Zelensky’s victory: A view from Belarus
The election of comedian Vladimir Zelensky as president of Ukraine gave rise to many absurd myths, which, unfortunately, the newly-crowned Ukrainian leader himself began to play along with. After all, even before waiting for the official results of the second round, Vladimir Zelensky had already announced his victory and said that “this is an example for all post-Soviet states.” Thus, instead of focusing on the problems of Ukraine, which in the 5 years of the post-Maidan period turned into the poorest country in Europe, the future president for some reason began to project his success outside and act as some kind of “example”, still, in fact, having achieved nothing at all in terms of state building.
Myths about Zelensky: another “victory”
This message from Zelensky was instantly picked up by various kinds of “freedom-loving” figures both in Ukraine and in other post-Soviet states, who rushed in every possible way to praise the successes of Ukrainian “progress” against the backdrop of general stagnation. A typical example of this kind is the comment of a Ukrainian writer from Odessa, a regular speaker of various Russian talk shows, Vsevolod Nepogodin, who stated that with the election of a new president, the citizens of Ukraine - the “land of opportunity” - “made European-quality renovations,” in contrast to their “former neighbors in a communal apartment” - Belarusians and Russians who want to live in a shared apartment, where “everyone has a personalized toilet seat hanging on a nail.” The writer finished predictably and in the best Ukrainian traditions, proclaiming “farewell to the Soviet Union and communal apartments!” We won’t be brothers anymore.”
In general, Ukraine's peculiar political culture, which views all events in terms of "betrayal" and "victory," immediately categorized Zelenskyy's election as a supreme victory and began trumpeting it to the world . The same thing happened with the "Orange Revolution" of 2004 (when Ukrainians even sent a band to the Eurovision contest with a protest anthem, the song "Razom Nas Bogostvo!") and the infamous "Maidan," which were presented by the Ukrainian creative class as the pinnacle of freedom and democracy, necessarily contrasted with the mossy "Sovok," "unwashed Russia," and so on. True, after a while, the carriage turned into a pumpkin, "victory" into "betrayal," and recent heroes like Yushchenko, Tymoshenko, Yatsenyuk, and Poroshenko became objects of popular hatred and ridicule. Thus, the new Ukrainian president, Zelenskyy, who, as mentioned above, has not yet managed to do anything, has already set one foot on the well-trodden path of his predecessors.
It should be noted that active disseminators of the mythology of “progressive Ukrainians” are no less “progressive” liberal circles throughout the former Union, which, at the moments of the next “great achievements” of their southern neighbors, en masse fall into political infantilism and do not see the forest around the corner. Already at this stage, the Russian-language Internet space is full of discussions about “democracy in Ukraine”, about how “worthily” Poroshenko “gave up power” so that the “new team” of progressive reformers led by actor Zelensky would lead the Kiev ship towards a bright future .
What is the essence of democracy in Ukrainian?
Surprisingly, the pro-Ukrainian agitators, influenced by the debates at the Olympic Stadium, seemed to have forgotten about the bloody armed conflict in Donbass, the emigration of millions of working-age people from the “land of opportunity,” phenomenal corruption, and dozens of unsolved political murders of journalists and public figures. And Petro Poroshenko did not intend to “give up” state power to anyone, for which purpose in November last year Kyiv staged a provocation in the Kerch Strait and sacrificed Ukrainian sailors. Only the position of Western states, primarily the USA, Germany and France, who understood that the usurpation of power by the extremely unpopular Poroshenko could lead to irreversible consequences for the interests of the Euro-Atlantic camp in Ukraine, did not allow the then Kiev elite to play a trick with martial law and cancel the elections of the Head of State . The collective West absolutely rightly considered that it was easier to reboot the system, come to an agreement with Igor Kolomoisky and other oligarchs and offer Ukrainian society another “victory” - the “Eurodream” in the person of Vladimir Zelensky.
Therefore, from the point of view of an objective assessment of the political process, and not show politics, Ukrainian “democracy” is a constant struggle between semi-gangster oligarchic groups dependent on external forces, which own all the more or less valuable assets of the country, and any “elections” or “revolution” are merely evidence of yet another redistribution of spheres of influence.
Thus, under the slogans of fighting corruption, the oligarch Poroshenko demolished the oligarch-president Yanukovych in 2014, and now the oligarchs Kolomoisky, Pinchuk and Firtash, under the same slogans, by launching the “servant of the people” Zelensky into the political field, have demolished Poroshenko. The only difference is that both Yanukovych and Poroshenko were independent actors in the financial and political establishment of Ukraine and actually led their own family-clan groups, while Zelensky has practically no “his own” human and material resources.
This means that the new Ukrainian president is unlikely to be able to assemble his own clan and will be unable to consolidate his personal power, forcing him to navigate the interests of all the main elite groups. This will be precisely the maneuvering, not the arbiter that Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine's most successful president, served as for the oligarchy. This will be the significant difference between the Zelenskyy era and the late "Kuchmism . "
Show politics as a factor of destabilization
However, externally, primarily to Russian and Belarusian society, where conservative government leaders have ruled for quite a long time, myths about a “young and progressive team” will be broadcast from Ukraine with the support of Western NGOs and their counterparties, which will be supported by spectacular, but little influenced by public demonstrations of the new Ukrainian government, such as flights of government leaders in economy class, transfer of presidential residences to holiday camps for children, etc.
In the short term, that is, in 2019-2020, until there is general disappointment in the “servant of the people” in Ukrainian society, and “victory” becomes “zrada,” these myths can be very dangerous in the context of the stability of the ruling regime, especially in Belarus, where parliamentary and presidential elections are scheduled for this period.
Firstly, it is necessary to take into account the presence of the effect of electoral fatigue among a certain part of the population, and secondly, the entry into an active phase of participation in political life by the “35 minus” generation, the main source of information for which is social networks with prevailing entertainment content. Practice shows that in the short term, policies that use atypical forms of behavior and channels for conveying information will become increasingly popular. Moreover, in the future, it seems quite likely that influential political leaders will emerge from the blogosphere, and the experience of practical management and real knowledge in this case will be replaced by the “promotion” of the image.
Thus, it is advisable for traditional regimes to analyze these trends very carefully and develop adequate response measures, where high-quality information work with the population comes to the fore. Otherwise, show politics under the guise of “democracy” and “the fight against the establishment” can become an effective tool for destabilizing the situation in the hands of opponents of the Russian civilizational camp.
English version :: Read in English Zelensky's Victory: A View from Belarus