What, I wonder, does the idea of democracy actually mean to people like Viktor Baloha? Here is a man with no public profile to speak of, who has made a very good career for himself as a supercharged civil servant but who now seems to be suffering from delusions of grandeur. By leaving Our Ukraine he allegedly seeks to create a new party and divide the ruling Orange coalition, with rumours circulating that he will push for a new dissolution of parliament and then head up an acting administration under emergency presidential rule. Baloha, you may remember, is the same person who masterminded the recent Our Ukraine election campaign which focused on the idea of justice for all and political accountability.
Ignoring public opinion
As political analysts eagerly consider the possible ramifications of a resurrected and wholly unconstitutional broad coalition between Yushchenko loyalists and the semi-mythical moderate wing of the Party of Regions, there has been no mention of what the electorate might think about all this, no debate over how public opinion would react to radical changes in the government they so recently voted into power. Despite the fact that recent elections have repeatedly demonstrated the Ukrainian public’s ability to pass judgment on those who fail to keep their promises, the message seems to be getting lost somewhere between the ballot box and the corridors of power.
Ukraine’s politicians appear stuck in limbo, prepared to accept the necessity of fighting occasionally for the votes of an electorate which can no longer be coerced, but ready to disregard public opinion as a factor for the duration of the interludes between elections.
Does Baloha himself think of government in terms of public confidence and accountability to the electorate? It seems highly unlikely. I would hazard a guess that his world view is dominated by questions of administrative weapons, constitutional contortions and secret deals struck behind closed doors, with the opinions of the general public accorded little if any consideration whatsoever.
Backroom habits die hard
It is not hard to imagine where such a perspective might have taken root – that, after all, was the way the country was run for the first fourteen years of its existence. To people like Baloha, nothing much seems to have changed since, with each new political crisis viewed as nothing more than a battle of wits and pragmatism in which the public role is peripheral at best. For the past 18 months Baloha has widely been seen as the power behind Yushchenko’s throne and has been implicated in so many alleged power-sharing plots and political schemes that it has often been difficult to keep track of his Machiavellian machinations.
The decision to break from Our Ukraine is merely the latest in a long line of such maneouvres. It reeks of the managed democracy model championed in Russia and other authoritarian post-Soviet states, and goes against the very principles which his sponsor Yushchenko has long claimed to champion.
Revenge of the electorate
Personally I expect Baloha’s rebellion to backfire monumentally, but it would be foolish not to expect many more similar ploys in the coming months as the battle for ascendancy between Tymoshenko and Yushchenko reaches fever pitch. In the final analysis these undemocratic plots to reshape the government without the electorate’s consent will only serve to bolster the already rocketing approval ratings enjoyed by Tymoshenko and discredit the apparatchik classes further.
It is now only a matter of time before prevailing public opinion is translated into a resounding electoral verdict on the arrogance of those close to the presidency. In the meantime it would be a shame if Yushchenko allowed himself to be cajoled into following the advice of self-interested parties who view his presidency as a vehicle for their own ambitions. The President’s place in history is not yet secure and he risks staining his reputation as the father of modern Ukrainian democracy if he allows himself to be detached from reality by such grubby backroom schemes.
