Leonid Kuchma: I Am Concerned By The Uncertain Prospects For The Country's Development

MOSCOW, Russia -- In January it will be three years since the inauguration of the current Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, who succeeded Leonid Kuchma. In an interview with RIA Novosti, Leonid Kuchma shared his vision of Ukraine today and in the near future.

Ex-President Leonid Kuchma

You said in your time that you would like to see how Ukraine would live without Kuchma. Ukraine has changed dramatically over the past three years. In fact in political terms it is another country. What do you think about Ukraine without Kuchma?

"Ukraine without Kuchma" has entered its fourth year, but neither the president nor any of the governments have bothered to fulfill their constitutional duty and publicly present the goals and prospects of the state policy.

So, my answer to your question will take it from here: like all my fellow citizens I am worried most of all about the uncertain prospects for the country's development, the lack of even a hint at a consistent policy, or any logic in reforms.

The people, like myself, find this uncertainty more depressing than anything else. Which way are we moving? Are we reverting to socialism or do we continue building a market economy?

But if you ask me what I think about Ukraine without Kuchma, actually things might have been worse. Of course, the sharp rise in gas prices came as a heavy blow. But the economy did not collapse. That is the main thing. The political and business leaders have realized that they have to rely only on themselves.

They started introducing energy saving technologies and have already made some progress along that way. If somebody thinks that looking at "Ukraine without Kuchma" I gloat over its shortcomings, they are mistaken. I am so glad to see anything positive that the negatives sometimes simply recede into the background.

Did President Yushchenko act legitimately in dissolving the Ukrainian parliament and calling a snap parliamentary election in 2007? What would you have done in the face of the situation that prevailed at the Supreme Rada in the early 2007?

Opinions may vary about the events of the past years. But there is no getting away from the fact that the events in the late 2004 and early 2005, like the early parliamentary elections last year, have happened and one has to reckon with it. But President Yushchenko's decision to dissolve the Supreme Rada was not legitimate in terms of the Constitution as I understand it.

You carried out a political reform in Ukraine in your time. Which of your ideas and proposals remain relevant today?

An authoritarian form of government by a tsar who is "the father of all Ukrainians" is impossible in Ukraine. We have a different mentality than people in Russia. So the parliamentary-presidential system is a political power structure that best suits our country.

The reform came as a result of a prolonged and very complicated political process. I played a major role, but I cannot claim all the credit for carrying out the reform. I am not saying it to appear modest, but to clarify the gist of the matter.

I would like to remind you of the 2000 referendum, whose results I never had a chance to put into practice. Under the Constitution it was the Supreme Rada and not the people who had the final say, and the Rada had not endorsed the results of the referendum. The referendum could be regarded as a forerunner of reforms.

It demonstrated that the president had the right, under certain circumstances, to dissolve parliament. Take the issue of a two-chamber parliament. I think life has brought it home to every sober-minded politician that Kuchma was right on that issue. In due course the Ukrainian parliament is sure to have two chambers.

The fact that the reform, even in a truncated form, had been implemented in 2004 is a big plus. Of course, I could not foresee all the clashes connected with the proportional system of elections. I mean two things: first, the readiness of political parties and, second, the mechanisms of implementing the multi-party principles.

It is our duty to perfect the electoral system mechanisms. But we are moving little by little towards the European parliamentary practice, and I believe the coalition government is a big plus, especially in the Ukrainian context. Otherwise what would have been the point of introducing a system of party elections?

President Yushchenko seeks to introduce amendments to the country's Constitution that would give him back more powers as president. To what extent will these changes help to improve the political climate in the country?

I don't know what the changes will be and I don't want to engage in guesswork. I don't think that giving the president extra powers would be good for our country. And not all the leading political forces would accept that. In any case it is important that these changes do not go beyond the parliamentary-presidential form of power. And secondly, they must be constitutionally legitimate and must have the parliament's approval.

In general, tweaking the rules can go on endlessly. The main thing is to fulfill what is written down, not to depart from the Constitution, the laws and procedures, whether you like them or not. An awareness and admission of that simple truth would do more than anything else to improve the political climate in the country.

I hope it will happen. We have a very strong opposition, which is recognized and reckoned with by the authorities. And those in power in turn recognize that they may become the opposition at any moment. It is an important guarantee that everything will happen in a more or less normal way in the future.

How accurately does the present composition of the parliament reflect the political map of Ukraine?

The reflection is always relative. The only thing I object to is a one-party parliament system which is taking root in some CIS countries. And I would rather see the threshold of the percentage of votes required to get seats in parliament decreased than increased, as some politicians in Ukraine propose. Such a parliament by definition would lack the main feature of parliamentarism.

Russian-Ukrainian relations are practically at a dead end. What are the reasons for the cooling of relations between the leaders of what are in fact two fraternal countries?

A cooling of relations cannot contribute to the development of any country, especially Ukraine. But I wouldn't describe the situation as a dead end. The relations between Ukraine and Russia are not confined to the relations between their leaders. Last year alone trade between our countries rose by more than 30% (there is no accurate data available).

Perhaps that indicator reflects the absence of meetings that you mention. Of course, I am exaggerating, I am in favor of regular meetings between our heads of state, especially if they bring results. I have always followed that principle.

But life is always more diverse than our established ideas. The main principle in the development of economic ties is to set no obstacles. I think the same principle is important in the humanitarian sphere. As for politics, it is a servant of economic, humanitarian and social relations.

Let us proceed on that basis. And I must stress that no official is able to change the fraternal relations between our peoples. One can make them more dynamic or slow them down for a while but one cannot "cancel" them. Lack of regular meetings between the presidents does not add luster to the names of Victor Yushchenko or Vladimir Putin. The Russian president should be more active in this area if only out of respect for the multimillion diaspora.

To what extent would Ukrainian membership of the European Union and NATO meet the country's interests? And how will the Russian leadership react to these plans?

In principle I am in favor of that move. I presented a detailed document, the Ukrainian "European Choice" strategy, to the parliament back in 2002. My position on the issue is as follows: before we join Europe we must tackle three basic tasks at home. First, become a viable state, second, have a competitive economy and, third, become a nation with an established national identity.

You understand that these are global long-term tasks. Such integration presupposes an active policy not only towards the West but also towards the East and an all-round deepening of cooperation with Russia. By the way, this point was repeatedly made by the leaders of the EU, European countries and the United States. The EU is not interested in having a Ukraine that is separated from Russia by a "Chinese wall". As I see it, over the past years we have not drawn closer but have become more distant from the European Union.

If you look at economic relations, statistics speak for themselves: the EU share in the Ukrainian foreign trade has dropped in the last three years. So, I have been and remain a supporter of large-scale cooperation with Russia within the common economic space. And the sooner we realize it the better for Ukraine. Otherwise we will remain an industrial-agrarian backwater.

As regards NATO, my position is also known and it has not changed. I am in favor of more active cooperation with the Alliance. By the way, that is what Russia is doing on a broader scale. As for membership, the decision must be taken by the entire nation in a referendum.

I personally would vote against it. I think the best status for Ukraine today would be that of a neutral state. In saying so I am following the principle that puts internal policy above external policy.

How justified is the demand of the Party of Regions that Russian be introduced as the second official language in Ukraine?

To begin with, this is not a political demand, but a promise to seek the introduction of a second official language. That was one of the many serious political mistakes of the Party of Regions, which I think deprived it of the electoral support in the Western parts of Ukraine. And anyway, they knew full well that parliament would not back this position and that a constitutional majority would be required.

That said, the Party of Regions should have tabled such a draft law as soon as it won seats in parliament because it was one of its electoral pledges. But I do not approve of politicians, on the right or on the left, using the language problem as a political football. It is a sensitive issue in all countries. And we are no exception. It is my deep conviction that the Constitution offers a good framework for the solution of all the existing language problems, including the problem of the Russian language in Ukraine, which admittedly is becoming more acute.

The Russian language should not be regarded as a foreign language in Ukraine. The Constitution says that the state guarantees the free development, use and protection of the Russian language. And indeed Ukraine has ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. So, it has to comply with it.

Source: RIA Novosti