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?

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.

“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.

A strategy for defeat – United Opposition

I have had several messages recently asking me why, in my opinion, the United Opposition electioneering strategy is as dire as I have stated it is.

Fair point – Despite stating numerous times that it is sadly dismal/dire/ineffective (take your pick I have used all those words and more) I have not really explained in any detail why it is likely to be such an unmitigated failure when it comes to voter engagement and more importantly actual votes on 28th October – Regardless of any cheating that will happen.

Firstly, there is the need to set the political landscape somewhat.  Generally speaking the West and Central Ukraine are far more sympathetic to the Untied Opposition cause.  The South and East not so.  I would like to say the West and Centre are predisposed to the United Opposition ideology, but defining a United Opposition ideology is actually very difficult to do.  In fact defining any political ideology other than than of the extremes of the Communists and far-right Svoboda is difficult – unless we acknowledge both the BYuT and PoR striving for power for powers sake, and to protect what they have individually and collectively “acquired” since independence.

This is underlined by recent interviews with Arseney Yatseniuk, the current figurehead of the United Opposition with Ms Tymoshenko in jail, who openly admits he has quite different political ideals to those of Ms Tymoshenko.  We can then add into the mix, Anatoliy Hyrtsenko, leader of the Civil Position Party, a very capable politician, whose party was forced to join the United Opposition for the sake of survival, and has been openly critical of Ms Tymoshenko’s BYuT and also Yatseniuk’s Front for Change – as I have written about before.

In short, just within those 3 parties and those 3 leaders, there are different ideologies (such as the extent of actual ideology goes – which is very limited), different methodologies and different reasons for being part of the United Opposition.

Very much a marriage of convenience and/or necessity within this unholy menage a trois.

Actually there are more than 3 parties in the United Opposition, but to further fragment the picture I paint and have to refer not to a menage a trois, but more of a political orgy of bit-part players (such as Vyacheslav Kyrylenko for example) , would serve only to make this post look like a hatchet job which I don’t want to do, as I am not anti Untied Opposition any more than I am pro the current majority.  Therefore I will stick with the bigger players within the United Opposition.

When recently interviewed on TVi, Yatseniuk stated he expected the United Opposition to win between 150 and 226 RADA seats.  Not an overly comforting thought given that 226 RADA seats gives a majority of just 1.  Also it has to be said, an incredibly large band width given the election is little more than 3 weeks away.

As it happens I predicted some time ago the United Opposition would get between 150 and 170 RADA seats, before any cheating, so we will see who is more accurate in due course, cheating considered.

That envisaged 226 majority of 1 is nothing new to Ms Tymsohenko who was Prime Minister under such circumstances during her last term in office, and undoubtedly more time was spend holding together such a slim majority comprised of so many parties, than was spent running the country.  Whatever limited ideology there was, naturally was bought and sold to remain in power.

A similarly shaky marriage of convenience does not hold much attraction to many voters – and unless Klitschko’s UDAR joined forces with the United Opposition, sooner rather than later, that house of cards would fall down.

The fact that UDAR have deliberately not joined forces with the United Opposition and currently command about 13% of the vote displays the fact that many Ukrainian voters looking for an alternative to Tymoshenko, but who would rather die than vote for the Party of Regions, are flocking to his standard.

I think it is quite unlikely that UDAR would join forces with the United Opposition after the election.  Neither will it join forces with the current Party of Regions.  A clean image, tainted by neither side, would seem a reasonable position to maintain with presidential elections in 2015.

It would also allow UDAR to vote for, or against, any law going through the RADA on its merits rather than political loyalties.  A solid foundation and seemingly fair foundation for elections in the future that would only gather support from the public in stark difference to the polarised Ukrainian politics of today.

Current opinion polls would put Klitschko (about 15%) into a run-off with Yanukovych (about 25%) for the presidency in 2015.  Tymoshenko (about 7%) and Yatseniuk (on even less) would not get past the first round of voting going by today’s polling when it comes to the next Ukrainian presidency.

Thus, remaining independent in the next parliament and avoiding any formal political alignments will do UDAR no harm in the longer term.  Something I am sure they are aware of.  As I wrote only a few days ago when talking of the UDAR rally in Odessa, I would not be surprised to see UDAR overtake the United Opposition in the opinion polls before voting day either.

Returning to the United Opposition strategy, which as I have said is dire, I really should enlarge upon the key platforms and strategy paths.

The first strategy is to bemoan the current president with every other word.  Seemingly a pointless exercise as he is not up for election and will remain president until 2015 regardless of who wins or loses in the parliamentary elections.  To justify this strategy, the United Opposition state they will impeach the president and remove him if they win.

Fair enough – but there is no legal mechanism to actually impeach a president of Ukraine.  It would be necessary to actually write such a law, pass it, get it through the legal system of challenges and appeals to ultimately find 2015 has arrived well before any impeachment has occurred. – A fact not lost on the Ukrainian public who well remember the empty rhetoric and promises the last time Tymoshenko and Yatseniuk were in power together.

Not withstanding that, how popular would such a move be with both the public and the international community?

As far as the EU is concerned, whether they like Yanukovych or not, recently they have interfered in no small way in attempts to impeach the president of Romania by a new parliament who changed the law to do so.  Suffice to say, the Romanian president remains in office.

Only yesterday the EU showed its displeasure at the new majority in Georgia for calling for the early resignation of Saakishvili. – A call now retracted.

It is not difficult to see the EU being slightly miffed by the current United Opposition plan to topple a democratically elected Yanukovych before his publicly mandated term expires either – even if they don’t like him.

Then there is the Ukrainian public.  What support would there be for a presidential impeachment?  A recent poll provided this snap-shot of public opinion over the matter:

Party of Regions Voters:  92% against impeachment, 2% for impeachment and 5.7% Don’t Know

BYuT Voters:  14.3% against impeachment, 72.2% for impeachment and 13.5% Don’t know.

UDAR Voters:  30.6% against impeachment, 46.9% for impeachment and 22.5% Don’t Know.

Communists:  53% against impeachment, 26.8% for impeachment and 20.2% Don’t know.

Svoboda Voters:  12.1% against impeachment, 73.7% for impeachment and 14.1% Don’t know.

Ukraine Forward Voters:  50% against impeachment, 21.7% for impeachment and 28.3% Don’t know.

Thus across the country and party lines, only 34.1% would support impeachment.  47.3% are against and 18.6% are yet to make up their mind.

Ergo, as far as the United Opposition strategy to firstly go after the president in a parliamentary election in which he doesn’t stand, and then use a platform of impeachment to gather votes is quite obviously flawed.  The majority of the country would be against such action even if only a very, very small percentage of the “don’t knows” made the decision it would be a bad idea.

Their next action was to make the new language law a central battleground, calling for protests in attempts to block it.  These failed to gather significant crowds (less than 2000) or indeed block the law.  Hardly surprising when considering just how high, or should I say low, on the issues that concern the Ukrainian public language actually is.  (See page 14 of the opinion poll.)

Two of the United Opposition’s major platforms then, simply do not have much traction with the majority of the voting public.

So what about other policies?

That is actually a far more poignant question than it appears.

Having attended every political rally in Odessa by the political circuses passing though, watched more television on more television channels than I normally do (to monitor media time given to those contending the elections) and picked up every leaflet from every election hopeful that is possible in Odessa, I am still asking myself what are the United Opposition’s other policies that would make them strikingly any different to the ruling Party of Regions?

Even the political rallies they have held in Odessa have been less than inspiring - at least thus far.  With 23 days to go before the voting begins, there needs to be a serious overhaul of presentation, content and vision if the United Opposition are to make any headway into the Party of Regions voting base.

As things stand, the Communists will make slight inroads into Party of Regions vote and UDAR much larger inroads into the United Opposition generally speaking.  The losses by the United Opposition to UDAR will be far greater than the losses to the Party of Regions at the hands of the Communists.  UDAR will take some votes from Party of Regions but not to the scale at which the United Opposition will suffer.

The numbers I wrote back in August, still seem to stand up – to a degree at least where the result seems likely to be unchanged.  Namely Party of Regions will be the party with the most votes and together with the Communists will form a majority.  No different than today but with a reduced majority.

For me it is quite sad to see Yatseniuk and Front for Change suffering quite so badly.  I questioned the wisdom of Front for Change entering the United Opposition back in February when it was being mulled over, making the point that a 3rd choice (namely not Tymoshenko or PoR) was a necessity.  UDAR have now filled that role and are doing very well for their first ever attempt at politics in Ukraine.

Perhaps an UDAR/Front for Change coalition would have given the Party of Regions far more of a run for its money than anything involving Ms Tymoshenko, simply because she is just too polarising.  We will never know -  unfortunately.

To add to the above, Ms Tymoshenko is certainly not helping the United Opposition cause.  As I wrote here, for her to claim the elections are already “rigged” and “stolen” are not likely to increase her voters turnout if they think there is no point.

Indeed such claims prompted this response by the ICES election monitoring organisation “the elections should not be declared rigged in advance, and it was incorrect to act according to the principle “if I don’t win, the elections are invalid” - an election observing agency invited to act as such by her own party!

Quite obviously reading, and occasionally plagiarising Vaclav Havel from her prison cell, has done little to enhance her understanding of democracy or indeed leadership – although one can understand her desperation and illogical actions having so seriously miscalculated so many things in recent years – and now with the realisation that the United Opposition will not be the key to her prison cell door come 28th October in all likelihood.

That key, when it comes, will be in the shape of the ECfHR, but will not provide an escape from the UESU shenanigans that await her in courts both in Ukraine and the USA.

I could go on (and on) but the main thrust of the failings of the United Opposition platforms and strategy will already have begun to become clear.

The platforms are those which hold little traction with the Ukrainian public.

The strategy is flawed, aiming at a man who is not up for reelection on 28th October and is also unimpeachable, at least given the current legal framework, and by the time it would become legal in the event of a United Opposition majority, would not be timely enough to take effect by 2015.  It also doesn’t have the support of the majority of the Ukrainian public and is unlikely to have the support of the EU either (given the Romanian and Georgian precedents in the past month).

The delivery of the United Opposition message is uninspiring to say the least and devoid of any real policy that vividly separates it from Party of Regions other than the Tymoshenko issue.

The statements of Tymoshenko ironically call for Ukrainians to rise up and remove a “criminal regime” whilst also stating the elections are already “rigged” and/or “stolen”, thus not encouraging her voting base to expect anything other than a continued Party of Regions majority – so why vote?

A civil uprising?  That won’t happen.  The last time that happened it brought the likes of Tymoshenko and Yatseniuk to power and the entire country was completely failed by that false dawn – for which there have been no apologies by those involved and yet those same people still try to convince the public to reelect them.

To ask it to do so again with a majority of actors that remain unchanged is an ask that is simply too great – particularly so if the opinion polls are right and Tymoshenko currently only has 7% of the nation who would want to see her as the next Ukrainian president.

With 23 days left to polling day, is it too late for the United Opposition to change its strategy and platforms?  To become invigorating, inspiring, full of policy and explanation, of hope and vision, of deliverables and not rhetoric that is clearly unfulfillable?

Maybe it is too late, but I would dearly like to see them try it rather than continue on such a misguided and obviously failing path.

Never in any political campaign have I ever witnessed so many open goals that have been completely and utterly missed.  Very much like their time in power to be quite frank.  It seems quite bizarre to think Tymoshenko and Yatseniuk can fail the country twice – once in power and again in opposition – consecutively!

Yatseniuk/United Opposition Rally – Odessa

I have been trying very hard not to cover the circus of the forthcoming parliamentary elections too much.  There are many reasons for this which I may or may not blog about at a later date.  Suffice to say it is a deliberate and conscious decision.  To cut to the chase, thus far it has been entirely boring, very predictable causing no changes in public opinion or public interest regardless of what has been said or done so far by any individual candidate or political party as a whole.

Why then, would you want to read a running commentary on how nothing has changed?  Exactly, you wouldn’t!

If something even remotely interesting were to occur by way of extraordinary incident or change in public opinion, then naturally I would mention it.

Why then am I writing today about the Arseney Yatseniuk fronted United Opposition rally in Odessa that took place two evenings ago?

Firstly, as regular readers of this blog will know, I have always been something of a closet fan of Yatseniuk.  That is not to say I agree with all of his policies, I don’t, but over all he the most rounded, intelligent and  thoughtful of the opposition MPs that has ever stood a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected to very high office.   Of them all, he is also the most likely to actually run the country in the most democratic manner.

Secondly, I am keeping my traditional attendance at all political rallies in Odessa by all parties in any electoral race.  It is something I have done ever since arriving in Ukraine and means there is no requirement to rely on slip-shod or biased reporting from the media.  If I am there and see and hear it for myself I have no need to read about it via some crass editorial censorship or simply sloppy and inaccurate reporting.

Lastly, and apologies to those of you that followed my live twitter feed from the Yatseniuk rally at the time, I am writing about it because it was the epitome of all that is wrong with the opposition political strategy and more generally, the opposition as a whole.

To start with, Yatseniuk took the stage with a long line of men in suits stood behind him.  Who or what they were was seemingly largely unknown to the crowd in Odessa and the crowds via the live televised links in places such as Illychovsk.

The numbers making up the crowds alone must have been a disappointment for Yatseniuk who has previously worked in the Odessa Administration during his career.  I have seen bigger crowds gather to watch a training session of Accrington Stanley FC.   Accrington Stanley?  Who are they? – Exactly!

Anyway, immediately we launch into how Yatseniuk and the United Opposition will impeach the current president for his current nefarious or past unconstitutional acts.  That despite there being no law to impeach a president of Ukraine as underlined by Party UDAR who have stated they will support one if such a law is ever written.

So we start with an exceptionally long short at best, and at worst yet another empty promise from an opposition that is widely regarded as having failed to keep their promises when ushered into power during the Orange Revolution.

Empty promises and complete and utter shambolic governance are the reason that the United Opposition are just that – the opposition.

Whilst on that subject, there was absolutely no recognition of just how desperately poor they had been when in power only 3 years ago.  No apology, no acceptance of just how dire they had been, and no statements stating how they would be any better this time building on what they had learned from the last time – if they have indeed learned anything – which seems highly doubtful.

A monologue stating just how bad Party of Regions are then ensued.  Maybe justifiably, but no more justifiably than a Party of Regions monologue over just how bad the United Opposition were when in power.  The gist of this monologue was that (even though we were a complete and utter abortion in government), if you don’t vote for us then they will win.  And we think they are worse than we are.

There was nothing uplifting or inspirational whatsoever.  Nothing to ignite the (small) crowd.  No real policy statements.  In fact nothing visionary at all, unless you include the vision of a nightmare painted for a continuance of Party of Regions power.

During the entire event there was very little applause from the crowd over anything said.  It was like watching Max Wall on stage but without the comedy.  Quite how such little reaction from a crowd of supporters can be garnered is something of a wonder.

Yes, at this point, many are still wondering who all the men in suits that remain motionless and with dead-pan expressions, stood behind Yatseniuk through this lengthy monologue, are.  By now I am starting to think they are, or at least some are, security.

Then begins the Q & A with the crowds in Odessa and by links to those in Illychovsk etc.

The first question relates to Natalia Korolevska and is immediately responded to with a sexist quip by Yatseniuk, who then realises his gaff with so many women in the crowds and then tries to make amends.

The next thing to say about the Q & A is that this being Odessa, all the questions were asked from his supporters were in Russian.  It is a predominantly Russian speaking city.  It is to be expected.

Yatseniuk would begin the answer in Russian and after the first sentence switch to Ukrainian.  There were people in the crowd near me who were looking rather bemused that he continually did this.  Some were actually asking why he was doing it.

Now as I have already said, I follow Yatseniuk quite closely because I think he is one of the better of a very bad bunch, and I have seen him be asked a question in English and answer it in English many, many times.  Not only is that a sign of education but also good manners if you can do so.  Why then, when asked a question in Russian would he answer it partly in Russian and then switch to Ukrainian half way through?  On every single question!

Anyway, the Q & A ends and then, eventually, we discover who the men in suits behind him are.  They are election candidates in the head to head constituency Odessa seats.  We are introduced to them by name and seat they are standing for.

The first question that immediately came to mind was – No women?

Then followed the national anthem, the rally ended to very lukewarm applause from a crowd quite obviously many of which were as deflated by the whole thing as I was, and certainly nowhere near inspired as we all drifted off in our separate directions.

If there was ever any doubt as to why the unpopularity of the Party of Regions has not been reflected in the rising popularity of the United Opposition, that rally two evenings ago put those doubts to rest.

Quite simply, the whole thing was very, very poor.  The only beneficiaries from such a dismal display will be UDAR on a national scale and possibly Svoboda in some parts of the nation when it comes to taking  some Party of Regions votes.  Certainly it was not a display that would induce an undecided voter to vote for the United Opposition.

I console myself that I am addicted to policy and care not for which political party generates a policy that is good, can be implemented and is implemented successfully.  No party has the monopoly on good ideas and good policy when all is said and done – and in Ukraine it really doesn’t seem to matter anyway, as they are all quite incapable of effective policy implementation nationally.

Today, after the Yanukovyh circus and Yatseniuk disappointment have departed from Odessa, we have a visit from Sergey Tigipko.   I will go along and see what he has to say but unless there is something completely bizarre or extraordinary, I doubt I will blog about it.  For all the faults of Tigipko, one thing he is quite capable of is good public speaking – a rarity amongst the Ukrainian political class to be honest.

Has Ukraine changed since Independence? – Fundamentally No (Contains an essential read if you want to understand Ukraine)

Yesterday I was interviewed by one of the EU’s many Brussels based (and funded) media outlets.  I am a regular contributer and am often asked to offer up difficult and thought-provoking questions which are then in turn put to members of the European Council, the European Commission, or MEPs, eventually forming the basis of articles to then be written and the always welcome “name-check” for me.

Yesterday’s interview was in preparation for the forthcoming EU State of the Union round table where Messrs Van Rompuy, Barroso and Schulz et al will be in attendance and will face questions, statements and inferences from myself and others that will undoubtedly make them squirm and work desperately hard not to actually answer the questions posed.

All that has nothing to do with this post other than a self-aggrandising introduction to a question asked of me after the cameras had stopped rolling.  The question was, “Has Ukraine changed much?”

The answer to that, if discounting a few additional MacDonald’s scattered around the country in the past 21 years, is fundamentally a definite “No”.

The country is run the same way now as it was under ex-President Kuchma.  That continued in a more disjointed fashion under the utterly awful Yushenko/Tymoshenko tenure which was nothing more than a 5 year prolonged spat with both vying to be Ukrainian “Top Dog”, and the Kuchma method of governance continues today.

In academic circles it is know as “The Arbiter” method of governance.

It is also why civil society in Ukraine was, and is, completely useless for the most part – under current and past administrations without exception.  ”The Arbiter” method of governance and the “rent seeking” society system that accompanies it quite simply have no use for civil society.  It is a small bubble of think-tanks and academics detached from society and government alike, to which lip service, if not being completely ignored, is paid by those they seek to influence.

Without society’s support, civil society garners no momentum, so unless there is a crisis in which the arbiter may make some reforms that coincide with some of the wishes of civil society, not necessarily those of society itself, but essential to continued governance, change does not come

To save a lot of writing, this links to an outstanding work by Dubrovskiy, Szyrmer, Graves III, Golovakha, Haran’ and Pavlenko from 2007.  It carefully explains in simple terms “The Arbiter” method of governance and a “rent seeking” society – and thus why civil society, and more generally, democracy, fails.

(The eagle-eyed amongst you will notice amongst those acknowledged at the end, there are several mentions of Irena Akimova – who now sits within the current Presidential Administration.)

That civil society would be the same civil society that the EU is pumping hundreds of millions of Euros into, despite the fact they must be aware that society has little interest in providing the momentum and support/legitimisation for the actions of Ukrainian civil society.

Sooner or later, and I suspect it will be much, much later, the EU will realise that the only way to communicate with the Ukrainian people and have any impact whatsoever, is by doing so directly and not via government or civil society.

Anyway, the link contains a fairly long read, but it is an essential read for those who have never read it before, for all armchair commentators and critics if they want to understand why change in Ukraine is so slow and why Ukrainian society does not rise up to change things.

What is written in that excellent piece of work in 2007, is still very true of today in 2012.  That system of governance has never once been broken – even during the Yushenko/Tymoshenko years of false hopes and horizons.  The difference with their tenure is that both thought they were The Arbiter in the grand scheme of things and it led to nothing more than 5 years of in-fighting.

Should Ms Tymoshenko ever become President of Ukraine, she will govern it in the same arbitrary manner as her predecessors as anybody who has ever met her or worked for her will attest to.  (In fact some have already attested to it whilst she was Prime Minister and they held office in her government.)

Regardless of winners and losers in the parliamentary elections this October or the next Presidential elections in 2015, the governance system of “The Arbiter” and the collusion of the “rent seeking” society will continue for the foreseeable future.

Civil society, for its part, if it wants to have an effective part, needs to concentrate on local government and motivate local people to effect change city by city and region by region.  There is no other room for it in the Arbiter/Rent Seeking society model.

So, has Ukraine changed fundamentally since independence?  My answer is No.

Looking forwards to the end of this decade I see no change either, regardless of who sits as The Arbiter.

United Opposition welcome Svoboda to their ranks – Welcome to the far, far right!

Oh dear!  It’s a bit like a car crash in slow motion.

You know its coming and you try to prepare yourself for the impact and yet when it comes you are still not ready for it.

The United Opposition have welcomed aboard the good ship “anybody except Party of Regions”, the far, far right Svoboda Party in their coalition for the impending parliamentary elections in October 2012.

Now to be fair to Svoboda and Oleh Tyahnybok the party leader, it would have been unlikely his party would have passed the 5% threshold of popular vote to allow his party candidates to get into the RADA, should it act alone.  Having joined forces with the United Opposition, for the first time, self declared fascists and Nazis look certain to hold seats in the RADA whether or not the United Opposition win post October, as a deal has been struck whereby 35 seats will not be contested by other United Opposition parties.

As Svoboda has numerous politicians in several regional administrations and western cities of Ukraine, it seems a fair guess that in the absence of other opposition parties running in those areas for parliament, as per the agreement announced two days ago, Svoboda will win.

All jolly good if you are a supporter of Svoboda and possibly good for the United Opposition, but possibly not.

Why do I say that?  Surely if a coalition ally is all but certain to win RADA seats in western Ukraine when running only against the PoR who are much loathed there, it is a good thing?

Maybe.

However, Mr Tyahnybok has been on national television on well watched political shows such as Shuster Live and Keselov, happily confirming his fascist and Nazi credentials.  His positions are so far right of patriotism they can only be described as to the hard right of nationalism.  He is on public record numerous times relating to his anti-Semitic, anti-Russian, anti-EU stance.

Now there is nothing wrong with that.  In a democracy there is free speech, freedom of expression and as national voting shows, he does represent a very small proportion of society.

From a United Opposition point of view though, he also alienates an enormous part of society – and the United Opposition have just formally got into bed with him.

Why would any Jew now vote for Yatseniuk or Tymoshenko’s parties knowing that in doing so it helps propel an anti-Semitic number of Svoboda party people into the RADA as well?  Why would any Ukrainian, be they pro-Russia or pro-EU, vote for the United Opposition when in doing so it propels ultra-nationalists well known for their intense dislike of both Russia and the EU, into the RADA?

By formally allowing Svoboda into the ranks of the United Opposition, any thoughts of a workable, principled coalition, should they win and become the majority in parliament, becomes a nonsense.  If there are 25 – 35 Sovoboda MPs then the entire United Opposition (or then majority) can be held ransom with that number of MPs  votes.

Let us not forget, Ms Tymoshenko led a coalition government that had a majority of only 1.  There is no way a coalition government can cope with 25 – 35 unruly ultra-nationalist Svoboda MPs and so major principled and ideological positions will have to be ceded to keep them on side just to remain in power.

That is what happened last time the opposition ruled Ukraine, making it a complete farce and an abject lesson in dysfunctional government.  In short, there would be no alternative but a major slide to the far right to hold things together as a government.

You have to ask why they have done this?  Without joining the United Opposition, there was a better than good chance that Svoboda would have failed the 5% threshold and many voters knowing that would have voted for the parties of Yatseniuk or Tymoshenko instead.  At most Svoboda would have had a handful of RADA MPs from the occasional win in single seat constituencies, rather than a possible 30+ from single seat constituencies and being on the proportional list as part of the United Opposition having now been allowed to join it.

A handful of ultra-nationalist MPs from a different and quite radical party is far easier to control if you are trying to run a coalition with a small majority.

Was any thought given to the causal effects of doing this?

Then again, does it really matter?  The Ukrainian public are faced with voting for a United Opposition that was a complete failure when last in power and the names and faces simply haven’t changed.  They offer nothing and nobody new from what they offered 2 years ago when ousted from power.  (Although there is a serious rumour that Andrey Shevchenko, the iconic Ukrainian footballer will enter politics today – but for which party it is as yet unknown.  My best guess would be Klitschko’s UDAR or Korolevska as neither have the corrupt baggage of the other parties .)

The choice remains a stick or a fork in the eye for the voter.  The ultimate reality remains a very painful eye whatever they choose!

Ukrainian election advertising & Twitter

For some quite unknown reason, I have recently taken to commenting about the electioneering adverts of various contenders in the forthcoming  Ukrainian parliamentary October elections on twitter.  To my surprise it has been quite popular and subjected to numerous retweets on occasion.

That said I can be quite cynical as this tweet about the Communist Party advert may infer: “Nostalgic Communist Party election ad about the “good old days of the USSR”. Missed the bit about stagnant econ, corruption & gulags tho!”

All very clever and pious of me.

I then commented about the United Opposition election ad, which is being shown so often you would think it was actually the main feature of the TV station rather than the adverts.

“United Opposition ad with Yatseniuk, Grytsenko (OK) & the never in the RADA Sergey Sobolev & politically weak Vyach Kyrylenko. I despair!”

As you can tell, I have something of a yearning for the opposition to actually be something like an opposition and provide something like a credible alternative.  Thus I hope, seemingly in vain, they will campaign on policy rather than personality politics, and naturally they will show themselves in the best possible light at all times.

I can fully understand their election advert featuring Arseney Yatseniuk and Grytsenko.  After all, they are the leaders of two of political parties that have joined forces within the United Opposition.  But do my comments relating to Sergey Sobolev, who I describe as always absent from the RADA (and if twitter allowed more characters I would have said untrustworthy as well) and the fact Kyrylenko is a particularly weak (and naive) politician stand up?

In short I am inferring that the United Opposition could and should have chosen far better MPs from the parties they represent to stand alongside Yatseniuk and Grytsenko in the electioneering fluff.

Well after that tweet, a new civil society website went live and you can now check for yourselves via Chesno.Org just how good, bad or indifferent every MP currently sitting in the RADA is according to their parameters.

So what does it have to say about Sergey Sobolev and does that underline or undermine my tweet?

“Budget of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for 2010 allowances other people’s deputy of Ukraine on free passage was set at 26,800 USD. However, in 2010 Sergey V. Sobolev exceeded established by Parliament allowances for free travel, spending on him 29,171 USD. and completing from the state budget of Ukraine on 12 trips.

According to the methodology for evaluating integrity of the candidates of the Movement FAIR availability of information that might indicate a high likelihood of involvement in the abuse of state resources and positions of power, is considered non-compliance criteria. Thus, there is good reason to assume and make an assessment that the deputies of Ukraine Serhiy Sobolev V., according to the Movement Honestly, does not meet the criteria.

During the parliamentary powers of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of VI convocation deputies of Ukraine Serhiy Sobolev V. repeatedly violated the principle of personal voting at meetings of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. In particular, the evening session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, March 3, 2011 deputies of Ukraine Serhiy Sobolev V. vote cards missing at a meeting of People’s Deputies, as evidenced by video. According to the methodology of the evaluation of integrity of candidates for deputies deputy discrepancy criterion is even a single violation of the principle of personal voting. Thus, Sergey V. Sobolev, according Movement Honestly, does not meet the criteria.

During 2011 was carried out 82 morning and evening plenary sessions of Parliament, for which the official web site of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the available data written registration deputies. According to these data, the deputies of Ukraine Serhiy Sobolev V. attended by 59 morning and evening plenary sessions of Parliament, ie 72% of the plenary sessions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

In 2011 MP Sobolev Sergey V. was a member of the Committee on Justice. According to minutes of meetings of the Committee during 2011 were held 17 meetings of the Committee. Sobolev Sergey V. was present at 7 meetings of the Committee, ie 41% of all Committee meetings held in 2011.

According to the methodology of evaluation of integrity candidates discrepancy criterion is the presence during 2011 to less than 75% of the plenary sessions of Parliament or less than 75% of meetings of the Committee member who was deputy of Ukraine. Thus, according to the Movement Honestly, Sobolev V. Sergey does not meet the criteria.”

Well, I did say he was never present (and untrustworthy) and this would seem to confirm what I said.  So why is this man acting as the face of Ms Tymoshenko’s party along side the leaders of two other parties for the United Opposition?  What is wrong with Mykola Tomenko who I may occasionally disagree with but believe to be a decent and hard working MP from the Tymoshenko stable?

Why Kyrylenko from OU-PSD?  For one, he is weak, or naive, or both, when listening to him on television, and just like Sobolev seems to turn up to work far less than his voting card in the RADA:

“During the parliamentary powers of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of VI convocation deputies of Ukraine Vyacheslav Kirilenko A. repeatedly violated the principle of personal voting at meetings of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. In particular, according to a written record of people’s deputies of Ukraine, he was absent on the evening plenary session of Parliament 21 April 2011 and the morning plenary session of Parliament 11 January 2012, but his voting card was used during the voting at such meetings. According to the methodology of the evaluation of integrity of candidates for deputies, deputy discrepancy criterion is even a single violation of the principle of personal voting. Thus, Vyacheslav Kirilenko A., according to the Movement Honestly, does not meet the criteria.

During 2011 was carried out 82 morning and evening plenary sessions of Parliament, for which the official web site of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the available data written registration deputies. According to these data, the deputies of Ukraine Vyacheslav Kirilenko A. attended by 69 morning and evening plenary sessions of Parliament, ie 84% of the plenary sessions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, conducted in 2011.

In 2011 MP Vyacheslav Kirilenko A. was a member of the Committee on Culture and Spirituality. According to minutes of meetings of the Committee during 2011 were held 25 meetings of the Committee. Vyacheslav A. Kirilenko was present at 11 meetings of the Committee, ie 44% of all Committee meetings held in 2011.

According to the methodology of evaluating candidates integrity, mismatch criterion is the presence during 2011 to less than 75% of the plenary sessions of Parliament or less than 75% of the meetings of Council that was people’s deputy of Ukraine. Thus, according to the Movement Honestly, Vyacheslav A. Kirilenko does not meet the criteria.”

Why not someone like Andriy Parybin, who whilst equally unconvincing as a politician, at least turns up to work more often than not.

Two Party leaders, regardless of their political records must naturally feature in any United Opposition electioneering ad.  But surely the other 2 parties can put up recognisable politicians who turn up to work, are not seen as corrupt, allow their voting cards to vote when they are not present at a vote, don’t fiddle their expenses and are generally transparent about their work inside (if not outside) the RADA.

Why go with those who many, just like I did, know full well the serious weaknesses of Sobolev and Kyrylenko?  Which campaign advisor has allowed these two to be part of the repeatedly televised electioneering on behalf of the United Opposition?

Quite simply – Could do better (and I wish they would do better)!