In their activities behind the scenes the majority of Ukrainian politicians seem to be guided by the principle: “Public opinion is the voice of those whom nobody listens to”. Yet in public debate the argument “This is what the people think” sound most convincing. It is a trump card capable of disarming any opponent, contesting their most conclusive proofs and breaking their clearest logic. One thing is critical, though: if the opponent asks you to comment in detail on what you quote as public opinion, you should be prepared to produce exact and irrefutable documentary data from the opinion polls. Otherwise the argument is lost.

Having announced his grand plans to reform the country’s political system and anticipating a frantic struggle for the stated goal, the Ukrainian President decided to provide himself with a powerful argument against his opponents - that of popular support. Of course, the most effective and convenient way to do it would be through a referendum, but after the “all-national demonstration of the people’s will” three years ago all talkE of repeating it gives the shudders even to President’s most dedicated supporters. Therefore the palliative form of a “nation-wide discussion” was chosen instead. You will not find this notion in Ukrainian legislation, and the only association the phrase evokes with the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians is related to the active exchange of opinions a propos of Leonid Brezhnev’s immortal masterpieces “The Isle of Fire”, “The Revival” and “The Virgin Land” organized in the 1980s in the USSR.

Letters, letters…

The planners of the latest nation-wide discussion had no ambition to re-invent the wheel; they just borrowed the Soviet-era practice. Some time ago the ZN described an “extraordinarily creative” atmosphere in which countless meetings of working collectives were held under the motto “I don’t know what it is all about, but I approve” or “I didn’t read it but I disapprove” that we all remember so well. The meetings yielded optimistic figures publicized earlier this week by Minister of Justice Olexandr Lavrynovych whose ministry had been commissioned, under the President’s decree, to receive, process and summarize all proposals the people might come up with while discussing the presidential initiatives. According to Mr Lavrynovych, 9 376 530 citizens proved genuinely interested in these initiatives - a quarter of all Ukrainian voters! As few as 478 399 of them did not appreciate the President’s reformist aspirations, while 4 802 849 discussion participants gave them their unconditional support and about as many (4 095 282 people) said “yes” to the constitutional reform bill recommending a number of amendments to it.

These impressive figures, the Minister of Justice maintained, testify that “political awareness in our society is high” and the number of people deeply concerned with an improvement in public administration and state power efficiency is much greater than one could have imagined a couple of months ago. So does the fact that in their letters to the ministry the wilful citizens did not only express their opinion of the presidential proposals but also raised certain political reform issues that the proposals did not cover. By way of corroborating his thesis of “openness, transparency and competent management of the discussion process”, Olexandr Lavrynovych pointed out that his ministry’s “correspondents” fully agreed with 22 of the President’s initiatives, disagreed with 13 and ignored 3 of them. Yet for some reason, the minister reserved comment on almost five million (half of those who contributed to the discussion) fans of Leonid Kuchma’s reformist talent that supported his initiatives wholeheartedly without questioning a single tiny part of them. At the same time he remarked with regret that some of the discussions at the meetings, where the resolutions to “support the initiatives unanimously” were passed, “lacked profound analysis thereof”. I wonder if the Ministry of Justice cared to analyze the report on the nation-wide discussion prepared by the Ukrainian Voters’ Committee highlighting the cases when the above affirmative resolutions had been printed on the minutes forms before the meetings were actually held. Oh yes, the Ministry of Justice was not authorized, according to its leader, to analyze the discussion outcomes or draw any conclusions. Neither was it entrusted with predicting which of the “folk items” would be included in the combined concert called the “Presidential Bill”.

We wish we had your problems, Leonid Danylovych!

Ukrainian sociologists hold a somewhat different view of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen’s keenness on Ukraine’s political and constitutional transformation. Put more accurately, their opinions are split, which is strange, given that the results of surveys conducted on 15-22 May 2003 by Kyiv International Sociology Institute, SOCIS Service, Ukrainian Institute for Sociological Studies, “Social Monitoring” Centre, and Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies named after Olexandr Razumkov were very similar. Isn’t it a vivid illustration that even impartial figures sociology uses to draw a picture of public sentiment can easily be customized to guarantee the client’s satisfaction? In this case the Presidential Administration was the client. Its representatives were actively engaged in developing questionnaires used universally by all polling agencies.

Chair of the Board of the Ukrainian Institute for Sociological Studies Olexandr Yaremenko concludes, for example, that the great mistrust in the authorities, that the population has been showing over the past few years, is transforming into a confidence and high level of expectations for changes that political reform may bring. According to this sociologist, by and large, the people have supported Leonid Kuchma’s proposals and, thus, encouraged him to take further steps. However, Mr Yaremenko’s colleagues tend to disagree with him.

According to the President of Kyiv International Sociology Institute Valeriy Khmelko, Ukrainians’ participation in the discussion can hardly be qualified as “massive”, given that only 11%-16% of the respondents gave affirmative answers when asked whether any public discussions had been held in their city, town or village in which they could take part if they so wished. One’s enthusiasm over the citizens’ active response to the presidential initiatives abates when one learns that as few as 5%-8% of the people actually participated in such discussions, meetings and conferences. And the last vestige of optimism fades away as one is confronted with another fact exposed by the survey: every fifth of those who took part in this matter of national significance did not do so of their own free will.

The figures characterizing our citizens’ awareness of the innovative project designed by the head of state can be read in various ways, of course. Some will think 22%-27% of those familiar with the essence of the presidential proposals is a remarkable turnout. Contrasted, however, with 29%-38% of those fully unaware what they were asked about plus 38%-46% of Ukrainians who admitted being ignorant of the subject but having heard something about it, the number of well-informed people does not look so inspiring. At this juncture, it wold be appropriate to confess that sometimes we want to seem a bit smarter, just a little better educated or more diligent (we are all human) and we tend to slightly overestimate ourselves. Yet while we refuse to acknowledge it deep down, the sociologists still have their ways of pulling out what we really know and what we don’t. The 22%-27% of us who insisted they grasped the gist of the President’s proposals did so before they were asked to comment on the Cabinet formation procedure, the President’s powers, rights of the upper chamber and responsibilities of the lower one. Now compare this figure with the number of answers to the same question asked after opinions of the nitty-gritty of the President’s initiatives were elicited. You will find out that the respondents’ evaluation of their “political awareness” has become more objective: the number of people conversant in all presidential initiatives has reduced to 9%-12%. The rest said they knew either most of the proposed amendments (14%-18%) or only some of them (36%-42%).

“Should a referendum on all of these issues be held today, our people will feel like a character in an American thriller who has to deactivate a bomb by cutting one of the wires. His own life and those of the people around him depend on which wire he chooses, the red or the green one. A huge responsibility coupled with a total lack of information,” - says President of the Razumkov Centre Anatoliy Hrytsenko. He also notes that the number of people refusing to be polled was unusually high. Whereas the common refusal rate is 24%-27%, this time it amounted to 35%. The people unwilling to cooperate would reinforce their refusal with an unflattering judgment of the Head of State and his undertaking that, naturally, went unheeded in the survey. It reminds me of a joke about a young schoolboy deeply immersed in conversation over a delicate matter with his girl-classmate at a desk in the back. When asked by the teacher how much is two times two he ripostes: “I wish I had your problems!”

You might as well have asked us about the Binomial theorem!

Among those who proved competent enough to elaborate on the specifics of the President’s proposals, one third rejected the idea of a bicameral Parliament. About the same number of respondents claimed to be proponents of this idea, and another third stated they had no opinion on the matter. Interestingly, the proposal to introduce bicameralism took most of the flak during the officially announced discussion. Almost every speaker, no matter what social group or political force they represented, would criticize it in the numerous broadcast talks, interviews, statements and speeches. Therefore, the relevant data of the Ministry of Justice appear to come closer to what was expected. Although at their joint press conference the heads of reporting sociological agencies warned against comparing their survey outcomes with the ministry’s materials (arguing the methodologies of information gathering and processing were different), the divergence is so striking that I feel tempted to expose it to our readers. Translated in percentage terms, the number of people who, in their letters to the Ministry of Justice, objected to dividing Parliament into chambers will be 97%, while only 2.6% expressed their approval of the idea.

Director of SOCIS Service Mykola Churilov gave his explanation of this phenomenon. According to him, Olexandr Lavrynovych’s ministry dealt with people better informed of the nature of the presidential proposals. “I personally reject the idea of a bicameral Parliament point blank, as the unicameral Supreme Rada fits better in the overall architecture of our unitary state and fulfills its functions effectively enough. Those with a less clear vision of the situation think the upper chamber should supervise the activities of the lower one. The reason, to my mind, lies in the common misrepresentation of certain things,” - holds the sociologists. - “As for me, I don’t think it a good idea to put such complicated issues into surveys. Experts alone can be trusted in these matters since they understand the real sense of the proposals and are qualified to pronounce their competent judgment of them. In the case of our poll, if we place certain filters to screen the respondents, we will have not more than 1%-3% of them who are knowledgeable enough to answer meaningfully.” By contrast, the people who wrote to the Ministry of Justice knew what they were discussing and, what is more important, had comprehended the discussion initiators’ attitude to bicameralism. Remember how sincerely exasperated the President sounded when he spoke about the tons of letters coming to [the Administration in] Bankova Street in support of each and every one of his proposals? Perhaps by that time he had realized the futility of his efforts to introduce bicameralism.

As for the filters Mykola Churilov mentioned above, the list of questions asked in the poll contained a series of the so-called “catches” enabling the sociologists to gauge the respondent’s competence. For instance, about 12% of those who claimed to know the content of the presidential initiatives swallowed the bait when they answered that the President’s reform scenario defines a mechanism for electing regional representatives to the upper chamber of Parliament. In fact, it does not, which raises doubts as to how cognizant the respondents were of the relations the presidential bill envisions for the quadrangle “President - lower chamber - upper chamber - Prime Minister”.

The people’s opinions about the proposed reduction of the number of MPs seems equally controversial. 75%-78% of the poll participants believe this number should be reduced (having in mind a bicameral Parliament, at the same time). The answers are suggestive of the people’s desire to ease the burden of public expenses relating to the lawmakers. However, the “catch” reveals another inconsistency in our citizens’ position. 44%-50% of the respondents purportedly aware of the president’s proposals agreed that a Parliament having 381 members but two chambers would need more funding, in particular, to set up the required bureaucracy for the upper chamber. Only 21%-24% hope against hope that the state will be able to cut expenses anyway. No logic!

In view of the above, the outcome reflecting the electorate’s attitude to passing laws (except for tax, budget and amnesty ones) by popular referenda without their further approval by any legislative authority is also unsettling: 45%-49% of the respondents are for and 23%-29% against this proposal. Nevertheless, some experts say they are not worried about this position interpreting it as the people’s wish to be heard by those in power and influence their decisions rather than as an ardent desire to get directly involved in lawmaking.

We won’t be fooled!

Lacking factual knowledge required to form an opinion on certain technical issues, our people, nonetheless, show a deep understanding of political casuistry and underwater currents. Their long experience of cohabitation with the authorities has taught Ukrainians to watch out for the latter’s repeated attempts to gypsy them. “Some politicians say the proposed political reform will automatically prolong the President’s term in office and postpone the presidential elections from 2004 till 2006. Others believe the reform will not affect the terms of the presidential elections. What do you think?” - was the question. 48%-55% of the respondents conscious of the President’s reform proposals concur with the politicians viewing the incumbent President’s desire to stay in office for two more years as the true motive underlying the reform. 22%-31% do not see a link here, and the other 21%-26% had difficulty answering this question.

However, the people will not welcome a prolongation. An impressive majority of respondents (60%-65%) consider that if the Supreme Rada, local self-governments and President are to be elected in the same year, this should happen in 2004. Only 7%-10% are ready to endure today’s authorities until 2005, 3%-5% - until 2006 and another 3%-5% - until 2007.

No doubts remain as to the people’s true attitude to the president’s reformist endeavor and its nation-wide discussion when one reads the following statistics. Responding to the question of what the President’s initiative will lead to, 11%-14% of all poll participants say they anticipate a deterioration of the political situation in Ukraine, 14%-16% assume it will improve and 25%-27% are convinced it will not change. Among those who claim to be in the picture vis a vis the proposed reform, 23%-25% expect the situation to change for the better, 17%-20% are positive it will worsen and 39%-44% think everything will remain as it is. “If 44% of the citizens aware of the President’s proposals are skeptical as to the success of such a crucial reform, it means the authorities planning it are in trouble,” - says Anatoliy Hrytsenko.

It is not only the Presidential Administration who seems to be in trouble. It comes as no surprise that the majority of voters (64%-68%) have no knowledge of the opposition’s stance regarding the constitutional reform. However their answer to the question if they would like to have such knowledge is astounding indeed. 30%-36% of all poll participants and almost half (43%-54%) of those admitting to be uninformed of the opposition’s opinion, say they are not interested! The electorate must be disappointed with the opposition leaders’ unclear and often opportunistic behaviour (with nothing to do with concern for the people’s needs and state interests).

The survey gives food for thought for the Ukrainian judiciary, too: 68%-71% of the respondents agree with the idea of limiting judges’ service to 10 years instead of their current stay in office until retirement, while only 7%-12% disagree. Local authorities should also be worried with the population’s reluctance to extend the term for which they are elected.

The rating of potential presidential candidates (whose list was compiled by the Presidential Administration and included in the questionnaires on its request) deserves special attention. Oddly enough, it contains the names of the politicians who repeatedly assured the public they had neither ambitions nor plans to run for the presidency, including Head of the Presidential Administration Viktor Medvedchuk and Chairman of the Supreme Rada Volodymyr Lytvyn. The latter is the last but one in the list of politicians for whom the poll participants would cast their vote at the presidential elections, ahead of the National Bank Governor Serhiy Tyhypko. Medvedchuk’s name follows that of the Socialist Party leader Olexandr Moroz. Yuliya Tymoshenko, placed one line above her oppositional colleague-Socialist, has improved her rating, maybe, due to the publicity connected with the criminal prosecution of her relatives and former partners. Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych is winning brownie points, too, although he has not yet reached the rating Anatoliy Kinakh had while heading the Cabinet. “Our Ukraine” leader Viktor Yushchenko, fairly passive lately, has suffered a noticeable decline in the electorate’s support rate, but retained leadership amongst the candidates. Communist Petro Symonenko follows him at a certain distance.