the outside world. This worldview does not see either the  legitimacy of Western criticism or the legitimacy of domestic criticism  by the opposition and media.
Yanukovych refuses to acknowledge  that democratic regression is taking place on his watch and, in this, he  is similar to Kuchma. But, in five areas -- political repression,  parliamentary independence, media censorship, the use of the "siloviki,"  and quality of elections -- democratic regression is worse under  Yanukovych than it was under Kuchma.
If it continues, it will  lead to Ukraine becoming ranked as "not free" by the end of Yanukovych's  first term in office, following Kyrgyzstan, which dropped after its  2005 Tulip Revolution from "partly free" to "not free" in 2010.
 
No comments:
Post a Comment