багатовекторність гасла "Кучму геть!"
09/21/2002 | esteban
::: мова оригіналу :::
The Symbol of Kuchma
The “Kuchmu Het!” rally cry of September 16, 2002 has been the central slogan of anti-Kuchma protests since the political crisis began in late 2000. “Out with Kuchma,” is summary of the opposition’s demands.
It is important to note that Kuchma’s ouster is first and foremost a tactical move that has united right, left and now, some centrists. Despite differences in ideology, the disparate forces can agree on one thing: Kuchma must go.
But what will come after? What if Kuchma does somehow agree to go, but no fundamental change to the system occurs? How do the different forces understand the word “Kuchma”?
A quick analysis points to the fact that once Kuchma is out (assuming the ouster efforts are successful), the anti-Kuchma forces will be divided by their respective visions for the country’s post-Kuchma direction.
The one change that almost everyone can agree upon, is the creation of a parliamentary-presidential republic. Even Kuchma, for whatever reason, has come around to the idea. The only opponents to this idea will initially be those forces who think the country needs a strong hand, benevolent dictator. Thus, proponents of this idea on the right will once again be forced to play a side-line role.
The following is an attempt to understand what “Kuchma” means to the various political forces in the country, when they cry out “Kuchma Het!”
1. Kuchma as “protector of the oligarchs”
“Oligarchs” is a term imported from Russia for describing the small group of business tycoons that control the country’s economic and political levers. They became rich thanks to their ties to the top, their “krysha” or cover provided by the president. Ukraine oligarchs (or “mini-garchs” compared to their Russian counterparts), include Victor Medvechuk, Hryhoriy Surkis, Valeriy Khoroshkovsky, Victor Pinchuk, and others from Donbass, Kharkiv and Odessa. Kuchma is the feudal overlord who helps these oligarchs to maintain their economic and political primacy, in exchange for their political and economic support. In popular terms, Kuchma is at the apex of a grand pyramid scheme involving the country’s natural and financial resources, most notably that sacred cash cow, the State Budget. Oligarchs do compete among themselves for presidential favor, but more often than not seem to be able to reach a mutual understanding amongst themselves.
The term “oligarchs” is devoid of much substance, due to overuse and multiple applications. For successful businessmen, Kuchma as chief oligarch means that he meddles too much within the country’s business affairs (see #3 “Kuchma as business mediator”). The term also implies “too much power in one man’s hands” (see #7 “Kuchma as strong president”). In Ukraine, it has become a tradition to blame the country’s ills on the oligarchs – for the lowly babushka selling cigarettes on the street, as well as for the businessman who currently drives a Benz, but feels he should have a newer one.
Proponents: Everyone
2. Kuchma as Soviet left over
Proponents of this viewpoint argue that in 1994, Kuchma was elected president with the support of the red military-industrial complex directors and Russia, by the representatives of the Soviet nomenklatura. The right and nationalist’s chief complaint with Kuchma are that those who ruled the country before independence are de facto still in power. Communists can be divide into two groups: ideological puritans and career seekers. The nature of the Soviet system was such that anyone with any ambitions to carve out an above average standard of living has to join the Komsomol, and the Communist party. Nationalists argue that the career seeking element of Ukraine’s pre-Independence Communists are tainted by their upbringing and are still Soviet at heart. This anti-Kuchma complaint is shared by those who would argue Kuchma must go along the lines in #4 “Kuchma as pro-Russia.”
Proponents: the Right, anti-Communists
3. Kuchma as business meddler
There are anti-Kuchma feelings among the country’s businessmen, who a) do not enjoy preferential treatment from the president and his administration, b) are being “persecuted” by the presidential administrative resource (tax police, secret service and others), and c) genuine proponents of a free market economy. The Melnychenko tapes revealed that Kuchma spent a lot of time in meddling with business affairs and deals. Proponents of this point of view want to see a Kuchma ouster so that the country’s business field is leveled, allowing them to do business without having to dole out extraordinary sums for an audience with the president or a signature from the prime minister.
Proponents: the Right, the Center, businessmen beyond Kuchma’s favor
4. Kuchma as pro-Russia
Similar to #2 “Kuchma as Soviet leftover,” these proponents consider Kuchma to be a puppet whose strings are pulled from Moscow. This view is particularly popular in Western Ukraine and among nationalists. They cite the role played by Russian in Kuchma’s 1994 election, the increasing dominance of Russian capital in the Ukrainian economy, the influence of Russian media and “image makers” in Ukraine. They argue Kuchma must go because he is pulling Ukraine into the Russian orbit, and that will result in the loss of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Proponents: the Right, anti-Communists
5. Kuchma as pro-IMF
The left wing of Ukrainian politics traditionally makes boogey men of international financial institutions, claiming that their designs upon Ukraine are self-serving, and their policies harmful for the Ukrainian economy. Ironically, Kuchma has questioned the wisdom of certain IFI policies vis-à-vis Ukraine, but the left prefers to ignore those statements. Instead, they prefer associating Kuchma with big, bad capitalists, and therefore an enemy of the proletariat.
Proponents: Left, radical left, Ukrainian “anti-globalists”
6. Kuchma as pro-NATO
In Ukraine, the Left has stepped up its anti-NATO rhetoric lately, in conjunction with the war against some terrorists and double standards in U.S. initiatives with Iraq and Israel. Kuchma’s recent pronouncements that Ukraine wants to join NATO, have provided the Communists and radical left with the ammunition they need to shoot down the Ukraine to NATO plane piloted by Kuchma.
Proponents: Pro-Russian, Communists, radical Left
7. Kuchma as too strong a president
Proponents of a parliamentary-presidential republic, and a presidential office devoid of unchecked administrative power, argue that Kuchma has usurped too much power in the country, and that he is essentially responsible to nobody, except himself. They use the words “dictator” and “tyrant” in their rhetoric, and insist that Kuchma must go before fundamental changes occur in the way government functions.
Proponents: Left, centrists
8. Kuchma as incompetent president
Others will argue that Kuchma has botched the job of president, and that he is too weak and incompetent. Some analysts are already arguing that Kuchma is a lame duck president. Nationalists and proponents of “We need a pro-market, firm hand like Pinochet!” (including supporters of National Security Council chief Yevhen Marchuk), want to see a strong president, a benevolent dictator of sorts, to lead the country away from disorder, tragedy and mishaps.
Proponents: Right, some centrists, tacit support in segments of military and secret service
9. Kuchma as undemocratic
Thos who asses Kuchma as undemocratic are not necessarily calling for a change in the political system. There are those who feel that the current system can work, if the powers of the presidential administration where held in check, by allowing for elected governors, for example. The main beef with Kuchma among these proponents is the fact that the results of the 2002 parliamentary elections were a) falsified by direct means, and manipulation of the media, and b) largely ignored when “alternative to Kuchma” and “opposition” forces scored around 50% of the popular vote in the party races.
Proponents: Left, centrist, right
Conclusion: Kuchma is disliked and criticized for a variety of reasons. Sometimes those reasons conflict with one another. For example, forces on the right argue that Kuchma is too pro-Russia, while those on the left that he is too pro-West. Yet Kuchma’s opponents on both right and left argue that it is time for him to step down. Whether or not he steps down prematurely or in November 2004, the fundamental divide between political forces will remain in place, and the debate over the country’s direction will be merely postponed for a future date. That is why Kuchma’s ouster can only mean a tactical victory for Kuchma’s opponents. If they manage to stand united now, sooner or later, they will have to confront one another on the political battlefield.
However, there is at least one “anti-Kuchma” initiative that seems destined for success: the creation of a parliamentary-presidential republic, i.e. the realignment of governmental responsibilities in favor of the legislative branch, at the expense of the executive branch. Incidentally, this initiative was hijacked by Kuchma on August 24, 2002, and now made to seem as if it was his own.
The Symbol of Kuchma
The “Kuchmu Het!” rally cry of September 16, 2002 has been the central slogan of anti-Kuchma protests since the political crisis began in late 2000. “Out with Kuchma,” is summary of the opposition’s demands.
It is important to note that Kuchma’s ouster is first and foremost a tactical move that has united right, left and now, some centrists. Despite differences in ideology, the disparate forces can agree on one thing: Kuchma must go.
But what will come after? What if Kuchma does somehow agree to go, but no fundamental change to the system occurs? How do the different forces understand the word “Kuchma”?
A quick analysis points to the fact that once Kuchma is out (assuming the ouster efforts are successful), the anti-Kuchma forces will be divided by their respective visions for the country’s post-Kuchma direction.
The one change that almost everyone can agree upon, is the creation of a parliamentary-presidential republic. Even Kuchma, for whatever reason, has come around to the idea. The only opponents to this idea will initially be those forces who think the country needs a strong hand, benevolent dictator. Thus, proponents of this idea on the right will once again be forced to play a side-line role.
The following is an attempt to understand what “Kuchma” means to the various political forces in the country, when they cry out “Kuchma Het!”
1. Kuchma as “protector of the oligarchs”
“Oligarchs” is a term imported from Russia for describing the small group of business tycoons that control the country’s economic and political levers. They became rich thanks to their ties to the top, their “krysha” or cover provided by the president. Ukraine oligarchs (or “mini-garchs” compared to their Russian counterparts), include Victor Medvechuk, Hryhoriy Surkis, Valeriy Khoroshkovsky, Victor Pinchuk, and others from Donbass, Kharkiv and Odessa. Kuchma is the feudal overlord who helps these oligarchs to maintain their economic and political primacy, in exchange for their political and economic support. In popular terms, Kuchma is at the apex of a grand pyramid scheme involving the country’s natural and financial resources, most notably that sacred cash cow, the State Budget. Oligarchs do compete among themselves for presidential favor, but more often than not seem to be able to reach a mutual understanding amongst themselves.
The term “oligarchs” is devoid of much substance, due to overuse and multiple applications. For successful businessmen, Kuchma as chief oligarch means that he meddles too much within the country’s business affairs (see #3 “Kuchma as business mediator”). The term also implies “too much power in one man’s hands” (see #7 “Kuchma as strong president”). In Ukraine, it has become a tradition to blame the country’s ills on the oligarchs – for the lowly babushka selling cigarettes on the street, as well as for the businessman who currently drives a Benz, but feels he should have a newer one.
Proponents: Everyone
2. Kuchma as Soviet left over
Proponents of this viewpoint argue that in 1994, Kuchma was elected president with the support of the red military-industrial complex directors and Russia, by the representatives of the Soviet nomenklatura. The right and nationalist’s chief complaint with Kuchma are that those who ruled the country before independence are de facto still in power. Communists can be divide into two groups: ideological puritans and career seekers. The nature of the Soviet system was such that anyone with any ambitions to carve out an above average standard of living has to join the Komsomol, and the Communist party. Nationalists argue that the career seeking element of Ukraine’s pre-Independence Communists are tainted by their upbringing and are still Soviet at heart. This anti-Kuchma complaint is shared by those who would argue Kuchma must go along the lines in #4 “Kuchma as pro-Russia.”
Proponents: the Right, anti-Communists
3. Kuchma as business meddler
There are anti-Kuchma feelings among the country’s businessmen, who a) do not enjoy preferential treatment from the president and his administration, b) are being “persecuted” by the presidential administrative resource (tax police, secret service and others), and c) genuine proponents of a free market economy. The Melnychenko tapes revealed that Kuchma spent a lot of time in meddling with business affairs and deals. Proponents of this point of view want to see a Kuchma ouster so that the country’s business field is leveled, allowing them to do business without having to dole out extraordinary sums for an audience with the president or a signature from the prime minister.
Proponents: the Right, the Center, businessmen beyond Kuchma’s favor
4. Kuchma as pro-Russia
Similar to #2 “Kuchma as Soviet leftover,” these proponents consider Kuchma to be a puppet whose strings are pulled from Moscow. This view is particularly popular in Western Ukraine and among nationalists. They cite the role played by Russian in Kuchma’s 1994 election, the increasing dominance of Russian capital in the Ukrainian economy, the influence of Russian media and “image makers” in Ukraine. They argue Kuchma must go because he is pulling Ukraine into the Russian orbit, and that will result in the loss of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Proponents: the Right, anti-Communists
5. Kuchma as pro-IMF
The left wing of Ukrainian politics traditionally makes boogey men of international financial institutions, claiming that their designs upon Ukraine are self-serving, and their policies harmful for the Ukrainian economy. Ironically, Kuchma has questioned the wisdom of certain IFI policies vis-à-vis Ukraine, but the left prefers to ignore those statements. Instead, they prefer associating Kuchma with big, bad capitalists, and therefore an enemy of the proletariat.
Proponents: Left, radical left, Ukrainian “anti-globalists”
6. Kuchma as pro-NATO
In Ukraine, the Left has stepped up its anti-NATO rhetoric lately, in conjunction with the war against some terrorists and double standards in U.S. initiatives with Iraq and Israel. Kuchma’s recent pronouncements that Ukraine wants to join NATO, have provided the Communists and radical left with the ammunition they need to shoot down the Ukraine to NATO plane piloted by Kuchma.
Proponents: Pro-Russian, Communists, radical Left
7. Kuchma as too strong a president
Proponents of a parliamentary-presidential republic, and a presidential office devoid of unchecked administrative power, argue that Kuchma has usurped too much power in the country, and that he is essentially responsible to nobody, except himself. They use the words “dictator” and “tyrant” in their rhetoric, and insist that Kuchma must go before fundamental changes occur in the way government functions.
Proponents: Left, centrists
8. Kuchma as incompetent president
Others will argue that Kuchma has botched the job of president, and that he is too weak and incompetent. Some analysts are already arguing that Kuchma is a lame duck president. Nationalists and proponents of “We need a pro-market, firm hand like Pinochet!” (including supporters of National Security Council chief Yevhen Marchuk), want to see a strong president, a benevolent dictator of sorts, to lead the country away from disorder, tragedy and mishaps.
Proponents: Right, some centrists, tacit support in segments of military and secret service
9. Kuchma as undemocratic
Thos who asses Kuchma as undemocratic are not necessarily calling for a change in the political system. There are those who feel that the current system can work, if the powers of the presidential administration where held in check, by allowing for elected governors, for example. The main beef with Kuchma among these proponents is the fact that the results of the 2002 parliamentary elections were a) falsified by direct means, and manipulation of the media, and b) largely ignored when “alternative to Kuchma” and “opposition” forces scored around 50% of the popular vote in the party races.
Proponents: Left, centrist, right
Conclusion: Kuchma is disliked and criticized for a variety of reasons. Sometimes those reasons conflict with one another. For example, forces on the right argue that Kuchma is too pro-Russia, while those on the left that he is too pro-West. Yet Kuchma’s opponents on both right and left argue that it is time for him to step down. Whether or not he steps down prematurely or in November 2004, the fundamental divide between political forces will remain in place, and the debate over the country’s direction will be merely postponed for a future date. That is why Kuchma’s ouster can only mean a tactical victory for Kuchma’s opponents. If they manage to stand united now, sooner or later, they will have to confront one another on the political battlefield.
However, there is at least one “anti-Kuchma” initiative that seems destined for success: the creation of a parliamentary-presidential republic, i.e. the realignment of governmental responsibilities in favor of the legislative branch, at the expense of the executive branch. Incidentally, this initiative was hijacked by Kuchma on August 24, 2002, and now made to seem as if it was his own.
Відповіді
2002.09.21 | Yikes
Re: багатовекторність гасла "Кучму геть!"
very deep analysis
2002.09.21 | jo
aagree (-)
2002.09.21 | franko
Remark
esteban writes:A quick analysis points to the fact that once Kuchma is out (assuming the ouster efforts are successful), the anti-Kuchma
forces will be divided by their respective visions for the country?s post-Kuchma direction.
****** This is not bad. The political forces have united in order to remove an obstacle that renders fair political competition impossible.
As soon as the obstacle is removed, the mechanism of democracy will start to (somehow) operate again. This includes the political competition betweeng the leftwing and the rightwing.
Of course their union, however dramatic and significant, is situational. Otherwise it would be some sort of political perversion.
2002.09.21 | esteban
Re: Remark
franko пише:> As soon as the obstacle is removed, the mechanism of democracy will > start to (somehow) operate again. This includes the political
> competition betweeng the leftwing and the rightwing.
The "somehow" in your remark is telling. If Kuchma is replaced by a "Kuchmanoid," and the system remains intact, i.e. the same group of decision and policy makers run the counry, then what has been achieved?
Take, for example, the appeal signed by the anti-Kuchma quartet on 16.09.02 (see below). Ukraine's dire strait is identified, and Kuchma is accused of being the primary cause. Fine. But what about a common statement about their vision of post-Kuchma Ukraine? If they developed a document like "Ukraine after Kuchma," and all signed it, then that would only add to the quartet's, or trio's, credibility.
========================
"RISE, UKRAINE!": THE APPEAL TO PRESIDENT KUCHMA
The Appeal of the National People’s Meeting “Rise, Ukraine!”
to the President of Ukraine Kuchma
16th of September, 2002
Kyiv, Ukraine
We appeal to you, Mr. President, with the following:
* During the period of your presidential leadership, Ukraine had lost four million of its people, and more than 6 million of them are looking for refuge abroad. The basis for social and economical development of Ukraine has been destroyed. Society and state are thrown back in its development in the timeline of 30 or 50 years back. Corruption, stealing, violence, and moral degradation, are the most vivid characteristics of the daily life of Ukrainian people.
* You become the President of Ukraine in an illegal way.
* You are a party to the criminals.
* You are responsible for the dramatic reduction of the population of Ukraine.
* You have usurped the public service, and you have organized undemocratic criminal system of state management, that operates beyond principles of morality, laws, and dignity.
* You have no trust, respect, or support, of more than 70 percent of the citizens of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian nation will not tolerate this situation!
We firmly believe that there is no other way for you than to confess to the People of Ukraine and immediately resign from your presidency.
Therefore, if you have even some self-consciousness and responsibility, you have to turn back to Ukraine and resign!
On behalf of the All-Ukrainian Meeting,
Victor Yushchenko
Yulia Tymoshenko
Olexandr Moroz
Petro Symonenko
URL: http://maidan.org.ua/n/mai/1032372268
2002.09.21 | jo
Agree once again. IMHO, the (relative) failure of the protests +
was due to the luck of a positive program. According to the Razumkov center opinion poll (see www.korrespondent.net/main/55623/), only 21.8% of respondents believe that the opposition leaders seek demokracy while 46,3% believe they just strive for power - that's exactly what Kuchma says.2002.09.21 | Andrij
Re: The positive program is very simple
Remove the nomenklatura criminals from power. If that doesn't strike you as "positive", it sure does so most of the Ukrainians. If you seek even more positive things, just read the papers of the Jushchenko's Forum from Sept 15. Independent parliament, courts, and local governments are among the clearly "positive" demands supported by all the opposition forces.The truth is, Kuchma trampled long time ago over the Ukrainian court system and essentially erased the local government powers. The Ukrainian people are now suffering deeply from the corruption that resulted. In one of his recent steps Kuchma and his pals committed a coup in the Ukrainian Rada by illegally blackmailing the deputies into electing the Kuchma's referent as the parliament speaker. Kuchma is destroying the Ukaine's democracy. It is very positive not to let Kuchma finish this crime.
2002.09.21 | Горицвіт
цікавий аналіз
Правда, неповний.Автор забув, наприклад, мотив "Кучма як вбивця Гонгадзе".
І ще такий: "Кучма як символ всього поганого (в політичному, економічному сенсі)" - дуже поширений мотив нелюбові до Кучми. Я чув багато раз від зовсім різних людей: "я б його задушив(-ла) своїми руками, цю рижу морду".
І такий: "Кучма як символ старого, віджилого, на противагу новому, прогресивному, кращому" (без уточнення право-ліво, НАТО-не НАТО, ...)
Цей останній мотив підтримується (в основному неявно) різними групами і напрямками і не зводиться до перелічених автором. Він же дає підказку про позитивну програму опозиції, на брак якої звертає увагу автор.
2002.09.21 | Горицвіт
а тут взагалі
> Nationalists and proponents of “We need a pro-market, firm hand like Pinochet!” (including supporters of National Security Council chief Yevhen Marchuk), want to see a strong president, a benevolent dictator of sorts, to lead the country away from disorder, tragedy and mishaps.
>
По-перше, хто мається на увазі як прихильники Марчука? Марчук - клерк в кучмівській адміністрації, а не самостійний політик.
Я не чув гасло про "тверду руку" від опозиціонерів. Тільки від прихильників Кучми, яких-небудь Мартіросянів, ну може ще від губернаторів. Тим більше про тверду про-ринкову руку взагалі не пригадую, щоб хтось казав.
Так що автор в цьому пункті явно наплутав.
2002.09.21 | (-) jo
A prygadujete tut bula velychezna gilka z propagandoju fashyzmu?
2002.09.22 | Горицвіт
Re: ... velychezna gilka z propagandoju fashyzmu
Там не було про ринок. Мені здається. Там була якась маячня про аріїв, Гітлера і вищу касту. Можу помилятися, бо ту гілку я читав тільки спочатку, а потім кинув.2002.09.23 | esteban
Re: а тут взагалі
> Я не чув гасло про "тверду руку" від опозиціонерів. Тільки від прихильників Кучми, яких-небудь Мартіросянів, ну може ще від губернаторів. Тим більше про тверду про-ринкову руку взагалі не пригадую, щоб хтось казав.>
> Так що автор в цьому пункті явно наплутав.
Тему "українського Піночета," твердої руки, про-рикнкової, часто піднімають в приватних розмовах різні люди, в т.ч. працівники державних органів, офіцери, декотрі галичани, і -- прихильники Марчука. Це переважно люди котрі не є відвертими опозиціонерами, працюють в естаблешменті, не задоволені з існуючим станом держави, та мають своє бачення країни. Вулична опозиція цю категорію людей майже цілковито зігнорувала.
Думаю що в Кириловича все ж таке певні амбіції залишаються, і він грає значну більшу ролю закулісами як малесенький, про-кучмівський клерк. До речі, вас непокоїть тишина з приводу останніх подій таких людей як Марчук, Горбулін, etc.? Чи іхня позиція до опозиції самозрозуміла?
2002.09.22 | Latynnyk
Re: багатовекторність гасла "Кучму геть!"
Ya dumayu shcho khtos zabuv pro te, yak Kuchum/Kuchmiy/Kuchma vpyvsia v dupu v Surguti chy des tam na pivnochi. A potim yak nashaburshel predstavnykam mistsevoyi ukrayinskoyi hromadi yakus $%&#%u ta shche zrobyv neprystoynu propozytsiyu molodiy zhintsi tam na mistsi.Koroche kazhuchy, mayemo alkasha, pianytsiu yakiy zamovliaye svoyikh oponentiv, komu shtany zniaty a koho prosto skasuvaty...
Bulob bilshe ofitseriv z chestiu, tsioho RUDOHO TARHANA vzhe davno ne bulo b. A to vony sydiat, dybliatsia yak litaky padayut, a dali idut i built liudey za nakazamy tsioho prydurka pohanoho...
Stalin kolys kazav: "Net chelovieka - net problemy."
Poniatno?
2002.09.22 | УкрПропВибКом
пропорційні вибори -- не вимога опозиції?
Автор забув (?) згадати ймовірність пропорційних виборів до наступної Ради. Це ще одна "анти-кучмівська ініціятива" яка має всі шанси бути реалізованою. Не так давно тому, Кучма виступав категорично проти цього, а тепер начебто "за".Частина тактики тандему Кучма-Медведчук -- відбирати ініціятиви опозиціонерів. Тандем може віддавати позиції до тих пір коли остання неділя жовтня 2004р. буде ось-ось за горизонтом. Тоді питання відставки може відпасти від порядку опозиційного дня, оскільки оп-лідери змагатимуться між собою.
2002.09.23 | Roller
Re: The Symbol of Kuchma , + RE: гасла "Кучму геть!"
esteban пише:> ::: мова оригіналу :::
>
> The Symbol of Kuchma
> Глубокий структурный анализ проведенный автором показывает те противоречия украинского общества, которые к настоящему моменту удалось в основном преодолеть.
>
> В лексиконе политической символики встречается и другое название описываемого явления, которое носит личностную характеристику ЧМО (человек, мудак, обманщик). Что до символа Кучмо, можно согласиться, что это обозначение явление общественного, и именно так треба понимать «Кумчо геть».
>
> Под Кучма следует понимать нечто большее, не только само ЧМО, стоящее на вершине пирамиды власти, но и то, что ниже, саму пирамиду. Пирамиду администрации ЧМО, которая фактически подменила собой легитимные институты власти. Причем сделала это на конституционной основе.
>
> Conclusion: Kuchma is disliked and criticized for a variety of reasons. Sometimes those reasons conflict with one another. For example, forces on the right argue that Kuchma is too pro-Russia, while those on the left that he is too pro-West.
Сам факт того, что стороны представляющие многосекторный украинский социум демонстрируют, что они могут договориться, разрешить противоречия и признать систему приоритетов следующей: "государство, регион, партия" и при любом конфликте между собой, исходить из этой классической схемы, говорит о том, что деление Украины на левый восток и правый запад есть надуманным, слабо аргументированным и очень условным.
Мало того, такой тезис о делении на восток и запад выгоден не только ЧМО, но России и условным противникам Украины. Поддаваться на такую дешевую уловку стало в последнее время не модным.
К такому способу представления прибегают и наемные работники в СМИ (Пыховшек, или то это як его), что нельзя расценить иначе, как антигосударственное действие, пропаганду. (Раньше Ст 58.прим Б. УК СССР)
То есть, конфликт ЧМО давно перерос в конфликт аппарата (АП + не только) с государством.
Понятно, что такая ситуация недопустима и вызывает протест не только населяющих страну граждан, но партийной оппозиции, доверенных лиц граждан, большинства избирателей.
То, что это именно большинство, а не наоборот, и по всем демократическим канонам только оно, легитимное, не надуманное, большинство имеет право на власть, и на его защиту, защиту права, свидетельствуют последние выборы и акция четверки.
Таким образом, все противоречия снимаются автоматически, сразу же, как только мы произнесем магическое словосочетание « УКРАИНА-государство».
Тот же Пыховшек прямо озвучивает тезис о том, что нетерпимость оппозиции - это проявление азиатскости (украинской, заметьте). И это несмотря на то, что запад Украины традиционно более организованный в протестных мероприятиях как всегда показывает большую активность. (азиатскость европейского запада)
Тезис о том, что объединившиеся стороны оппозиции не смогут, проще не разделят «шкуру не убитого медведя ЧМО» , что после Кучма-геть последуют новые структурные перестановки, новая «перестройка», и то шаткое спокойствие, стабильность болота, трясины лучше, чем то, что может прийти ей на смену, хуже звучит не убедительно. То, что сопротивляется, имеют под собой почву, или как любит говорить Кинах, на что можно опереться, на том и стоит строить фундамент государства. Не заменимых людей нет.
Да, так действительно думают люди при решении вопроса поддерживать ли акции своим участием и в других случаях. И их сомнения понятны. Но другой альтернативы просто нет. Нет, поскольку это губительно для государства.
Многие «зрители» прошедшей акции были поражены той чистотой, которая осталась после участников.
На Европейской (не азиатской) плошади не валялось ни бутылок, как это обычно бывает после рок концертов на той же площади, на стаканов, ни пластика, ни окурков. Напротив, вместо обещанных дураков и хулиганов, обещанных Смирновым, на площадь пришли люди в "прикиде", пришли грамотные люди, пришли не в спортивных костюмах и тапочках, помахать руками, а пришли на шпильках, при галстуках.
И им не помешало то, что они приехали с Донбаса, или Тернополя. Они ищут и находят то, что их объединяет. Они находят Стуса, который оказывается учительствовал в Горловке, и которого не знает ни восток, ни запад. Они найдут свою символику и своих героев, и вождей найдут. А если не подойдут сегодняшние вожди, они поменяют и их. Можно не сомневаться.
Но ЧМО им уже стоит поперек горла. Он ничего не делает и ничего не гарантирует для них. Он делает для других, тех, кого меньше, намного меньше.