Can Ukraine be saved from its seemingly endless rounds of internal turmoil? Over the weekend, we witnessed what can be safely called a travesty of democracy and rule of law, in the form of the referendum held in Eastern Ukraine. Despite initial reports of massive fraud that made even Putin flinch and try to prevent the poll from happening, the separatists went ahead with the planned vote.
In several towns, polling stations even had a revolving door policy, operating without a voting roll and allowing people to cast multiple votes if they could prove they resided locally. This lax oversight ensured that, according to preliminary results, some 90% voted for independence in the two regions that organized Sunday’s plebiscite.
Though these referendums are just the latest manifestations of appalling faux-democratic behavior’ taking place in Ukraine, the country’s official presidential elections are slated for May 25th, and their importance cannot be overstated. Widely seen as the only way to prevent the troubled country from sliding further into chaos, it remains to be seen how the vote will take place, as separatist leaders in the East are attempting to blackmail the central government by refusing to allow the election to happen in their territories unless their varying demands are met.
Nevertheless, in order to stop the country from fraying any further, a new President is needed to steer the country away from instability. A new leader will usher in a new political class, infuse the political system with the legitimacy and the authority needed to tackle the secessionist signals coming from the East. This is what the Ukrainian society needs the most. But who can fit this bill?
After crunching the numbers, it becomes clear that the election is essentially a contest between two political figures: Petro Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko. The former is a well-known representative of the Ukrainian elite class of oligarchs with an impressive fortune of $1.4 billion amassed from his multiple business interests that range from the confectionary to car industries. The latter is a former Prime Minister, freshly released from jail after serving more than 2 years on politically motivated charges courtesy of disgraced President Yanukovych.
Initial polls predict that Poroshenko will be the winner of the May elections, putting his support around 50%. Nevertheless, this scenario spells trouble for Ukraine’s democratic aspirations. Many pundits rightly pointed out Poroshenko’s past transgressions, his flip-flopping political career and conflicts of interest that would make him a liability for Ukraine. Most importantly, however, his close association with Ukraine’s oligarchs makes him the wrong choice for the struggling country.
Indeed, if one can say anything about the oligarchs, it is that their allegiances are dictated solely by their business interests. In a recent article, Taras Kuzio, a leading Ukrainian scholar, makes this case with disturbing insight, arguing that “there is no free lunch anywhere in politics” and Poroshenko’s support from the influential gas lobby grouping of oligarchs will surely come at a price. Indeed, the Financial Times has pointed out the same problem with Ukrainian politics in a blog post from April.
This being the case, it seems baffling that in opinion polls Yulia Tymoshenko is credited with only 20% in voter intentions. The answer is easy to find, once you factor in the fact that the main media outlets and television channels are owned either by Poroshenko (5 Kanal), Rinat Akhmetov, the country’s richest man (Ukraina TV) or Dmytro Firtash (nine stations, including Ukraine’s largest).
Tymoshenko vs the oligarchy?
Tymoshenko managed to get on the wrong side of the oligarchs shortly after becoming Prime Minister in 2005. Although the oligarchs supported her campaign, once in office she tried to wean the country off their corrupting influence. To this effect, she launched an ambitious campaign in 2005 to revisit 3000 privatizations of state-owned enterprises made in President Kuchma’s era. Results were promising as she managed to reverse several deals that were found to have been concluded in shady circumstances. The highlights include Dmytro Firtash’s illegal acquisition of the RosUkrEnergo trading company or selling Ukraine’s largest steel mill – owned by Viktor Pinchuk and Rinat Akhmetov - to Arcelor Mittal for $4.1 billion, five times more than what the two oligarchs paid for it.
Throughout that period, Poroshenko was part of the government as Secretary of the National Security Council, a position he earned after bankrolling the Orange Revolution. His stint did not last long though, resigning after a public spat he had with Tymoshenko over accusations of corruption. More precisely, she accused Poroshenko of fighting to block the government’s efforts to contain the influence of the oligarchs over the political system.
If elected, Tymoshenko has vowed to continue her struggle by planning ‘a very clear following of anti-monopoly laws’ and pushing ‘the oligarchs out of the political decision-making process’. Her plan includes state funding for political parties and increased transparency in government expenditures and privatizations, something that should sever the link between these wealthy power brokers and the state.
Given the dire state of Ukraine’s economy and the harsh conditions set by international lenders, a massive wave of privatizations and selling of state assets is sure to follow. Whoever will be at the helm has to show its commitment in staying the course and not try to reap profits for personal gain. Rocky times are ahead and Ukraine’s future depends ultimately on the outcome of the May Presidential elections.