January 19, 2010

Nadia McConnell, US-Ukraine Foundation

Recently an EU official made the intriguing comment that he was “waiting for a successful presidential election” before moving forward in relations with Ukraine. Intriguing because this implies previous elections were unsuccessful and because it reflects the “wait and see” position of most Westerners – as if this Sunday’s presidential election presents a realistic opportunity for the winning candidate to transform the intermittently dysfunctional national government in Ukraine immediately.

This assumption is false and unless rejected will lead to more disappointment. Unrealistic expectations are being placed on whoever will serve as president, and not enough recognition is accorded the process – the process of successful democratization in civil society.

The Orange Revolution, a massive protest against election fraud in 2004, was not only about the public desire to see a particular individual elected.  This remarkable display of civic solidarity was primarily a rebellion against the unfulfilled promises of the first phase of a Revolution that, although unnamed began in the mid 1980s. If the world community fails to understand Ukraine within the context of this ongoing process of change and act accordingly, the results of the upcoming election are guaranteed to be seen as unsatisfactory.

In his 1991 President George H. W. Bush was ill served by advisors who informed him Ukrainian independence was both improbable and potentially disastrous. We saw this point of view dramatically displayed in his “Chicken Kiev” speech and again 4 days before the citizens of Ukraine voted by a majority, 93 percent for independence.  President Bush during a meeting with leaders of the Ukrainian-American community commented several times that “if Ukraine votes for independence…” The use of “if” was telling, his closest advisors were still advising the President the vote was in doubt.

The vote in 1991 was the first phase of the yet-unnamed Orange Revolution – a rejection by Ukraine’s civil society of the repressive, inept and corrupt government in Moscow. President Bush had only focused on one part of that rebellion, the desire for an independent Ukraine, or in his words “suicidal nationalism.”  He failed to understand that this rebellion was driven no less by anger about the Chornobyl disaster, desire of the faithful of the banned Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches to worship freely, and the rage of mothers who saw Ukrainian soldiers  disproportionately being put in harm’s way in the war in Afghanistan. Ukraine’s independence was a seismic rebellion of different fears and furies coming together at one time.

If phase one of this coalesced anger was the successful rejection of a corrupt and indifferent central government then found in Moscow,  phase two in 2004 was a civic rebellion against a corrupt and indifferent central government now found in Kyiv.

Five years later,  rebellion against corruption and indifference continues. There is widespread evidence that Ukrainian voters do not see any of the current candidates as “the” answer to the needs of their country. The people know the process which they have undertaken is difficult and will take time, but is one they have genuinely embraced.  The West should be no less realistic and, in considering the strategic interests of their own countries, must support the development of civil society in Ukraine’s phase three of the Orange Revolution.

While bitter infighting among Ukraine’s elected officials is exasperating, if the expectations of Western leaders are to be met, then the button must be reset from “wait” to “engaged fully”. The citizens of Ukraine are going to deliver a “successful” election – one where the results are not predetermined and one that will be followed by a peaceful transition of power.  Western engagement must expand beyond telling Ukraine’s leaders reform is necessary; significant focus needs to be given serious and strategic involvement in efforts to assist citizens of Ukraine in their efforts to hold their governmental leaders accountable. Some of the most successful assistance programs provided Ukraine have been those directed specifically at local governance and civil society.  The distractions of the dysfunctional national government has hidden the remarkable changes that have taken place below the radar, changes that energize the on-going revolution.  Such assistance needs to be continued regardless of who wins national elections.   Let us hope that President Obama and Vice President Biden have wiser counsel than did certain of their predecessors as they reengage in Ukraine and the region.  Regardless of how disappointing one or another political leader has been, Ukraine’s civil society must have our commitment.

Nadia McConnell

President, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation and Co-Founder, Baltic-Black-Caspian Sea Initiative