The landslide victory of comedic actor-turned-politician Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Ukraine’s April 21 presidential election has proven one of the most dynamic events in modern Ukrainian history. Five years after the country’s EuroMaidan Revolution, which ended the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian public has acted decisively and with surprising unity to choose the country’s next leader.
The man in question is distinctly different from incumbent President Petro Poroshenko, who campaigned with the slogan “Army! Language! Faith!”: a non-politician and a Russian speaker who is reticent to discuss religion.
Unsurprisingly, this has been controversial. It has led to a wave of recriminations from Poroshenko’s patriotic supporters, who express a sense that Ukraine is lost, the country is turning back toward Russia, and — likely, the worst response to the election — that over 70 percent of the country is morons and so-called ‘Little Russians.’
But once the heated emotions fade, Ukrainians who supported President Poroshenko in the election should see that they too are the winners of this historic event.
It is too early to pass judgment on Volodymyr Zelenskiy as president. He is inexperienced and has worrying ties to oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. He faces an ongoing war with Russia, entrenched corruption, and a weak economy. There are many reasons to be concerned about what his presidency will yield for Ukraine. But his election itself is a win for Ukrainian democracy and, yes, Ukraine’s European path.
The vote was free and fair. While there were electoral violations, the campaigns engaged in ugly mudslinging, and much about campaign finance remains untransparent, the election was truly competitive and voters had a clear choice of candidates. They exercised that choice decisively, giving the next president a clear mandate to lead.
The quality of the vote shows that the Ukrainian government is capable of truly democratic elections, and the Ukrainian public has committed itself to democracy. Poroshenko’s gracious concession and promise to remain involved in politics is also good news. There will be a peaceful transfer of power, and Poroshenko has expressed his openness to helping Zelenskiy advance Ukraine’s integration with the European Union. In other words, while the presidential election may have been a referendum on Poroshenko’s presidency, it was not a battle over geopolitics nor two fundamentally polar projects of building the Ukrainian state.
The electoral landslide also demonstrates that Ukraine is hardly as divided as many people claim. Even in the first round of the vote on March 31, the old “East vs. West” divide was limited to a few regions and border areas.
Poroshenko’s campaign, with its focus on patriotism, national defense, and cultural issues, was targeted to the more stereotypically nationalistic west of the country. It’s failure further obliterates the idea that Ukraine is fundamentally divided. Yes, there are obvious differences, but this did not stop every region but Lviv Oblast from voting for Zelenskiy in the runoff. The failure of Poroshenko’s campaign strategy should be the final nail in the coffin of the myth that Ukrainian regional diversity is a fundamental obstacle to national unity.
Zelenskiy’s victory also demonstrates that while Ukrainians are passionate about Europe and their independence from Russia, they are not arch-nationalists. A nationalistic campaign failed to attract. This was not because Poroshenko’s accomplishments were irrelevant. A much stronger army, a visa-free regime with the EU, and the foundation of an Orthodox Church of Ukraine independent from Moscow are all important achievements.
But they could not solve ordinary Ukrainian’s daily problems. When Kyiv Post journalists visited a stop on Poroshenko’s January tour showing off the decree from Constantinople granting church independence, they heard a common view: This is great, but I’m voting for someone else.
Poroshenko’s loss shows that the meat and potatoes of Ukrainians’ grievances are neither geopolitical, nor identity-based. They are sick of corruption and the weak economy, tired of the slow reforms and the just, but endless war with Russia.
Will Zelenskiy be able to solve these issues? Few are expecting any miracles. Much will depend on his ability to cobble together a strong team of advisers, his personal prudence, the results of the Verkhovna Rada election, and the new president’s ability to work with that parliament. Regardless, he has a mandate to try his hand at moving the country forward.
However, for many of Poroshenko’s supporters, Zelenskiy is a path backwards. They see him as not sufficiently “pro-Ukraine,” — a Russian speaker from the country’s industrial east whose career as comedian has largely focused on the post-Soviet world, not Europe. Indeed, Zelenskiy’s strongest electoral performance was in the country’s southeast, a region traditionally regarded as pro-Russian.
But while this may be little consolation to Poroshenko supporters now, Zelenskiy’s victory is also a positive moment for Ukraine’s Western path. Ukraine has already chosen its course towards Europe. A poll by the Rating sociological agency shows that, in June 2018, 52 percent of Ukrainians supported membership in the European Union. Only 15 percent supported a Russia-led customs union. The country will not turn back.
In this context, Zelenskiy’s fundamental political orientation will be pro-Europe. He may speak of the need for peace in the Donbas, but the current realities of Ukrainian politics dictate that he will in no way hand over Crimea or Donbas to Russia. He may primarily be a Russian-speaker and inclined to tone down certain cultural issues that Poroshenko prioritized, but he will likely handle these issues delicately and respectfully. All signs indicate that his broader policy direction will be similar the one professed by Poroshenko.
We cannot say how effective or successful of a president Zelenskiy will be. In a country rife with corruption, the presidency will test his integrity. We will see whether his business ties to oligarch Kolomoisky become political ones. These are all things worth worrying about.
But Ukrainians who support their country’s path toward reform and Eurointegration — both Zelenskiy and Poroshenko supporters — should rejoice at the success of this election. Before EuroMaidan, Ukraine was ruled by Viktor Yanukovych, an openly pro-Moscow president who robbed the country blind. In the 2010 presidential election, Yanukovych was the candidate who received the vote of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking southeast. Today, the vast majority of that vote went to Zelenskiy, a candidate espousing a less strident, but generally pro-Europe orientation.
If this is the new face of the supposedly “pro-Russia electorate,” it is a major success for the country. It means that not only will the norms of post-Maidan Ukraine transcend the administration of the president whom Maidan brought to power, they have also spread beyond the regions with which they are traditionally associated.
Contrary to Poroshenko’s campaign ads, this was never a choice between him and Russian President Vladimir Putin, between Europe and Russia. Poroshenko and Zelenskiy are not charting paths in different directions for Ukraine. Rather, they are traveling to the same destination. But they have somewhat different views on getting there, handling the war in Donbas, dealing with Moscow, and building a modern country with an independent cultural identity.
A healthy democracy requires not just a ruling party, but also a healthy opposition competing within a common set of political and social norms. Given some of the rulers Ukraine has seen in the past, it is very good news that a moderate opposition has emerged and taken power. Poroshenko supporters may be unhappy with their political loss, but everyone should take comfort in the consolidation of Ukraine’s democratic, pro-European path.
