Almost 30 years after the country achieved independence, the political scene is still anything but calm and predictable. The defensive war against Russia’s invasion, which has already lasted for six years, has not helped. But the problem reflects a broader and more deeply rooted malaise which remains difficult to diagnose, let alone cure quickly.
This spring is no different. Kyiv is abuzz with talk of impending changes in the government, possibly of the prime minister himself. Given that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Servant of the People party won a majority of the seats in the parliament last summer, such a move so soon is rather unexpected and unsettling. All the more so given the signs that politicians from a previous era, such as the finance specialist and former minister Serhiy Tihipko, are being summoned from political hibernation ostensibly to reinforce a reformist government.
Yet the topsy-turvey nature of political life is hardly surprising in a country that has been grappling for so long with the transition. The battle between the old and the new, and between the entrenched interests, that in the meantime have assumed dominance, and the pressures for reform, has continued at different levels of intensity.
In the meantime, murky shadow economics and politics have evolved into parallel systems, co-existing with, and underpinning, the inchoate democracy, and market economy operating on the surface. Political parties with clear ideologies and programs have still not appeared and redefined how the country’s parliamentary democracy operates.
The lack of transparency, and of crystallized traditions of both independent and quality journalism on the one hand, and public discussion of policy formation, on the other, complicate matters. All the more so for analysts and commentators trying to make sense of what they see, or suspect is happening, and for whom it is important to convey their insights with credibility.
The obstacles are numerous. The secrecy, mendacity, corruption, and manipulation inherent in the system have stunted the growth of the political culture. The oligarchic set-up has spawned quasi-independent media serving not the public interest, but that of their paymasters. And this has effectively become the new norm.
Meanwhile, the explosion of social media has provided the means for any individual or group to promote their views and emotions, critically or uncritically, often with the air of smugness. This has also become a primary channel for spreading disinformation and sowing confusion and division.
The wounds and rifts in Ukrainian society were reopened last year during the ugly campaigning methods resorted to in the presidential and parliamentary elections. The incumbent President Petro Poroshenko miscalculated and relied on appeals to patriotism. He depicted Zelensky not only as unqualified but also as a tool of the Kremlin.
After his defeat, Poroshenko has continued this risky and ultimately irresponsible strategy encouraging polarization rather than unity, one which hardly bolsters Ukraine’s immature democratic political culture. Promoting an attitude of contempt for the majority of Ukraine’s citizens who voted differently and claiming to have a monopoly on patriotism is hardly a reflection of statesmanship.
Zelensky and his team have also made mistakes. Despite their reliance on modern techniques of promoting their image and messages, they have not been as effective as they should in communicating with society, explaining their policies and strategy, and accounting for the delays and obstacles they have encountered and the ensuing zig-zags.
And this week, matters suddenly appear to be coming to a head. Zelensky has not succeeded in punishing bank fraud on a huge scale requiring the nationalization of the country’s largest bank, PrivatBank. The festering conflict with billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, PrivatBank’s former owner, remains a source of major concern at home and to the international financial institutions. Their support is critical. The other key oligarchs may appear quieter, but have not been tamed. And with local elections planned later this year, the problematic mayors with shady reputations in several key cities remain seemingly entrenched.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the work of the parliament has been effectively paralyzed by the tactics employed by the Servant of the People’s opponents to delay the passage of the law on land market reform. The majority party, which has sufficient internal problems of its own, is now opposed by all four of the other smaller parliamentary factions and is effectively being held in check by them. Through populism and the introduction of thousands of amendments, the issue of allowing land to be sold has been transformed into the hottest political issue of the day and a veritable diversion from other pressing issues on the reform agenda and even the war in the Donbas.
Member of parliament and ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, resenting the fact that Zelensky did not offer her a role alongside him, has turned against him and is competing with Poroshenko for the title of his most outspoken critic. Rock star Sviatoslav Vakarchuk’s Voice party is fading, but the pro-Russian For life party is continuing to hold its own, maintaining a steady 15% or so support among voters.
While nine months into his administration, considering the situation Zelensky inherited and tasks he set himself, it would be premature to declare him a failure. His ratings have been falling but still remain around a respectable 49% level. Indeed, his track record so far has persuaded even some of his biggest critics among foreign analysts of Ukraine to begin giving him credit.
Last year, for example, U.S. analysts Adrian Karatnycky and Alexander J. Motyl were avid supporters of Poroshenko and were predicting gloom and doom for Ukraine and its supporters if Zelensky were elected. Now, they have just acknowledged in the pages of Foreign Policy, that “Zelensky has already launched reforms that used to be unthinkable in Ukraine,” remains largely trusted, and no longer accusing him of being a godsend for Putin. Indeed, they are advising him how to “secure his place in history.”
The two pundits propose, simplistically, that Zelensky “should reboot his presidency.” When covering Ukrainian politics, it is good for analysts to remember to reboot themselves periodically in order to keep up with the shifting realities in this challenging but fascinating country.
