Or, how the Maidan Quartet should not become the Kaniv Quartet#2*

Source: http://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/okara/52d18d613edd2

Question – how should the opposition enter into the presidential election: as one column with the most highly-ranked candidate, or with several columns of opposition? – this is currently probably the biggest debate.

But the debate around it betrays the intellectual, conceptual, ideological, political and technological inferiority of the Ukrainian opposition, increasing the   disappointment in it by those on Maidan and other active citizens. However, the demand of Maidan activists – to quickly decide on a single candidate – does not impress one with depth of thinking and adds more insults and hostility. Obviously, this dead-end agenda imposes a power game, playing on the egocentrism of various opposition members, and a sense of injury amongst activists. Those who seek to win, need to impose their own agenda, and their own logic regarding the unfolding of events. And not be carried by the clever manipulations of those who seek to disband nor the constrictions of the “sun king.”

It appears that in the debate around a single candidate, many opposition activists and parapoliticals tend to want – not to change the system – but a place within it. The criterion here can serve as the ability of a politician for self-control, a resistance toward their own ambitions – for the good of the common cause. Because, sometimes it seems that the opposition in general (not counting the “new people”) is not a counter-elite, as it thinks of itself, so much as one of the anti-elite groups, and is made of the same political dough, with the same neo-feudal paradigms and policy as the current government.

Are the known opposition candidates capable of birthing a new country?

Then who is able?

Actually the question – with how many columns should one go to the polls – is a tactical, not strategic one. But in Ukraine (there is such a pattern of Ukrainian political culture) tactical issues are addressed as if they are strategic. While strategic issues and problems of goal-setting are not considered at all.

Regarding the upcoming presidential elections, whenever they occur – whether in 2014 or the spring of 2015 – let’s proceed on the following assumptions:

1. Yanukovych’s victory means DEATH FOR UKRAINE. This death may have different settings: the split of the country, separation of some regions, civil war, poverty of the masses, hunger, escape abroad of the socially active strata, a series of industrial accidents, environmental disasters in areas of shale gas, a complete de-industrialization, lumpenization, increased mortality, the refusal of the state from social obligations, the theft of black soil, strong Chinese expansion, and so on.
2. No victory in the presidential election for Yanukovych means for him and his entourage LOSING EVERYTHING: power, property, liberty, and even life. Of course, fate arises as it may, but no one can guarantee ex-President Yanukovych, that the political scenario of “Ceausescu” does not befall him also – neither Klitschko nor Kliuev with Medvedchuk, nor Liovochkin, nor Putin, neither the EU, nor the USA, nor the UN nor the “world government”, nor any Martian agents of influence. Moreover, there is a considerable likelihood that the ex-Presidents shall finish off their own: there is no need to mention Paul I, it suffices to recall Kirpa and Kravchenko.
3. Upcoming presidential elections will be held in the format of WAR. Such that the 2004 elections will seem like the Soviet pioneer game “Zarnytsa” [Summer Lightning]. You bet on the total lumpenization and bloodshed of the population – in this situation, for desperate man even $200 UAH enables you to vote “for whom it’s necessary” (I know such people personally – in different regions of Ukraine, among them many smart, educated, intelligent, talented, critical-thinking people).

In the arsenal of cynical technologists, a new technology appeared: no need to bribe a man, to tempt or morally squeeze him. It is necessary to conclude a contract for “agitation work” – between the candidate and the “agitator”, and the “agitator”, for a fee, is required to agitate only one person – himself. If the  “agitator’s” candidate wins – bonus. In the recent by-election to the Parliament it is this technology that brought victory home to the head manipulator of Ukraine. To capture a similar technology, let’s say, 5 million voters in 2015, it is necessary to have around half a billion dollars (based on the value of one contract for about $800 UAH.: 400 UAH. – Earnings of an “agitator”, 200 UAH. – Award after winning 200 UAH. – administration, overhead, earnings of “fieldworkers”). Old technologies are well known (administrative resources, falsification of protocols from polling stations on the way to a regional committee, “carousel” bribery, “buckwheat” and other forms of “motivation”, “dead souls” in the areas of voting and soldierly parts, early voting, non-admission of Western observers, early congratulations on the victory of Putin and others), but again it should be emphasized: the government’s struggle is not for their right to steal, not for their right to squeeze the last juice from a stagnant country, but for their right to live and to breathe. Therefore, for them this will be a format for the “last battle.”

So, in our opinion, targeting the opposition ahead of presidential elections should be as follows:

1. Re-foundation (“reset”) of the State – on new ethical, politico-economical, institutional basis.
2. Breaking down the neo-feudal political economy and all of its derivatives.
3. Creation of a new social subject of innovative development of Ukraine (the nucleus of a new elite kernel with a new project for the country, a new passionate layer, whose interface may be the political party and the social movement). After coming to power, he should deal with problems: recovery of the geopolitical, geo-economic and geo-cultural subjectivity Ukraine, preservation and extension of the scientific and high-tech potential of Ukraine – both in industrial and in agricultural areas, innovative human development, improvement of “human capital.”

For such targeting the strategy should be:

1. With the form of government in Ukraine, from presidential-parliamentary (really – superpresidential) it is to become a parliamentary republic (or parliamentary-presidential).
2. The posts of President and Prime Minister, the government as such – are not a goal, but a means – a tool for the innovative development of the country, state and nation.
3. It’s necessary to morally and psychologically accept that the president, who comes after Yanukovych – is no Khan, no king, no emperor, no Latin American dictator – he will not have the powers that exist now. (Of course, for the crisis to “reset”, to reform and modernize the stagnant system, it is better to be a presidential republic and have a “perfect dictator.” But the features of Ukrainian political culture, the mentality and history are such that the supreme authority with extensive powers and without strong institutional constraints will always be shaky – the regime will not always produce Peter I, Ataryurka or Lee Kwan Yew, and Kuchma, Yanukovych or Pinochet.)
4. The President in the next elections should be chosen with several curtailed powers – according to the Constitution of 2004. To this end, Parliament should amend the Constitution (now supposedly this is becoming possible to create a situational majority in parliament, independent of Yanukovych, because a lot of “regionals” are willing to accept the limitations of presidential tyranny). (Of course, the ideal would be presidential elections under the new Constitution – which everyone dreams of, but it’s politically impossible.)
5. Presidential election strategy should be based on the consent and solidarity of all top leaders of the opposition. Political leaders are not capable of solidarity, and not able to create even a synergistic effect. Therefore, they pose no threat to the government.
6. The agenda regarding a single candidate must be to interrupt the problematic creation of a single electoral entity, for activities which are not so important to him who serves as the president, who – the prime minister, who – the Speaker, etc. But it is important under which scheme the current government will be sent to a knockout and under what trajectory Ukraine will develop in the near future.

Technology with a single candidate does not give a single answer on strategic issues. Depending on the circumstances, the players can outweigh its strengths and weaknesses.

Consequently, the project: “The single opposition candidate today” – 

PROS:

• the likely cumulative effect from untwisting one candidate before the elections;
• hypothetically possible victory in the first round;
• unification efforts and assistance from all the opposition forces;
• the possible “group” march of the single candidate – when it comes to the polls he’s not one but a team: the other three opposition rivals can go along with him under the guarantee that after winning they receive the post of Prime Minister, Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister, ministers and others.

CONS:

• the lack of an opposition leader and the undeniable people’s trust;
• the lack of readiness of each of the applicants to be a single candidate – as of today;
• a single candidate is more vulnerable – he is easier to remove physically (poison, shoot, create an accident);
• a single candidate can be removed during the campaign by registering for a formal basis;
• the presence of a single candidate for the opposition will provoke the competition in the elections to relax or even work against him
• a single candidate may “early win” – relax and let go of his initiative.

Draft: “Several opposition candidates in the first round” – 

PROS:

• with three or four candidates and pre-election projects it’s harder for the government to fight, rather than with one;
• possible maximum mobilization of the opposition electorate (every opposition candidate mobilizes and motivates the participation in elections of “their” electoral segment – a particular social stratum, certain regions);
• in the first round during the campaign a healthy competition can exist between opposition candidates that will enable them to efficiently develop.

CONS:

• scattering pre-election campaign efforts and resources;
• dispersion of votes for opposition candidates (possible scenario “Simonenko”, when in the second round acting president and chairman of the Communist Party will come – as it was in 1999);
• an unhealthy competition between opposing candidates demoralizing their electorate.

Based on these and similar strategic prerequisites effective tactics in elections is as follows:

1. It is necessary to create a unified opposition political front – at minimum, out of the three opposition parties that can consolidate efforts and win the presidential and parliamentary elections.
2. Try out a situational majority in Parliament, which is able to make laws against the will of government (president, “Family”, etc).
3. The presidential candidate from the opposition should give political commitments – as soon as possible in a legitimate format to approve and adopt the new Constitution – even if it will further limit his own powers. A candidate from the opposition should give public commitment to reinstall the state or the radical transformation of the entire political system, having the least concise plan for changes and transformations.
4. The highest-rated opposition candidates (including Klitschko, Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok, possibly Poroshenko) must give a public oath to act for the benefit of the common victory and not work one against the other.
5. After the announcement of the elections the opposition as a whole must define the format for presidential elections. One opposition candidate or more – it’s necessary to decide based on the particular circumstances of the political process on the eve of the election announcement (actual factors: the level of mutual understanding and mutual trust between the leaders of the opposition and the opposition parties, the current wording of the Constitution and the scope of authority of the president, ranking pro-government candidates who may be using fraud out in the second round with Yanukovich (Symonenko Tigipko), the situation with Yulia Tymoshenko, the dynamic rating and anti-rating of all candidates). To do this now – is all the same as buying a pig in a poke. Also – to make one of the three or four  opposition members targets of assassins, black pits and agents of foreign influence, which attempt to “win over” a candidate.

The optimal script for the opposition, in our opinion, looks like this:

1. Prior to the announcement of elections the solo opposition candidate is not named.
2. All opposition candidates demonstrate unity, team work, a systematic approach to reinstall the country. As well as a new understanding of power:  as a tool for systemic change, and not as the ultimate goal or the organizational resources for enrichment. A higher authority, who influences decision-making, can become an opposition council in which all opposition is represented on an equal footing.
3. Prior to the announcement of elections it may happen that there’s a candidate who personally gains special electoral sympathies. If his candidacy is obvious and there is no objection from the majority of voters and opposition political forces, he shall be registered for the elections together – together with the candidate-backup, which has the second rating. The candidate-backup stresses that he is a technical candidate (in case of the withdrawal of a single election). He does not lead his own campaign, he is not agitating for a single candidate. He withdraws from the election in favor of the single candidate a week before the deadline, if possible, is removed.
4. If before the announcement of elections an undisputed leader with sympathies does not appear, then several opposition candidates are registered, but all make public commitments to conjoin in favor of the candidate with the highest rating – not later than one week prior to the day when you can mount the elections.

It should be emphasized that a single universal algorithm for victory in the current situation cannot be. The point is that the elections take place in the FORMAT OF WAR, and have to deal with a reflexive game with a large number of players, each of whom is independent, setting their own goals, their ambitions, interests and priorities.

Independent Ukraine had a negative experience in the 1999 presidential election, when disagreement in the so-called Kaniv Quartet allowed the government to re-elect Leonid Kuchma and throw everyone who had their hopes pinned on Moroz or Marchuk. But, for the smart and wise, a foreign experience teaches, and for the stupid and silly, it makes them repeat it.

In this situation, the only mechanism that works smoothly can be solidarity – based on shared values, common identity, shared ideas about the future of the country, shared ideas about good and evil. Only solidarity restricts human selfishness and creates a synergistic effect – that’s two by two – not four, six, eight, or even sixteen.

In truth, it’s a very harmful viral thought that government – is exclusively  management, that is, that the president is the hired manager or technocrat. Currently, the majority of opposition leaders think this. But the government in general, and especially supreme power, cannot be without a spiritual dimension. The government – is primarily service, which is a kind of spiritual practice, and not just management. It is well known that all the Roman and Byzantine emperors, all the medieval monarchs, saw their power as derived from Divine Will, from Providence. The example of “Messiah” Yushchenko, who’s thought a lot about Providence, argues that one cannot allow spiritually immature or psychologically dependent people, even if they are elected by the people, in government.

It’s a shared, long path of political struggle with bandits for political opposition leaders, a long experience of finding compromise and consensus among the various opposition parties and groups, enabling them to change their attitude towards the government itself, which will help create a new quality elite core, and will allow for a fresh attitude in the present and future of Ukraine. After all, this is what matters, not the one who will occupy the residence outside the Presidential Administration.

P.S.

I am sincerely sorrowful that on such a beautiful day – on January 11th – there was a brutal beating of Yuriy Lutsenko, one of the very few sensible and adequate – among the public leaders of the revolution that can also act as an arbiter among “Messiahs.” I offer a joint prayer for the health of the suffering Yuriy.

P.P.S.

In the near future we will publish the text of possible further effective strategies for Maidan: why it should stand right up to the inauguration of a new president and how to cross from self-organization of self-development.

P.P.P.S. (to my friends) 

Friends, thank you that you are. Thank you for thinking, reading, reflecting. Thank you for occasionally remembering about me.

Thank you, that you are – living souls. Because only living souls are able to change reality. Only living souls are able to develop. Only living souls are capable of thinking in spiritual terms. Only living souls can live as if this is – not an earthly hell, but a Heavenly Kingdom.

Thank you, thank you, thank you …

*Kaniv Quartet