The conflict between Ukraine’s opposition and the president is escalating. But there’s room for a possible compromise.
- By Christian CarylChristian Caryl is the author of Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the 21st Century. A former reporter at Newsweek, he is a senior fellow at the Legatum Institute (which co-publishes Democracy Lab with Foreign Policy) and a contributing editor at the National Interest. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a regular contributor to the New York Review of Books.
Yesterday, former Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk gave a speech in parliament in which he warned his colleagues that the country may be on the brink of civil war. I think he’s right to worry.
The situation in Ukraine threatens to veer out of control. The government clearly bears responsibility for the latest escalation in violence, which has seen several demonstrators shot dead on the streets of Kiev, the capital. But a growing number of opposition members now appear willing to resort to physical attacks as well (including hurling Molotov cocktails at the police). Anti-government protesters have seized government buildings in various cities around the country. (The photo above shows members of the opposition gearing up for battle with the security forces.)
On Tuesday, the prime minister resigned, along with his entire government. But the fact that Kravchuk saw fit to make his remarks the day after demonstrates that their move doesn’t seem to have done much to defuse the tension. Earlier, over the weekend, President Viktor Yanukovych — the focus of the protesters’ ire — offered to include two of the main opposition leaders in his cabinet. But the positions he had in mind were insignificant ones, and no offer was made to the third opposition leader. The anti-government forces, correctly concluding that Yanukovych’s gambit was just an attempt to split them, denounced it. The president has also pushed parliament, which is dominated by his own party, to rescind a recent package of draconian laws designed to make life hard for the opposition.
Ukrainians are right to be furious at Yanukovych. He has openly and unashamedly used his office to enrich members of his family. He has persecuted and jailed (on dubious grounds) Yulia Tymoshekno, his most powerful rival in the 2010 election that brought him to power. And he has concentrated as much power as possible in his own hands by squeezing the press and eliminating some important reforms that earlier governments had made with the precise aim of preventing a return to Soviet-style authoritarianism. Of course, Soviet-style authoritarianism is just what Yanukovych wants.
In many respects, the cause that originally brought Ukrainians out into the streets — the president’s last-minute decision to back away from signing a package of agreements aimed to bring Ukraine into closer association with the European Union — seems long forgotten. Many Ukrainians had hoped that aligning their country with Europe would strengthen efforts to build the rule of law, strengthen accountability, and fight endemic corruption. Instead Yanukovych suddenly declared his aim to steer Ukraine back into the orbit of Vladimir Putin’s Russia (which had exerted massive economic and political pressure to just that end). Now, six weeks later, the protests have become less an expression of discontent over Ukraine’s geopolitical choices than a full-scale referendum on Yanukovych’s presidency.
It’s easy to sympathize with the many Ukrainians who want to see the president go. But there’s a problem: he was elected, in a 2010 election that was basically conceded to be free and fair. He received the votes of a little over half of the electorate, most of it located in the country’s eastern (and largely Russian-speaking) half. No presidential election is scheduled for another year. Yanukovych accordingly has little incentive to negotiate away his own job just because a lot of demonstrators are telling him to. Indeed, right now he has every reason to hang until the bitterest of bitter ends.
This is the main reason why the current turmoil has little in common with the 2004 Orange Revolution, which started as a protest against blatant vote-rigging (and the near death-by-poisoning of then-opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko) during that year’s presidential election. The beneficiary of those vote-rigging efforts was Yanukovych; the man who emerged victorious from the protest movement was Yushchenko, whose supporters successfully pushed for annulment of the dirty election and the scheduling of a fresh new one, which Yushchenko proceeded to win (also with just over half the votes, but that time from voters concentrated in the country’s pro-European western and central regions).
Pushing Yanukovych out of office is thus hardly viable without a full-scale revolution — and so far there is little indication that Yanukovych’s core supporters in the East would be willing to go along. To be sure, some Euromaidan protesters have now taken to the streets in some cities in the East — but I still see little evidence that their numbers approach anything like those in Kiev or other opposition strongholds. (It’s the fact that anyone has been willing to come out in the East at all that has surprised observers.) Yet simply toppling the president a year before his term ends would surely set an ominous precedent for Ukrainian democracy. It seems highly unrealistic to expect that large number of eastern Ukrainians who backed Yanukovych in the 2010 election will take his expulsion lying down, no matter what sort of bad behavior their president has indulged in.
In this respect, an overwhelming victory for the opposition is more likely to create new problems and deepen divides — not least because the opposition itself is deeply divided and fractured along myriad lines itself. (Remember, it has three leaders, not one, and each one of them wants to be the next president.) Meanwhile, though most members of the protest movement are sticking to their original policy of nonviolent resistance, signs of militancy are on the rise. (One of the scariest groups, the far-right Pravy Sektor, consists of nationalists who actually reject the goal of closer integration with Europe.) There is real potential for a downward spiral into violent anarchy, one that could ultimately drive many Ukrainians back into the iron embrace of Russia.
Luckily, though, there is a way out. Rather than insisting on Yanukovych’s unconditional surrender, the opposition could unify around a different demand: transform Ukraine into a parliamentary republic. The main problem with today’s Ukraine is a constitution that doesn’t take into account the country’s geographical and ideological diversity. The current constitution gives far-reaching powers to the president, thus invariably putting the head of state at odds with the prime minister and parliament. (And this was true even under pro-Western President Yushchenko, who spent most of his term in a destructive wrangle with his onetime political partner, Yulia Tymoshenko.)
What Ukraine needs is a system where the government is run by a prime minister whose power rests on the strongest party (or coalition of parties) in parliament. This prime minister would have ample authority, but would also face sufficient checks and balances to prevent those powers from being overstepped (not to mention legislative oversight as a bulwark against corruption). The president, by contrast, would serve merely as a symbolic head of state: in other words, a bit more Germany, a bit less France. (For anyone who’s interested, here’s an article that spells out the mechanisms in detail.)
Part of such a compromise would include an agreement to let Yanukovych serve out the rest of his mandate (while dramatically reducing his powers to thwart any return to his previous excesses). That would address concerns in the Yanukovych heartland while leaving the opposition plenty of room to prepare for the next election under revised rules. I can’t help but feel that this sort of approach would ultimately prove better for the health of Ukraine’s democratic institutions. And by ensuring a smooth transition, it would also offer Moscow fewer opportunities for meddling. The Russians, who see a weak and chaotic Ukraine as an easy target for their own designs, have a clear interest in further escalation.
Is Ukraine too far gone already for any sort of compromise? That may be. It’s also possible, I guess, that the fractious protesters could manage to topple Yanukovych from office, figure out a way to replace him without tearing their own movement apart, and placate looming fears of disenfranchisement among their compatriots who aren’t on their side — and achieve all of this without violent internal conflict or frenzied Russian troublemaking.
I wouldn’t bet on it, though. Surely this is the moment when Ukrainians need to take a deep breath and consider how to back away from the abyss. The alternatives are frightening.