The Ukrainian people should be congratulated for the political maturity they once again showed in the recent elections. They can truly be proud, because they are part of the universal political culture of democracy; namely, being able to agree to disagree and debate fiercely within an enduring constitutional process.
In fact, Ukraine should not hesitate to say to its younger brother, Russia, that it should learn from Ukrainian political culture.
“Younger brother?” Russia is the younger brother of Ukraine to anyone who knows history. And politically, Ukraine has shown maturity and ability to compromise the way Russia has yet to demonstrate. Look at the presidential and parliamentary elections in both countries in terms of one very simple test of democracy: If you can’t be sure who is going to win, and if your predictions turn out to be wrong, you know it’s a democracy. There is no difficulty in predicting Russian elections, and that tells you something.
So the younger brother should learn from the older one. When Ukraine came into being, there were dire predictions. Some very competent intelligence analysts told us the country would split into two, that it is inherently unstable, that western Ukraine might end up independent, but the rest would probably not.
But voting patterns are increasingly cross-cutting regional divisions: In the last elections, Yulia Tymoshenko made significant successes in the east, while Viktor Yanukovych gained a few votes in the west.
Another example of unity were the brief days of the mini-crisis surrounding Tusla in 2003, the little island in the Sea of Azov, which by some peculiar logic, the Russian Federation tried to draw into its own terrain by transforming the island into a peninsula attached to Russia. Ukraine reacted immediately: then-President Leonid Kuchma flew back from Brazil and stood on the shores of Tusla, proclaiming fiercely, “This is Ukrainian territory!” The parliament’s near-unanimous resolution fiercely defended Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Ukraine has succeeded as a nation-state and is here to stay. There’s no doubt that Ukraine is part of Europe. That is an enduring reality, to which everyone has to adjust. And in adjusting, rid oneself of ignorance.
A nation is a reality when it has a profound historical awareness of itself. A country without a memory is like a person without a brain, without self-awareness. A senior associate of President Kuchma did not know about the mass graves in Bykivnia when I paid a personal homage several years ago. I suspect that many Ukrainians were not aware of Bykivnia. It is important to know these things. This is why the resolution in the parliament about genocide is a historical and political landmark. It reminds people of the importance of being independent and in charge of your own country. And that is taking place in Ukraine.
There has to be a vital, thriving, politically successful Ukraine for it to be part of Europe. And Europe has to adjust its own vision of the East to realize that the frontiers of Europe do not end at the Buh River. The fact is that Europe is a dynamic reality and Ukraine is a part of that history and that culture.
After the recent elections, Ukraine has a chance to demonstrate its political maturity in practice. The Orange Revolution actually put the final stamp on the the issue of whether Ukraine is going to endure or not. But that was several years ago.
Now, the political leadership must prove its maturity, showing that it has a clear understanding of responsibility and accountability for political decisions and programs. The whole notion of democracy is competition of programs and leadership, and leaders’ accountability and responsibility for performance – these issues must be clearly defined.
President Viktor Yushchenko has a real opportunity to put in place a serious and effective system of responsibility and accountability based essentially on two parties – a majority formation and a minority formation. The majority formation may be a two-party coalition; it can even be a partial grand coalition if some members of the opposition want to join, but it should not be a government that obscures accountability and responsibility by blurring the division between the programs and the elites with alternative programs, because that absence creates political cynicism. It creates the impression of “we the nation” and “they the elite” and reinforces the belief that the elite is corrupt and can never be held accountable.
Yulia Tymoshenko now has an opportunity to show that she is a genuine national leader after the big boost she received from the elections. She has the opportunity to govern and demonstrate that she is not an electoral populist, but a responsible national leader, who can formulate policies for the long run – without passion, but with commitment, with firmness, but without vengeance – in a manner that gains support and enduring respect. She has shown enormous political talent. Now she has an opportunity to translate that into enduring leadership.
Viktor Yanukovych has an opportunity to show himself as a responsible opposition leader, not the preferred choice of a major neighboring country. He can show himself to be a genuine national leader who partakes of Ukraine’s general thrust into Europe. That commitment has to be demonstrated not only verbally when in office, but in practice even as an opposition leader, to remain a participant in the larger European adventure.
In different ways, all three political leaders today have a historical chance to prove that Ukraine is not only a national success, but that it is closing the inevitable gap between itself and the West. That gap is not Ukraine’s fault. It is a consequence of the absence of freedom and independence, of the presence of Communism for so many decades and of subjugation by an empire for centuries. Given the causes for the gap, you have to be impressed how narrow it is today.
One can talk endlessly about problems, criteria, standards and shortcomings, but the fact is that the momentum is in the right direction. And Europe is also changing its view of Ukraine. The ignorance about Ukraine 15 years ago in the United States was equally widespread in Europe. Today, that’s dramatically changing, and the picture of Ukraine as a normal European country is gradually becoming predominant.
In all, this there is another, longer-range and further hopeful perspective. As Ukraine moves toward Europe, the imperial option for Russia closes forever, leaving it only one option – to follow its older brother’s suit.
Eventually, Russia will have no choice because of its vast space, demographic crises and the rising power of its Eastern neighbors. If Russia doesn’t move toward Europe, a different promise will be fulfilled. A promise, which was once made allegorically, but which has an ominous geographical definition today: General De Gaulle’s “Europe to the Urals.” He wasn’t suggesting that Russia be partitioned; he actually meant Russia in Europe.
Russia in Europe to Vladivostok may seem attractive to Russians, but if they fail to exercise this option, they face an ominous uncertainty. So Ukraine offers not only a lesson, but a hopeful avenue for Russia – one that all of us in the West should hope that Russia will pursue.
Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski is a counselor and trustee for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.
