| Research Abstract |
Ukraine is a country which has historically been divided by numerous host states, and therefore lacks a common national identity to integrate the population. This is why the government has no alternative but to raise obviously unrealizable slogans, such as the transition to market economy, nation building, and the entrance into Europe (or departure from Eurasia). This situation makes Ukrainian politics extremely verbal and ideological. On the other hand, political clans and fellow-countrymen connections have thriven on the post-communist conditions, such as privatization of state properties and transformation of a single-party regime into machine politics. Thus an extreme distance between official political discourse/constitutional regime and political realities emerged in Ukraine. This extremity of distance cannot be observed in other CIS countries.
The dual characteristics of Ukrainian politics are observed in various aspects of political life. In party and parliamentary politics, for example, clan parties, ideologically centrist, hold power firmly, while worldview parties, ideologically either socialistic or nationalistic, have been completely estranged from power, although their performance is not bad in parliamentary elections. Likewise, Ukraine's local system is ambivalent: Ukraine is a unitary state constitutionally and governors and district chiefs are appointed, but in reality L. Kuchma tries to use rampant local bossism for his victory in elections. In diplomacy, Ukraine untiringly propagates their alleged European-ness, but in reality Ukraine has been dependent on Russia in terms of energy supply and investments. Moreover, Europe does not hide its disgust against Kuchma. Properly speaking, the president Kuchma should play a dual role as well, legitimizing the regime verbally and coordinating clans' interests in reality. However, as was shown by the "cassette scandal" in 2000-2001, he would seem to have become a captive of clan politics.
|
