“Pact between financial groups” concluded in Ukraine: Alexander Feldman

Read it in Russian

Alexander Feldman – member of the Ukrainian parliament (Bloc of Yulia Timoshenko), president of the Association of National and Cultural Unions of Ukraine, vice president of the International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians.

REGNUM: Mr. Feldman, you represent the only opposition group in the Ukrainian Parliament. How would you characterize the present situation in Ukraine? What has happened, in your opinion?

The present situation over the formation of a new parliamentary coalition and the signing of a National Unity Universal has put an end to the parliamentary crisis but, at the same time, has paved the way for new political risks and has given rise to plenty of questions. The key question today is how President Yushchenko is going to insure his country against an anti-democratic setback, a fallback to shadow economy and shadow politics. Some people doubt that the Universal will be able to stop these negative processes, and only those naive can expect that Ukrainian politicians will show a good will. Unfortunately, they have not yet acquired the instinct of political responsibility – an instinct that is inborn for western democracies.

REGNUM: Can the Universal actually unite the country?

What we see now is more like union of business and a pact by financial groups than national unity. We are not against national unity. On the contrary, our whole electoral campaign was exactly about finding some universal Ukrainian values – values both the West and the East would understand and accept. But we are against double standards and substitution of notions. We think that those saying that this pact of elites is a gesture of “good will” to unite the country are insincere. We are against a “unity” that will cause a setback and revision of the values our country has been going to for as many as 15 years. Besides, we perfectly realize that the split imposed on our society in 2004 was artificial. Consequently, the “unity” that levels the public interest with the party, group and business one is also artificial.

REGNUM: As a politician expressing the interests of national-cultural communities of Ukraine, what remarks do you have concerning the Universal?

The National Unity Universal initiated by the president could have really become a strategic program if several key requirements had been met: if those signing it had not “sped up” this process so as to slant it towards the formation of a new parliamentary coalition; if this initiative had come from people representing Ukrainian society rather than “those from above”; if those drafting it had not “cut off” the vital points that are not among the Universal’s 27 priorities and are regarded by some as insignificant.

Much to our regret, the Universal does not say anything about preserving inter-ethnic peace in Ukraine, supporting civil society institutions, fighting extremism and xenophobia, developing legal and social protection mechanisms. As long as we lack clear national policies on the above issues, our stability and civil peace will be very fragile. The only obviously positive point of the document is that the public will be able to see how the signatories to it will work to strengthen national unity, conciliarism and state security. This is one more occasion to exercise moral control over the government’s actions – but no more than that.

REGNUM: What prospects does Ukraine’s foreign policy have? Will it actually remain unchanged as President Yushchenko has promised? After all, the Universal is a kind of compromise, isn’t it?

Indeed, the Universal contains a more or less compromise formula of national interest. More precisely, it formulates the short-term plan of action supported by a number of political forces. Its implementation could really set the country moving towards Euro-Atlantic integration and social-economic reforms. On the other hand, evasive wordings do not give us the clarity we so direly need today. Most Ukrainian politicians are hostages to ratings. In Ukraine public political accord has not yet become a priority. And this is, unfortunately, our political reality. So, I am far from being groundlessly optimistic in the matter.

REGNUM: What tasks do you have as an opposition party? What goals and guidelines do you have under new conditions?

First of all, I would like to say that the first and foremost goal of BYT is to become the first system opposition of Ukraine — an opposition that will refrain from showing radicalism and applying any other methods that can lead to new instability in the country and society. The new government should realize that we are not their enemy but partner or, as they say, special partner seeking special political cooperation and offering alternative development scenarios.

First, our bloc will take most active part in legislation. This, first of all, concerns the bill “On Opposition” – a document that will provide for clear rules of opposition activities in Ukraine, irrespective of who will be in opposition – our bloc, Party of Regions or the political bloc of the president. Second, we are going to create a political atmosphere that will oblige the authorities to fulfill its political and social-economic commitments: the opposition will inform the society of any attempt by the authorities to avoid responsibility in the matter. That is, the opposition will be not only the government’s special partner but also public mouthpiece. Third, our bloc will neither make advances to the authorities nor slate it without proofs. This will be the first professional opposition to offer the society and the country its own alternative ways to exercise state power.

REGNUM: Your forecast: how durable will the new coalition be and for how long will it exist? What will you do if the coalition breaks down and mid-term parliamentary elections are held?

Today, it is hard to speak about the durability of the new coalition. It is not ideologically united, and we have yet to see what methods and principles it will choose. If it chooses to meet its situational political-economic interests, it will hardly be supported by wide public. In my opinion, the problem of this coalition is that it has united political forces with different ideologies. For example, it will be hard to explain to the voters of the Socialist Party its coalition ties with representatives of the big capital. If in 2006-2007 the society fails to feel and to see positive changes, the necessity of mid-term elections may arise again.

REGNUM: Why has your leader Yulia Timoshenko refused to sign the Universal?

Our leader Yulia Timoshenko has already said why BYT has refused to sign the Universal. First, the Universal is ambiguous about the language problem: it does not clearly say that Ukrainian is the only state language of Ukraine. Second, there is no clarity about the problem of the Church and the role of the State in religion. Third, the document says nothing specific about Ukraine’s economic integration: CES, EU or WTO? Four — the NATO problem – the Universal does not clearly say if Ukraine will join that organization or not: either a Plan of Action or some other normative acts.

Summing up this position, I can say: the Universal has united the political forces seeking power, but we can’t be sure that it has been supported by the whole society. We can even suppose that people understand it quite ambiguously, but until this document is clearly understood, to sign it would mean to show an irresponsible attitude towards voters. Besides, as you may know, no single representative of Ukraine’s independent public has signed under the document.