Politicians Flee Decisionmaking and Blame

The only major activities of the Party of Regions-dominated Parliament these days have had to do with getting rid of watchdogs and slowing down development. Most significantly it has dismissed Lutsenko (after first getting Lutsenko's former party, the Socialists, on board by promising they can keep his position). It's also trying to push Tarasyuk from power for too actively promoting Ukraine's integration with the West.

At best, Tarasyuk was just an annoyance, but the loss of the last government official interested in cracking down on corruption is a big one.

Mr. Yanu Goes to Washignton 

All of which gives Yanukovych's visit to Washington a rather ironic quality. In general, he was there to steal a beat on Yushchenko and say a few things to make the West like him. Among his statements was his new line about democratic change becoming irreversible in Ukraine, as if he'd been part of the protest movement and not contemplating quashing it with police and military force.

For his efforts, he got Western media attention and some corruption-fighting money to disappear somewhere. (Who would investigate now that Lutsenko's been removed?) The Washington Post went so far as to make the ludicrous statement that the Orange Revolution has been kindest to Yanukovych. It seems a pretty odd statement to make, considering the body of the article is about how Yanukovych got taught a lesson by the protest movement, and has adjusted his behavior to compensate. (image: VOA, Yanukovych meets Senator Lugar)

The one thing Yanukovych didn't get was an interview with, as Ukrainska Pravda memorably puts it, President Jorge.

As has long been common in Ukraine, there was petty squabbling around Yanukovych's visit. Initially, Yanukovych neglected to submit the proper paperwork to Yushchenko. So Tarasyuk cancelled the visit in retaliation. After some arguing, it went ahead anyway.  Why the harsh, and rather petty, response from the Foreign Minister? Tarasyuk's response is most likely due to two factors:

1. Backlash against Yanukovych for his last foreign visit--in which he snuck off just recently to Russia ahead of his US visit. Yushchenko didn't even learn about that one until Yanukovych was practically on the ground in Moscow shaking hands.
   
2. It is also likely involved a more general strike at Yanukovych, since the purpose of the visit was to wrest more foreign policy power from Yushchenko.

These kinds of squabbles are probably inevitable: Yushchenko clearly does not assert himself and his political power, so PoR and Yanukovych will nibble away what they can get and Yushchenko's subordinates will continue to exceed their mandates to stop this by acting on behalf of their unauthoratative chief.

Political Inaction Committees

Why are NU and now BYT trying to fiddle with constitutional law from the opposition? They must know they don't have the votes to succeed. Why is BYT spending the rest of its time trying to a call a referendum to dismiss Parliament and hold new elections? Why is Taras Kuzio talking about the 2009 election in 2006 in his article on the two-year anniversary of the Orange Revolution?

As frequent poster IIU said, "I don't believe that ANY political fraction is currently interested in a working and functioning government," going on to point out that PoR is busy making Ukraine safe for shady business deals again (take a look at this great article translation by Levko of Foreign Notes for an example), NU and BYT are quibbling, but certainly don't want to government to succeed at anything, and the Socialists and Communists are just sitting around hoping someone will need their votes for something.

If you're looking for reforms, don't bet on seeing many of them. 

On the other hand, inaction is not always a bad thing; it's all a question of what the alternatives are. If PoR continues to just coast along trying to hide more and more money in their shadow businesses, but does not significantly push Ukraine towards autocracy, the country may well do better than its neighbors.

Right now, Ukraine and Moldova are the only CIS countries to make it out of the hybrid (democratic/undemocratic) category in the Economist Intelligence Unit rating and into the "flawed democracy" category. As long as politicians engage in petty squabbling and timewasting, they're not asserting themselves by undemocratic means.

Weak Governments Sometimes Pay More Attention to Public Opinion

If there is enough government disunity to stop major shifts, citizen interest may help tip certain issues. Take the new investigation of the Krivoryzhstal privatization money. To begin with BYT cried that the money from the privatization was being appropriated and called for an investigation.

In the Kuchma years, or under Yanukovych 2004, the government would have seen no point in an investigation. Now it has not only heard Tymoshenko's cries, but even created an investigation team to try to deflect the criticism.

What PoR did was start with the BYT initiative, cut the timeframe from six to two months, and put a Communist in charge. Now they're just waiting for him to gleefully decry all privatization, find evidence of wrongdoing, but be strangely unable to find culprits for this particular failing. BYT refused to vote on the final initiative.

Is this investigation going to help? Not by itself, but if citizens stick to their guns, this one-off investigation could become a habit. After that it would become something citizens expect and eventually become something they expect and get angry about if an investigation has clearly been a farce.

I'm not saying weak government is all good, but against as bleak a backdrop as the FSU, it may not be far behind the lead. On the other hand this lack of authoritative leadership doesn't help some other big issues, like AIDS, for instance. And I shudder to think how much more shadowy the economy will get after three more years of PoR's incremental advance.