The symbolic signing of nothing special

There is much to be said for symbolism.

It can be inspiring, it can be unifying, it can be a moment of hope or defiance that ignites the courage of others – in short, it can have impact.

It can also be completely empty of meaning, condescending, devoid of rationale and ultimately, pointless in the extreme.

And so, 18th May brought to an end the 2 month “Rise Ukraine” strategy of the United Opposition – Batkivshchyna, UDAR and Svoboda parties – in Kyiv.

After countless rallies in numerous (opposition friendly) cities drawing crowds of a few thousand people each time – worryingly low numbers if you are an opposition party leader to be blunt – the finale in Kyiv attracted a only few thousands people once again.

I would have expected for 10,000 – 15,000 after months of rallies leading up to a well publicised finale – and even that number would be disappointing.

All the issues I raised in the above link back in March have proven to come to fruition – not that it would take anybody with a modicum of common sense and even the most basic understanding of Ukrainian politics and society any effort to come to that same conclusion.

When adding all the reported attendance numbers from all the rallies over the past 2 months, it doesn’t even get close to the gate numbers of Manchester United playing an average team on a very wet and cold Tuesday night at Old Trafford.

To be quite honest I still have no idea why the opposition embarked on such a strategy that was so clearly doomed to failure.  I still cannot deduce why I was asked to “rise” over the past 2 months just to now sit back down again – possibly until October 2015 when the next presidential elections are due.

There has certainly been no impact or identifiable causal effect from the “Rise Ukraine” campaign, other than to identify just how few people the opposition parties have managed to turn out during this time.

Hmmm.

Anyway, back to today’s “Rise Ukraine” (anti)climax of the 2 month campaign, which saw the opposition party leaders sign a joint agreement in front of a pitiful crowd of about 4,ooo people relating to the presidential elections in 2015.

This agreement states that all opposition parties will support any opposition candidate that makes it to the second round of voting in the presidential elections.

That is a significant change in rhetoric from the past few months where is has been consistently claimed that a single nominee from the United Opposition would run.

Now it seems rather than a single opposition candidate to run against the current incumbent from the very beginning of any presidential election campaign (in the first round), the opposition leaders have failed (unsurprisingly) to agree on one of them running for the top job with the unified support of the others from the off.

Thus the plan after the least popular two have been eliminated in the first round of voting, leaving one to go head to head with Yanukovych, is to then unite behind their last man standing for the second round of voting.  A cozy little agreement granted – but will the opposition voters turn out in sufficient number in the second round to vote for a candidate that is not the man they voted for, not from a party they voted for, and does not share the same ideology as the man and party they voted for in the first round only a few weeks previously?

As Klitschko never seems to tire of saying, there are ideological differences between himself, Yatseniuk and Tyahnybok, and the parties they lead.  That is also true of their supporters differing ideologies.

Time will tell if opposition unification around a single presidential candidate after the first round of voting, rather than prior to any voting, will prove to be a sound strategy – I have serious doubts that it is a good strategy, although I also have serious doubts (at the time of writing), that Yatseniuk, Klitschko or Tyahnybok will beat Yanukovych anyway (even with full transparency and on a level playing field – which they may not get).

And so to the impact and underlying realities of the symbolic signing of the joint statement of opposition leaders,  pledging to support each – other only when they themselves have been eliminated from the presidential race.

The underlying  and sad reality is, there is little genuine unity amongst the opposition.  The impact of this agreement is almost zero, given that when all is said and done, ultimately, the public will be faced with the choice between Yanukovych or another in the second round of voting – opposition agreement or not.

* * * * *

On a completely different subject, there will probably be nothing from me tomorrow as I am doing something for the BBC – and their filming may take some time as I am not a great fan of being on camera, so single takes are very unlikely.   Thus I doubt I will have the time or interest to blog after being “Beeb’d” all day.

Opposition demands to be debated next week in the RADA

The United Opposition have stated that the will unblock the RADA next week as agreement has been reached to allow their 4 key “issues” to be considered during that time.

Those 4 key issues are:

The setting of an election date for the position of Kyiv Mayor.

A vote of “No Confidence” in the current government.

The abolition the new pension reforms.

The removal of the Artilces of law under which Ms Tymoshenko is currently jailed.

And?

Well the issues relating to the Kyiv Mayor are currently being considered by the Constitutional Court which the law proscribes must give their decision upon within 3 months.  Would it not be wise to allow the court to come to its conclusions prior to this debate?  At least everybody would know what cards they have to play with then.

A vote of “No Confidence” is very likely to be unsuccessful and will do the image of the United Opposition no good whatsoever if they prove ineffective at removing the government.  The “Rise Ukraine” campaign is for what exactly if they cannot deliver?  To prove they still cannot deliver perhaps?

And what if they win a vote of “No Confidence”?  New elections at a time when all in the RADA should be concentrating on getting as much EU compatible legislation passed within the very limited time frame available before the Vilnius Summit in November  - as their joint pro-EU statement proclaimed.

Elections under the same electoral laws that are a key EU demand for reform and under which the opposition lost only 6 months ago?  Why is electoral reform not a key demand of the United Opposition – does it not help their cause to have a far more equitable playing field?

Should the EU/Ukraine AA and DCFTA not get signed in November as planned, is that not a far better time to call for a vote of “No Confidence”?  It would be a major failure of both Yanukovych and the government.  Or do the United Opposition believe that it will be signed and that to try and win a vote of “No Confidence” after a successful signing would be far harder?

I have to be honest and say that just as I doubted the timing (and effectiveness) of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign, I also have serious doubts about the timing of the attempts to topple the government – a central plank of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign.

I have no problem with the politics, but the timing seems very poor given the wider best interest of Ukraine being at least able to function until November and the Vilnius Summit if there is to be a glimmer of hope relating to signing EU agreements.

Abolishing the pension reforms?  To be replaced by what?  The old and economically unsustainable rules that previously existed?  What is the United Opposition policy to deal with a serious economic issue facing not just Ukraine, but almost all European nations relating to pensions, in lieu of the current reforms?  What is their policy, how will it be financed, and is it any better than the current reforms they are balking against?  Does anybody know?  As a follower of the opposition I am yet to hear their alternatives.

Lastly, the removal of the legal Articles under which Ms Tymoshenko was jailed.  I am not sure if this is the second or third attempt to do so – but previous attempts have failed.  The reality, unfair as the entire process may have been, is even in removing the offending Articles now, they were still the law when she was found guilty under them.  It will not do nothing to remove her conviction even if it would perhaps give greater scope for moral pressure relating to her release.  Laws are not retrospective in their application or removal – and neither are convictions under them unless officially pardoned.

Given the United Opposition’s very subdued reaction to Lutsenko’s release, are the United Opposition simply going through the motions for the public relating to Tymoshenko anyway?

What do they gain by her release in the long run vis a vis her continued incarceration?

What happens to their little power-sharing deals if she was released?  A major “cause” and easy headline maker in her de facto political prisoner/martyr status will also be removed, not to mention they would immediately be standing in her very considerable vocal and political shadow the moment she left the prison gate.

Would or could the United Opposition even manage to remain united if she was released and took the helm of Batkivshchnya again – giving a public perception of sending the three current captains back to being nothing more than deck-hands in the process?

Do Yatseniuk, Klitschko and Tyhanbok willing want to take that chance with their own political futures – or will they simply go through the motions for the public?

More broadly, what are the chances next week of the United Opposition winning any, let alone all, of the above 4 issues over which they have blocked the working of the RADA for months?

If they fail to make any progress after these issues are debated – are they going to block the RADA again?  To what end?  The dissolution of parliament and with it any hope of timeliness in legislative progress toward the EU normative within the EU nominated time frame?

The less than welcome return of the prodigal son – Lutsenko

I have deliberately left mentioning Yuri Lutsenko since his release to give him time to say something of note in relation to the leadership and direction of the “United Opposition” – be it good or bad.

He has now said something worthy of note: “To date, none of the three candidates is a self-sufficient leader with a set of all the sufficient qualities. Someone is wiser purely from life experience and basic education. Someone is more radical. Someone more decisive. But no one has yet a complete set of the tools needed to become the leader of the nation, with all due respect to them.“  – All quite true as I have stated here many times as regular readers will know.

So true in fact, that it was only a matter of time before Lutsenko had to say it.

I will not have been the only one expecting him to say it sooner or later either, hence my comment three days ago about the muted opposition response to his, and others, release: “One could think that there are those within the opposition who are not exactly overjoyed at their release – at least that is the perception their social media accounts infer simply by complete lack of, or little reference to, such a major event for the opposition and EU/Ukrainian relations.“

It is quite obvious that despite their rhetoric, if the three United Opposition parties can only raise a total of 7000 protesters in Kyiv on a Sunday afternoon, a city that is generally pro-opposition, then the rhetoric of the opposition relating to their “Rise Ukraine” campaign is certainly not matched by the numbers of the public prepared to demonstrate on the streets with/for them – even in “friendly territory” with a huge city population to draw from.  By the time the “paid protester” numbers are removed from the crowd count it must be somewhat worrisome – for Arseniy Yatseniuk in particular.

Hopefully those numbers will improve (and probably will as the weather improves) – but to what end – when the “Rise Ukraine” campaign ends in mid-May, then what?  Rallying the public in regions that are not predisposed to favour the current government seems so expected to be meaningless as far as the PoR are concerned.  Rallying large numbers in the PoR heartlands would have had far more of an impact on the current government.

Now a leading opposition figure in Lutsenko, has told opposition supporters on national television that none of their current opposition leaders are actually equipped to lead the nation yet – one wonders how that will effect the rest of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign.  Why “rise” if those asking you to do so are not even deemed capable by senior figures within their own fold?

That said, Yatseniuk himself did the cause no favours on Sunday by telling the media that despite the “Rise Ukraine” campaign, nobody expected it to force the President’s resignation within the next few months – which was precisely one of the major publicised objectives of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign when launched – the immediate resignation of Yanukovych.

Having doubted the timing and construct of the strategy from the start, it is no surprise that it will not achieve one of its major stated aims and turn out to be more empty rhetoric – unfortunately.

However, what will the “United Opposition” leadership do with Lutsenko who is now likely disturb their menage a trois – both internally of Batkivshchnya and externally amongst the general opposition supporters?

They are certainly not capable of silencing him or sidelining him.

For Tyahnybok and Klitschko, leading their own parties it is possibly slightly less of a problem than that which now confronts Yatseniuk, who leads Tymoshenko’s party but now has Tymoshenko’s greatest political ally freed and informing Ukraine that none of the aforementioned party leaders are capable of governing Ukraine.

Further down the line, the question arises as to where Lutsenko’s political future will be.  He will certainly not join Svoboda.  He is unlikely to join or be accepted by UDAR, and he will not quietly submit to the weak leadership of Yatseniuk for long should he join Batkivshchyna – meaning he will either oust Yatseniuk as leader (with Tymoshenko’s blessing), or set up a political party of his own eventually.

If he does the latter, then there will inevitably be defections to his new party from across the “United Opposition” ranks – ultimately making the current menage a trois into a menage a quatre.  Or is a menage a quatre simply an orgy or gangbang?

A few days ago I made this statement and posed this question:  “A return to such dysfunctional governance – or alternatively Yanukovych-lite – is not what Ukraine needs.

Maybe Lutsenko, now he’s been released will provide something like a policy rudder?”

This, it appears has been answered as Lutsenko states he is going to form a civil society movement.

Lutsenko rightly states that “Ukraine needs a nation-wide non-partisan movement that will push the opposition into the right decisions “, and “There are four people – Taras Stetskiv, Volodymyr Filenko, Yuriy Lutsenko and Roman Bezsmertny. It is necessary to unite around them.“

De facto, Lutsenko is stating not only are the opposition leaders currently not up to the job of leading the nation but also that the opposition are getting what little policy they have, wrong at the moment – which is absolutely true in both regards – and is clear, historically, to any reader of this blog.

Further Bezsmertny states “Action groups will be established in the center and the regions that will have to collect the proposals – and what kind of Ukraine we want to see? Then the team will be formed, and only then the movement’s leader will be defined. I would note that by the time the leaders of the opposition shall have been already decided on their candidate.“

Should this civic movement morph into a political party at some stage, or Lutsenko be drawn back into the Bratkivshchnya fold at the expense of Yatseniuk, that in turn will mean a renegotiation of the grubby little deals over who was to get what should the “United Opposition” gain power with Ms Tymoshenko in prison.

So the question for the “United Opposition” is what to do with a prodigal son who will be neither silenced nor ignored, but certainly does not fit within the current menage a trois either?

Life for Yatesniuk, Klitschko and Tyahnybok just became a lot more complicated.

Schizophrenia, Dissociative Identity Disorder or pragmatism? Ukrainian opposition

What to make of an opposition leadership that submits official resolutions of “No Confidence” in the current Cabinet of Ministers on 22nd March 2013 – and by 3rd April 2013, some 13 days later, post a joint  statement on the Batkivshchyna Party website stating:

“We supported and will support all EU integration laws that were properly prepared and considered, in accordance with the parliamentary procedure, including those submitted by the government, as it was, for example, during the ratification of amendments to the visa facilitation agreement.”

Well, what to think?

That must surely infer that they have some confidence in the Cabinet of Ministers they submitted an official resolution of “No Confidence” against – How can the leaders of opposition parties encourage their parties MPs to vote for government legislation otherwise?

Perhaps it is a less than simple matter of schizophrenia or dissocative identity disorder?

Does the “no confidence” exist only with legislation aimed at solely domestic issues – “confidence” obviously existing in legislation aimed at synchronising with the EU normative as far as the capabilities of the Cabinet of Ministers is concerned?

Of course they are being pragmatic.

They can hardly go against their own joint statement with the ruling PoR, in which they all stated their intention to drag Ukraine towards the EU.  As such they had already committed themselves to support EU normalising legislation from a Cabinet of Ministers they later had “No Confidence” in – but now reaffirm they have confidence in – as far as the EU legislation goes.

However, as I wrote on 24th March relating to the particularly ill-timed submission of the “No Confidence” resolution – “Possibly worse, should this vote of “no confidence” fail – which seems likely – how will the public psyche be affected when it comes to confidence in Yatseniuk and the opposition? To continually indulge in political grandstanding or showboating with few, if any results, eventually will erode further public confidence in the ability of the opposition.”

Since then a few Batkivshchanya MPs have left the party, two of which claimed they were not prepared to support Yatseniuk’s “one-man show”.  Whether that reasoning is true or not is irrelevant.  That is what they have said publicly and will further give the perception of failed political grandstanding and showboating to the point at which MPs are leaving the party – and it is the public perception that counts in politics.

It also seems Yatseniuk is expecting an internal leadership coup within the Batkivshchnya Party.

Further, it is somewhat strange to see a very muted reception on opposition MPs twitter an Facebook accounts relating to the releasing of Lutsenko (as I predicted in February) and Filipchuk.  One could think there there are those within the opposition who are not exactly overjoyed at their release – at least that is the perception their social media accounts infer simply by complete lack of, or little reference to, such a major event for the opposition and EU/Ukrainian relations.

Can voters have confidence in those who demand votes of no confidence, who then less than 2 weeks later, display confidence enough in those they have no confidence in, to state they will vote with them over EU legislation – thus displaying a degree of confidence they apparently do not have in those drafting the legislation?

Especially so after not voting for what would be EU normative legislation only a few days ago?

Is anybody advising the leaders of the opposition – or are they simply jumping from one grandstanding position to another – with few results, and even less consistency?

Perhaps, given the differences between Svoboda, UDAR and Batkivshchyna parties, we should expect nothing less than such a populist, ill-thought out and schizophrenic output.  As Klitschko said only yesterday “UDAR, Batkivshchnya and Svoboda have different ideologies.  However we have one thing in common:  We want to live in a democratic country” – Is one thing in common enough, when inevitably there will be a need to convince the voting public that they are capable of ruling and creating policies they all agree on despite different ideologies that will prevent good policy making?

If there is one lesson to be learned from the Yushenko/Tymoshenko period, it is that democracy requires hard work and hard choices after it puts you in power to cement both veritical and horizontal democratic principle into all walks of government, governmental agencies and society – something that they collectively simply did not do in any shape, form or manner.

I do so wish the opposition would start to form and articulate solid policy that will benefit society and that voters can understand and rally around, instead of consistently showboating which is a policy that is destined to fail more often than not.

However just how possible it would be to align Svoboda social policy with that of UDAR, or Batkivshchnya economic policy with Svoboda or UDAR etc., remains to be seen.  I suspect these issues are deliberately being passed over as they will no doubt become divisive – leaving us with more failing grandstanding to come for the foreseeable future -  in lieu of real policy.

Sooner or later however, they are going to need to convince people they can govern collectively and effectively – and that means agreed policies which they can take to the public.   A return to such dysfunctional governance – or alternatively Yanukovych-lite – is not what Ukraine needs.

Maybe Lutsenko, now he’s been released will provide something like a policy rudder?  We’ll see.

Vote of “No Confidence” in Ukrainian Government next week and questions of nationality

It was bound to come sooner or later – and whether it is better sooner rather than later, who knows?

The opposition parties have officially submitted a resolution of “no confidence” in the current Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers to be considered next week with Arseny Yatseniuk generously guaranteeing their pension rights :  “You must resign. And I have good news for you. Don’t be upset! If we dismiss you, we will assign you with minimum wages of UAH 1,147 and minimum pensions of UAH 894 – indulge in every pleasure!”

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to have any confidence in the “no confidence” resolution actually gaining enough votes to be anything more than a political statement wasting RADA time.

Possibly worse, should this vote of “no confidence” fail – which seems likely – how will the public psyche be affected when it comes to confidence in Yatseniuk and the opposition?  To continually indulge in political grandstanding or showboating with few, if any results, eventually will erode further public confidence in the ability of the opposition.

Further, Svoboda submitted a request to the speaker demanding to know which nationalities the RADA members hold.  The Ukrainian Constitution forbids dual nationality.

This is obviously aimed at those RADA MPs who may hold dual nationality and undoubtedly targeted at the Party of Regions – but – I personally know two Batkivshchyna Party RADA MPs who currently hold both Ukrainian and Israeli passports and one UDAR deputy as well.  The rule of averages suggests that there will be others within the opposition parties too.

Whilst I completely agree with Svoboda that Ukrainian MPs should hold no other nationality than that of Ukrainian – it is a matter of principle more than one of national security – the results of this request may undermine as many opposition MPs as it does Party of Regions.

That said, if the request results in those holding a foreign passport as well as a Ukrainian passport relinquishing their foreign passport before any further action is pursued in the RADA – then it is a job well done.

Anyway – confidence in the vote of “no confidence” succeeding?  No, not really.

“Rise Ukraine!” – Or probably not

Over the past week I have written about Arseny Yatseniuk and the issue of being convincing – not once, but twice.

This is yet another occasion.

It isn’t as though I get any pleasure from it – I am a bit of a Yatseniuk fan.  He is educated and experienced at the highest levels of Ukrainian government.  Of all the Ukrainian opposition leaders, whilst I don’t agree with all his historically held policy positions – and what those policy positions are now I have no idea, given that his have never been the same as those of Tymoshenko, and yet he now leads her party in her absence – he is certainly the most intellectual and, if not always erudite, then at least capable of a lengthy, clear and thoughtful conversation over a sustained period of time.

But -

He does not however, enthuse as a personality.  He does not make you want to get out of your chair, clench your fist and punch the air shouting “Rise Ukraine!”  He is more likely to make you want to put the kettle on, make a cup of tea, and discuss with your wife what he said, over a biscuit.

Quite simply, a rabble rouser, he is not.  The charisma of a cardboard cutout, unfortunately he does have – not just on TV, but at rallies too – I know, I have seen him several times in Odessa.

Anyway, in my last blog relating the the opposition parties beginning “a popular uprising against the regime“, I wrote this regarding their then slogan to raise the masses in defiance:

“……..will aim to unite the opposition supporters behind, and entice the media with, the slogan “‘Nobody will ever overcome us. We are strong and we are heading for victory.”

Catchy, inspiring, memorable and convincing eh? – Yes, quite – it’s awful! Even the slogan isn’t convincing as a slogan – despite what it says is probably quite true…..eventually…….”

Well it seems I am not the only person to have though this slogan was awful.

The slogan has now changed.  The slogan is now “Rise Ukraine” – which is certainly shorter and easier to remember – unlike the “Rise Ukraine” campaign that begins today (14th March) and run until 18th May.

Hmmm – 2 months to raise the nation?  Is that a wise strategy? – It seems a very long time.

It didn’t take 2 months for more than 10,000 people to gather and protest the Tax Code without any help from politicians to organise it – proof if any was ever needed that if the nation wants to rise over an issue, it certainly doesn’t need the help of any political party to do so.

The same can be said for the recent shale gas protests and also surrounding the abhorrent case of Oksana Makar as other examples – although there are quite a few more.

Ukrainian society, it seems, is more than capable of rising when they feel strongly about a cause – and without the need for politicians of any stripe to organise it.  In fact in many cases politicians are not welcome to join the ranks and hijack an issue for point scoring they would otherwise have ignored or done very little about.  There are quite a lot of A-political protests big and small all things considered, in which no political party is particularly welcome.

Anyway – “Rise Ukraine” – For what is Ukraine to rise exactly?  To overthrow the government and oust the president.

To do that, the vast majority of the populous would need to have far more confidence that what replaces the current government and president, would be significantly better than what exists now.

Not just different – but significantly better – and therein is the problem for the opposition in their attempts to motivate not just their supporters, but the vast majority of the country.

They are not seen as significantly better than what is currently in power – We have to be quite honest about it, and it is why, ultimately, “Rise Ukraine” is just as likely to flop – particularly over a 2 month time frame – as other opposition calls to overthrow the current authorities issued at various times since 2010.

Let’s be honest, military coups may take 2 months to organise – but the spontaneous uprising of a population often happens in a matter of days, normally sparked by a specific incident  – and there is simply nothing spontaneous about this “Rise Ukraine” campaign.

This brings us to the next issue of the “Rise Ukraine” strategy.  As I wrote last week:

“But that popular uprising will only happen in certain parts of the country according to Mr Yatseniuk – one suspects the parts where Svoboda and UDAR are strongest or close enough to those areas where their supporters can be bussed in to make a large enough crowd to be worthy of any TV coverage – naturally.“

Completely predictably, the “Rise Ukraine” tour begins in Vinnitsia today and then on to Uzhgorod on Friday.  The “Rise Ukraine” finale being in Kyiv on 18th May.

Where it goes in between, I don’t yet know.

Hopefully we will get to know if they do go to places like Luhansk, Karkhiv, Crimea and Donetsk – for it is these places they will have to have “rise” with the rest of Ukraine if they are to oust the president or become the next government.

These places did indeed rise over the Tax Code lest we forget – so rise they can and have done – but reaching these people will not be done from Uzhgorod or any other “friendly territory” – it will mean going there for longer than an hour or two and convincing people.

The last quote I will mention from the last related blog entry related to the “rent-a-crowd” issue – and brings me again to question the 2 month “Rise Ukraine” campaign.

“One has to suspect that Batkivshchkyna Party supporters now form the minority of any physical turnout at any multi-party opposition political rally, and that both Svoboda and UDAR separately, let alone combined, can now turn out far more support and for much longer periods, than Batkivshchkyna can pay students and OAPs to turn up and wave the party flag for the TV – (as is the Batkivshchkyna and Party Regions traditional style of rent-a-crowd).”

Quite obviously, regular rallies where certain parties have traditionally rented their crowd – and thus will be expected to do so again by those who will turn out for them – is going to become expensive over 2 months.

And yes, the rent-a-crowd are already waiting to find out how much for how long it appears.  No doubt the city and town local forums will soon be alive with $ figures for turning up and waving a flag for the TV as well.

This is all so very – predicable –  Obviously, as I have predicted it and it is playing out as predicted – and just as all the other opposition rallying cries to the public have played out thus far.

With new parties and new leaders, perhaps the opposition parties could try new strategies instead of resorting to the same tried and failed tactics of the recent past?

The problem with that is, for some parties with longer histories, a radical change to show they are “significantly better” than they were,  instead of “slightly different” to their opponents, would mean some very hard choices indeed.  Something hardly likely to happen any time soon.

“Uprising against the regime” – What was it I wrote about being convincing?

Only 2 days ago I wrote that it was not enough to be right or decent – but that you have to be convincing.

One way to be convincing is to earn a history of getting things right.  Another is to cleverly use words to insure that you are always right, or certainly not wrong, no matter what happens.  It is for this skill that word-smiths are paid to write clever statements and speeches of course.

There are other ways be they righteous or less so, but one sure way to leave people less than convinced is not living up to their expectations.

Those expectations, are almost always built upon the words used, promises and claims made.  Thus Arseny Yatseniuk and  Batkivshchkyna already at a disadvantage compared to UDAR and Svoboda – as the latter two parties nor their leaders (both new to the RADA) have yet to have the opportunity to so spectacularly disenchant a nation as Yatseniuk and  Batkivshchkyna have – and did – and it seems continue to do.

It appears we are going to have “a popular uprising against the regime” – in fact more than one – and in the near future – next week to be precise, according to Arseny Yatseniuk.

How exciting (and quite possibly necessary)!

But that popular uprising will only happen in certain parts of the country according to Mr Yatseniuk -  one suspects the parts where Svoboda and UDAR are strongest or  close enough to those areas where their supporters can be bussed in to make a large enough crowd to be worthy of any TV coverage  -  naturally.

Thus all the revolutionaries looking for a cause, don’t go rushing to brush off those Che Guevara berets or don V for Vendetta masks.  ”Uprising against the regime”, translated from unconvincing Yatseniuk speak, means a rally where he hopes lots of people will turn up.  And “lots” recently for a Yatseniuk/ Batkivshchkyna rally is anything between 500 and 3000 people.

One has to suspect that Batkivshchkyna Party supporters now form the minority of any physical turnout at any multi-party opposition political rally, and that both Svoboda and UDAR separately, let alone combined, can now turn out far more support and for much longer periods, than Batkivshchkyna can pay students and OAPs to turn up and wave the party flag for the TV – (as is the  Batkivshchkyna and Party Regions traditional style of rent-a-crowd).

In fact if Arseny Yatseniuk or the Batkivshchkyna Party believe that Svoboda supporters turn out for anybody other than Oleh Tihanybok, or UDAR supporters for anybody other than Klitschko, they are deluded – seriously deluded!

Anyway – Mr Yatseniuk’s “uprising(s)”…. – no I am sorry, but to remain convincing and credible I will need to call it a rally/number of rallies – will aim to unite the opposition supporters behind, and entice the media with, the slogan “‘Nobody will ever overcome us. We are strong and we are heading for victory.”

Catchy, inspiring, memorable and convincing eh?  - Yes, quite – it’s awful!  Even the slogan isn’t convincing as a slogan – despite what it says is probably quite true…..eventually – There are better, more memorable and more sincere slogans in “Me to You” birthday cards.

I mean come on!  Historically I have been a Yatseniuk supporter in this blog – but he fails to convince me each day, despite his political experience at the highest level compared to the other two opposition leaders – who have no political experience at the highest level but are far more convincing as leaders.

So these uprisings rallies are apparently about going back to grass roots to get the people’s support for political and economic victory, according to Mr Yatseniuk.  Quite right – However “uprisings” within your politically friendly strongholds are not exactly going to gain any new support or change anything either.

So the question to be answered next week with regards to further building or further undermining Mr Yatseniuk’s credibility, will be whether there is indeed “a public uprising”, or even a rally with say 10,000 people present between the 3 parties.

To continue to use rhetoric that will falsely raise expectations, such as “uprising against the regime“, which in fact will be no more than a rally in all probability, will simply continue to make him less convincing if the numbers of people don’t turn up – especially so if most of the people who do turn up are supporting other leaders from other parties.

It is just fortunate that some alternative opposition parties made it into the RADA to provide an alternatives to both voters but also make up the numbers when rallies are held.

It’s not enough to be decent and right – You have to be convincing

Yet another opinion poll places  President Yanukovych in a second round run-off against Vitali Klitschko – with a big distance between other potential candidates for the 2015 presidential elections – such as Arseny Yatseniuk or anybody else directly associated with Ms Tymoshenko’s party for that matter.

For once I have little doubt in these results – and they are consistent and a continuation of previous and consecutive opinion polls by various polling companies over recent months.

Yet the question has to be asked why Yatseniuk, leading the biggest opposition party by far, does not get the same proportion of voter based support from the public carried over into the far more personal realm of presidential candidacy support.

The answer is quite simple.  It is simply not enough to be either decent and/or right – you have to be convincing – particularly when going up against an incumbent.

Yatseniuk  is simply not convincing – not even enough for sufficient numbers of the Batkivshchyna Party voters, which he leads, to want him as president – which then raises the question as to whether he is the right person to lead the party when the presidential elections get much closer.

If he is not, how close to the election do you have the internal strife of replacing him and leaving any new leader with a realistic chance?

Or will Batkivshchkyna stubbornly back a three-legged horse in this race – one that is simply going to get easily knocked out of the presidential race in the first round, as current opinion polls would suggest?