Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation
August 22 – 28, 2011

Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation
Democratic institutions and democratic processes.
th
2

Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation
August
22
Yulia Tymoshenko requested a 3-day recess in the review of the gas issue.
She said this is enough time for her to prepare testimony. In addition to that, the accused said her state of health is worsening and requested a medical examination by her personal doctor. At the same time, Judge
Rodion Kireyev informed that doctors of the temporary holding cell examined expremier and said the ex-premier is in good health. Tymoshenko said the prison doctors did not examine her state of health.
Ukrainian political analysts and citizens say over the two decades of Ukraine’s independence produced more negative than positive results, according to the results of public opinion polls conducted by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic
Initiatives Foundation this past August. Of the 65 Ukrainian experts surveyed, the majority of them say Ukraine’s greatest achievements are the absence of civil conflicts, the Orange Revolution, preservation of Ukraine’s independence, experience in holding democratic elections, introducing the national currency and gradual harmonization with the European Union. Anti-corruption measures, formation of the system of justice, ensuring social fairness, etc.
August
23
President Viktor Yanukovych insists that before approving reforms, they should be put up for public debate. This is the way the reform of education and the healthcare systems should be drafted, the head of state said in his address dedicated to the 20 th
anniversary of the independence of
Ukraine.
August
Ukraine celebrated its 20 th anniversary of independence.
On this day
24
President Viktor Yanukovych placed flowers on the monuments of Taras
Shevchenko and Mykhailo Hrushevskiy and prayed for the prosperity of
Ukraine on Volodymyr’s Hill, where a ceremonious gathering of members of the Blessed and Single Ukraine was held. After the official events organized by the authorities near the monument to Tars Shvchenko, members of the opposition party gathered to celebrate Independence Day. More than 7,000 people marched down Volodymyr St. after the event and were confronted by law enforcers, who justify their actions by the ban of the court against holding such demonstrations on this day, while the opposition claims that the during the complaint filed by the Kyiv
City State Administration was reviewed by the Kyiv District Administrative Court on banning acts of protests by the opposition in downtown Kyiv the police supported and the pedestrian march proposed by members of the opposition.
August
25
The news on the Euronews television channel recently aired in the
Ukrainian language significantly differ from the English version.
Telekritika reported on its website. In the report it was said that from the text about the celebration of Ukraine’s Independence Day it is obvious that the Ukrainian news service edits the text in favor of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Ukraine’s Ministry of the Internal Affairs filed a criminal case against the political opposition for hooliganism on Independence Day , the Kyiv Prosecutor
General’s Office informed. According to its data, participants in the act of protest
3

Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation attempted to break through the wall of enforcers, which ended in the injury of six riot police, despite the ban of the court.
 Democratic institutions and democratic processes
20 TH ANNIVERSARY OF UKRAINE’S INDEPENDENCE: MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS
AND FAILURES
August 24, 2011 marked the day that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Act of Declaration of the Independence of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Over two decades of its independence Ukraine managed to retain its territorial integrity, build up the fundamental state institutions, switch over to the rails of a market economy and become an individual player in international relations.
At the same time, the qualitative indicators of development of an independent
Ukraine leave much to be desired.
65 political scientists, sociologists, journalists and civil activists made their assessments of the achievements and losses over the two Ukraine’s independence and shared them with the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation.
In the opinion of political analysts, the development of the political situation in
Ukraine over the past two decades was very ambiguous. On December 1, 1991,
Ukrainians unanimously voted in favor of Ukraine’s independence and the first elections of the country’s new president were held.
While prior to that the national democratic opposition at the time failed to put forth a single candidate, as a result of which the former secretary of the
Communist Party of Ukraine Leonid
Kravchuk was elected the president and the presidential elections in 1991 set the standard for the democratic freewill of the people.
As a result of the snap parliamentary and presidential elections in 1994, Ukraine was the first country in the post-Soviet
What did Ukraine achieve over 20 years of independence?
What obstacles did the country face on this path?
expanse where there was a democratic change of power.
However, conformity to all democratic procedures of elections did not lead to the corresponding democratization of public administration. On the one hand, political analysts noted that the change in power as a result of the elections was an undeniable success for Ukraine and all four presidents of Ukraine came to power through democratic elections.
Despite this, political analysts gave a negative assessment the effectiveness of the activities of Viktor Yanukovych,
Viktor Yushchenko, Leonid Kuchma and even Leonid Kravchuk while serving their terms in office describing them as a huge loss for Ukraine. Despite certain deviations in the assessments of the activity of Ukraine’s presidents, political
4

Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation analysts agreed that their common trait the most remarkable event in the was the inability to implement the necessary reforms in the country.
The analysts consider the adoption of the
Constitution in 1996 also to be one of the notable events in the context of the development of Ukraine. They saw a positive aspect in its compromising nature and the pressure that President
Leonid Kuchma at the time put on the parliament the day before the document was adopted. In short, the Constitution officially secured the rules of the game at the highest level.
Political analysts gave a considerably more negative assessment of
Constitutional reform in 2004, which to a certain degree balanced the system of power in Ukraine and led to permanent conflicts between the branches of power in the period of 2005-2009.
Later, the same analysts staunchly disapproved of the abolishment of constitutional reform by the
Constitutional Court, which was done through gross violations of the legislation and considerably weakened the legitimacy of the country’s main political institutions.
However, political analysts named the
Orange Revolution at the end of 2004
Analysts gave a much more negative assessment of Ukraine’s achievements in the economic and social spheres. They named the greatest loss in the sphere of economic development the proliferation of two mutually related trends: corruption and takeover of power by the oligarchs.
To a great degree, these two trends were the backlash of unjust and often predatory privatization of state property over the 1990s, which concentrated the political history of Ukraine over the 20 years of its independence. The symbolism in the event was the apogee of the entire political development of
Ukraine over the two decades of its independence.
On the one hand, it demonstrated the will of Ukrainians to live in a democratic country and their capacity to show resistance to the usurpation of power by the political elite. On the other hand, the repercussions of the mass acts of protest in 2004 was testimony to the inability of the political elite to capitalize on a highly favorable situation to fulfill its promises and renewed moods of apathy of the Ukrainian people.
This gave grounds to assess the Orange
Revolution as a loss, the final testimony of which was the reinstatement of authoritarian tendencies in public administration and rule of society after the victory of Viktor Yanukovych in the last presidential elections.
It was precisely the inability of the
Ukrainian ruling elite and society to capitalize on the conditions for true democratization they created became the main leitmotif of the political life of independent Ukraine. country’s main capital in the hands of an extremely narrow circle of people.
Moreover, the privatization of large objects was typically executed through loopholes in state regulation and the abuse of power by the authorities. This, in turn, gave rise to the practice of mutual conversion of political and economic capital (i.e. exploiting one to receive the other), which became a direct precondition for the oligarchs to take control of the economic and political spheres.
5

Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation
As a result, a system of corruption in 2011 every fourth Ukrainian is living which those who control the main economic resources and the highest ranking officials became closely tied through mutual interests.
Experts are convinced that the economic model that was built up was totally inefficient as it served the interests of an extremely limited circle of people and was an obstacle to open and fair competition and attracting domestic and foreign investments.
At the same time, the social sphere became hostage to the oligarchic economy. And although since the beginning of 2000 the standard of living of Ukrainians began to grow, today it remains one of the lowest in all of
Europe. Among the population of
Europe only Moldovans live poorer than
Ukrainians in terms of GDP.
The division of national wealth among
Ukrainians is even more alarming.
According to statistics of the Institute of
Demographics and Social Research, in
Experts say the consequences of the development of human rights in Ukraine over two decades leave much to be desired. Over this period the state managed only to formally secure the most fundamental political, economic and social rights of the people, but was unable to ensure compliance with them.
Experts gave the lowest assessments of the level of observance of the socioeconomic rights of Ukrainians. The reasons for such a state of affairs were mentioned above, but its repercussions were the discrepancy between legislatively established rules and the privileges of citizens and their true standard of living.
Aside from the difficult economic conditions, the situation was complicated by the fact that the state failed to exercise the socio-economic rights of the beneath the poverty line.
The social stratification and the striking difference in the incomes of the rich and the poor was the main trait of life in
Ukraine over the 20 years of its independence. The situation became more complicated by the unwillingness of the ruling power to conduct systemic reforms in the socio-economic sphere.
Indeed, most of its initiatives in this sphere led to patching up holes in the national budget, often at the expense of citizens.
Alongside the unwillingness of the representatives of the political elite to sever its tight connections with big business, this led to even greater social tension. As a result, Ukraine’s transition to a market economy did not meet the expectations of the majority of
Ukrainians as it was accompanied by large-scale distortion of the notion of equal opportunity and free and fair competition. people due to the shortage of necessary budget funds.
Even if the people would have filed complaints with the bodies of state power and won their lawsuits in the courts, the government still refused to execute such rulings. The state was also incapable of properly guaranteeing the rights of citizens to free medical services, free educations and housing.
Observance of the rights of the socially vulnerable strata of the population whom the state essentially pushed to the edge of social destitution over all the 20 years of Ukraine’s independence is particularly alarming.
The picture of political and public rights of Ukrainians is more ambiguous. The years of independence showed that observance of such rights directly depended on the nature of the political
6

Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation regime and concrete representatives of remains one of the greatest challenges the ruling elite that were in power at the time.
The significant difference in the genuine rights and freedoms of Ukrainians over the terms of Viktor Yushchenko and
Viktor Yanukovych is the proof in the pudding. When over the period of 2005-
2009 the level of observance to such rights over the two decades of independence was the highest and nearly reached European levels, starting in
2010 it sharply fell.
The most typical manifestation of this ever-changing process was the state of freedom of speech. While at the end of
2009 many experts assessed the real state of freedom of speech as one of the greatest achievements over the years of
Ukraine’s independence, in 2011 this right was under serious threat of extinction, both as a result of different forms of pressure on the part of the ruling authority and self-censorship of
Ukrainian journalists.
Another brilliant illustration of this highly convoluted picture concerning the observance of political rights in Ukraine can be made. Specifically, while over most of the years of independence
Ukrainians could exercise their right to elect the government, they were practically deprived of the right to have influence on the decisions that were made. The need to cross this bridge that Ukraine faces.
At the same time, ensuring conditions for tolerance in the co-existence of different ethnic, linguistic and religious groups in Ukraine was a true milestone for the country over its 20 years of independence. Among the post-Soviet republics, Ukraine was the only country in which no serious ethnic, religious or territorial conflicts transpired. As a result, Ukraine managed to not only preserve its territorial integrity, but also to lay the foundations for the peaceful co-existence of representatives of various nationalities and ethnic groups.
The guarantee of this was the levelheaded, tolerant and fairly stringent policy of the central government that ensured equal terms for the development of all communities in Ukraine and preempted all attempts at violating the country’s integrity. The most illustrious example of this was overcoming of
Crimean separatism in 1995 through abolition of the post of the president of
Crimea and the constitution adopted by the Crimean parliament.
Ukraine was also quite successful in the spheres of different linguistic and religious rights. Although the preconditions for the aggravation of the situation in these spheres remains to this day, the Ukrainian authorities managed to retain control of the levers to quell such situations from flaring up.
In the opinion of experts, the two decades of Ukraine’s existence on the international arena did not give much reason for optimism. Over the country’s entire period of its independence the
Ukrainian ruling authority failed to reach a consensus on foreign policy issues. As a result, Ukraine was constantly forced to meld two main vectors in its foreign policy, namely pro-European and pro-
Russian.
Ukraine’s relations with the European
Union over its 20 years of independence were far from what political analysts anticipated. Unlike countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Ukraine for many years declared its course to joining the
EU. Right up until the presidency of
Viktor Yushchenko neither Ukraine nor
7

Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation the EU demonstrated any serious desires their opinion, Ukraine over the past two of harmonization. Starting in 2005, relations between Ukraine and the EU reached a higher level: Ukraine officially declared becoming a member of the EU as one of its priorities, while the latter began offering proposals to Ukraine new mechanisms for the expansion of cooperation.
Despite this, the consistent policy of
Ukraine’s leadership, both presidents
Viktor Yushchenko and then Viktor
Yanukovych, and the inability of
Ukraine to implement European standards in its domestic policy, became a serious obstacle to the country’s path to European integration.
As a result, the current state of relations between Ukraine and the EU does not satisfy either of the sides. The fact is that
Ukraine is not being offered a concrete future of membership and the EU remains between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, the latter is trying to hold Ukraine in the orbit of democratic values. On the other hand, it very critically assesses Ukraine’s progress in its internal sphere.
Finally, political analysts consider the inability of Ukraine to become a member of the EU over the 20 years of its independence one of the country’s main losses on the international arena.
The same applies to Ukraine’s joining
NATO. While the North Atlantic alliance conducted a so-called “opendoor policy” for Ukraine over most of the years since 1991, Ukraine failed to capitalize on this opportunity. The absence of a policy of enlightening
Ukrainian citizens about NATO complicates the situation even more. As a result, the majority of Ukrainians to this day perceive such an alliance in the context of a new “Cold War”.
Experts label the relations between
Ukraine and Russia as unsuccessful. In decades failed to shake off the yoke of dependence on Russia. The most painful issue is Ukrainian-Russian relations at the moment remains the energetic cooperation that over the years of independence that can be viewed as
Russia’s domination over Ukraine.
The imbalance in the relations between the two countries in these and many other different spheres allowed Russia to concentrate in its hands the levers of influence both in the domestic and foreign policy of Ukraine.
The effect of such influence becomes particularly tangible during election campaigns held in Ukraine in which
Russia is one of the main players. This is why the current situation that Ukraine is in with its relations with Russia in which is currently in looks quite gloomy.
Indeed, the agreement on concessions made under the pressure of the Russian side threatens the limitations of
Ukraine’s sovereignty and Russia could impose serious economic and geopolitical sanctions on Ukraine.
Over the 20 years of Ukraine’s independence its position on the international arena was also complicated by the unsuccessful actions of its helmsmen inside the country. Indeed, the scandals around the murder of independent journalist Heorhiy
Gongadze and the sale of the Kolchuga passive radar sensor to Iraq led to
Ukraine being isolated from the international arena in the early years of
2000.
Ukraine is threatened by similar isolation today, this time as a result of the arrest and possible incarceration of Yulia
Tymoshenko, the leader of Ukraine’s largest opposition party Batkivschyna.
The inability of member of Ukraine’s leadership to learn from the mistakes of the past dealt a serious blow to independent Ukraine.
8

Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation
So, the 20-year long path of independent Ukraine did not meet most of the expectations of the country’s citizens. The political development of Ukraine over this period was not homogenized and showed the brittleness of its democratic achievements under the pressure of the powers that be.
According to indicators of the socio-economic situation, after two decades of independence Ukraine remains is one of the underdogs among European countries in terms of its economy. The majority of human rights remain secure only formally and the authorities are periodically continuing to further restrict such rights.
On the international arena Ukraine failed to find its place in the sun and ended up a hostage of ineffective multi-vector policy. Accordingly, notable achievements in these areas should be set as the main task of the Ukrainian government over the next decade of the country’s independence.
9

Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation
“Focus jn Ukraine”
– weekly informational-analytical news bulletin prepared by the
Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation (http://dif.org.ua).
DIF Analysts:
Iryna Bekeshkina
Oleksiy Sydorchuk
Julia Ilchuk
Maria Kutz
Lesya Parno
Editor-in-chief:
Iryna Filipchuk
.
The “Focus on Ukraine” is published by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation (DIF) as part of its project implemented under Ukraine National Initiatives to Enhance Reforms (UNITER) program, which is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by Pact Inc in Ukraine. This information product is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). The contents of the publication are the responsibility of DIF and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, Pact Inc. or the United States Government. No part of this report may be reproduced or transferred in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, or including photocopying or by any information storage retrieval system, without the proper reference to the original source.
10