Doves vs. Hawks: A post-election draw
Doves vs. Hawks: A post-election draw
Published on Tuesday, 28 October 2014 09:11
Category: Articles and Commentary
Written by Paweł Kowal
With the early elections in Ukraine now over, one of the topics of the debate that is taking place in Kyiv is the dispute between the doves and the hawks. Initially, there was an assumption that the adopted tactic would have President Petro Poroshenko as leader of the “doves” while the prime minister, ArseniyYatsenyuk, would lead the “hawks”. For years, both politicians have had good relations, thus the roles had to be divided – otherwise the voters would not be able to differentiate them. With time, there was even an impression that they both played these roles very well and would continue to do so after the elections.
The support for the president is significant. During the campaign, Poroshenko promised to end the war in the east and was doing everything to reach that goal. Since August, it has become very clear that there was no other option. After the return from the NATO Summit in Newport (Wales), Poroshenko probably came to the realisation that when it comes to Ukraine the Alliance, just like Pontius Pilate, washed its hands clean.
For anyone who knows Ukraine, it is quite clear that the position of ending the war gets strong social support. As prime minister, Yatsenyuk criticised Poroshenko on many occasions. However, even his staff (in private conversations) noted that this criticism was a mistake and repeated that Yatsenyuk’s stronger position, or ideas like building a wall to separate Ukraine from Russia, are something for political connoisseurs, while the majority of Ukrainians who are tired of the current situation simply want peace and quiet.
What clearly did not help Yatsenyuk was the fact that as prime minister he took upon the burden of implementing socially painful reforms which saw a significant rise in the cost of living. Thus, it was widely expected, both in Kyiv and in the West, that Poroshenko would get many more votes than Yatsenyuk; to the point that a few weeks ago some even feared that the prime minister’s party would not pass the five per cent threshold. At the time of writing this text, when Yatsenyuk’s party is head-to-head with the Poroshenko Bloc, everything looks quite differently. Most likely, however, once the votes from the winner-takes-all districts are counted, Poroshenko’s score will go up. This, however, does not contradict the fact that Yatsenyuk received strong support, almost as strong as that of the president, and much stronger than expected.
Ukrainian voters also expressed support for the other “hawks”, such as Yulia Tymoshenko’s Batkivshchyna, Samopomich (Self-Help), led by the Lviv mayor Andriy Sadovvy, and even to a lesser degree the populists led by Oleh Lyashko. These results mean that the strategy of a stronger position in regards to Russia has found supporters in Ukraine.
The most important question that comes to mind now is whether we can expect that the newly elected parliament will change the country’s course in regards to policy with Russia and whether there will be more criticism towards the European Union for its poorly formulated response to the conflict in the East. Poroshenko is an efficient politician, thus his policies will probably reflect the results of the elections and we can expect some changes in his political programme. As a matter of fact, he has already shown a stronger military rhetoric in recent days. Now, either the president and the prime minister will lessen their tactical approaches or – conversely – when they see that bipolarisation brings about an effect, they will reinforce it and try to strategically divide Ukraine’s political scene based on a dichotomy: pragmatics versus the war camp. Similar situations have already been seen in some Central European states.
Undoubtedly, the Kremlin analysts will notice that although Poroshenko has not been hurt by these early elections and received the position of card dealer, the Kyiv’s “war camp” has increased in power and in a serious Yatsenyuk-style way – not, for example, led by Lyashko. Linking together the two aspects of Yatsenyuk’s personality (his seriousness and focus on pro-market reforms) forces the West to take seriously what the prime minister has to say in regards to the war with Russia. Also Sadovvy’s results should be taken seriously; with his success, western Ukraine is gaining more influence and no longer thanks to Svoboda (which would be more comfortable for the Kremlin), but thanks to an experienced and respected politician who enjoys a large social backing with significant achievements to his name.
Most importantly, the results of these elections show that Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk will have to find a way to work together and make sure that the differences that have been generated by this campaign will not be played by Moscow. The nearest future of Ukraine’s political scene is coded in the relationship between these two politicians as well as the question of whether Sadovvy, a mayor of the beautiful, yet provincial Lviv, will prove himself on the national scene in Kyiv and what role he will play.
Translated by Iwona Reichardt
Paweł Kowal is a former Polish member of the European Parliament and Chairman of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee in the European Parliament. He is a member of the New Eastern Europe editorial board.
<!–
- Next
–>