By Alexander J. Motyl
Wall Street Journal
Mr. Yanukovych’s first
mistake was to violate the Constitution by changing the rules according to
which ruling parliamentary coalitions are formed, making it possible for his
party to take the lead in partnership with several others, including the
Communists. That move immediately galvanized the demoralized opposition that
clustered around his challenger in the presidential elections, former Prime
Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
His second mistake was to
appoint as Prime Minister his crony Mykola Azarov, a tough bureaucrat whose
name is synonymous with government corruption, ruinous taxation rates, and
hostility to small business. The appointment dispelled any hopes Ukrainians had
that Mr. Yanukovych would promote serious economic reform.
His third mistake was to
agree to a Cabinet consisting of 29 ministers as opposed to 25 before - an
impossibly large number that will only compound its inability to engage in
serious decision making. That the Cabinet contained not one woman, only
reinforced the image of the Cabinet as a dysfunctional boy’s club.
His fourth mistake was to
appoint two nonentities - a former state farm manager, and an economics
graduate from a Soviet agricultural institute - to head the ministries of
economy and finance. Meanwhile, he created a Committee on Economic Reform,
consisting of 24 members, to develop a strategy of economic change. The size of
the Committee guarantees that it will be a talk shop, while the incompetence of
the two ministers means that whatever genuinely positive ideas the Committee
develops will remain on paper.
His fifth mistake was to
appoint the controversial Dmytro Tabachnik as Minister of Education. Mr.
Tabachnik has expressed chauvinist views that democratically inclined
Ukrainians regard as deeply offensive to their national dignity, such as the
belief that
These five mistakes have
effectively undermined Mr. Yanukovych’s legitimacy within a few weeks of his
inauguration. The 45.5% of the electorate that voted against him now feels
vindicated; the 10-20% that voted for him as the lesser of two evils now
suspect that their fears of Mrs. Tymoshenko’s authoritarian tendencies were
grossly exaggerated. And everyone worries that Mr. Yanukovych and his band of
Donbas-based “dons” are ruthlessly pursuing the same anti-democratic agenda
that sparked the Orange Revolution of 2004 ...
Mr. Yanukovych’s vision of
strong-man rule rests on a strategic, and possibly fatal, misunderstanding of
First, the Orange
Revolution and five years of Viktor Yushchenko’s Presidency empowered the
Ukrainian population, endowing it with a self-confidence that it lacked before
2004 and consolidating a vigorous civil society consisting of professionals,
intellectuals, students, and businesspeople with no fear of the powers that
be. Strong-man rule will continue to be
resisted and ridiculed by the general population.
Second,
Third, with an ineffective
cabinet, all decision making will be concentrated in Mr. Yanukovych’s hands.
Even if one ignores his deficient education and poor grasp of facts, the
appointment of Mr. Tabachnik demonstrates that
Fourth,
Indeed, if Mr. Yanukovych
keeps on making anti-democratic mistakes, he could very well provoke a second
Orange Revolution. But this time, the demonstrators would consist of democrats,
students, and workers. The prospect of growing instability will do little to
attract foreign investors, while declining legitimacy, growing incompetence,
and tub thumping will fail to modernize
Although the outlook is
grim, it is not yet hopeless for
Alexander Motyl, Ph.D. is a professor of
political science at Rutgers University- Newark, NJ.